Headquarters - Glynco Center1131 Chapel Crossing RoadGlynco, GA 31524(912) 267-2100, Artesia Center1300 W. Richey AvenueArtesia, NM 88210(575) 748-8000, Charleston Center2000 Bainbridge AvenueNorth Charleston, SC 29405(843) 566-8551, Cheltenham Center9000 Commo RoadCheltenham, MD 20588(301) 868-5830, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers Get Adobe ReaderGet Adobe Flash® Player. However, the court found and held: Mr. Winston did not personally observe the events depicted on the surveillance videos or the photos. In such a case, the court can instruct the jury to determine whether the preliminary fact exists, and to disregard the evidence if it finds the preliminary fact does not exist. Laying the foundation for authentication So, the means by which the video is obtained may ultimately lay the foundation for its authentication. The record here reflects that Mr. Winston had no responsibility for the operation, placement, or maintenance of the videocamera in question, and he had no direct knowledge regarding the procedure for retrieving or copying those portions of a video record that might be pertinent to the investigation at issue here. Hodges: No, it doesn’t. Every year it is cheaper and easier to take, to store, and to share video recordings. He can be reached at josh@paulfcohenlaw.com. Code, § 403(c). A video is the equivalent of a writing under Evidence Code section 250. In some agencies, the officer who finds, bags, and tags the evidence starts the chain of custody. You must therefore anticipate at the outset of the case the potential need for testimony authenticating a video. The officer would bag and tag the knife and fill out the evidence tag and give the bagged knife to the evidence custodian. Without a proper foundation, the court may refuse to admit certain exhibits and you could find that your key evidence is inadmissible at trial. But the bigger the policy, the greater the likelihood that defendants will try the case. So, the means by which the video is obtained may ultimately lay the foundation for its authentication. [9], In conclusion, the admission of video evidence is relatively simple. Leaving the matter to a qualified investigator averts such potential complications. 1. You click on the satellite view and zoom in to a level of detail sufficient to see the structures surrounding the intersection. In 2015 the woman’s family secured a $4 million verdict against the trucking company. (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 267, 270.) He testified contradictorily that the video depicted the toss at which he was injured and that the video depicted a second skateboard toss that took place later that day. I am here today with Keith Hodges, an attorney who has been a Senior Instructor in the FLETC Legal Division for eight years. How do you recognize it to be THE item? That testimony must lay the foundation that the video depicts what it purports to show, even if the defense may ultimately stipulate to the video’s authenticity. Hodges: Okay, now get ready for those four questions that we talked about earlier. If the defendant possesses the evidence you seek, a strongly-worded spoliation letter citing Evidence Code section 413, which allows the court to instruct the jury to view the spoliation with a negative inference can be useful. To lay the foundation for these types of exhibits, the attorney must show: [t]he presumption does not operate to establish the accuracy or reliability of the printed information . Sometimes, members of the community may also come to your aid. You have the client detail where she and the defendant were just before the accident, including cardinal directions and lane numbers, then the exact location of the accident. This is particularly true if liability is obvious. In our example, the defense will be allowed to cross-examine the witness to challenge the officer’s testimony on the foundation. On behalf of the Legal and Enforcement Operations Division at the FLETC, thanks for tuning in. Roddini: After finding the bag, I placed the bag of suspected drugs into an evidence bag. v. Superior Court (Ramos) (1999) 20 C.4th 464, 476-477: Some discovery sanctions are available to punish third-party spoliation, including monetary and contempt sanctions against persons who flout the discovery process by suppressing or destroying evidence. Roddini: Well then let me ask you does it legally make a difference? Navigate the rules of evidence with confidence - order today! But with nonparties, this is rarely helpful except where some collusion can be inferred between the third party and the defendant. 303 0 obj <> endobj Let’s talk about some law. Jurors may be suspicious of a plaintiff who claims big damages, but is able-bodied enough to obtain evidence. [10] Wagner v. State, 707 So.2d 827, 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), 3626 Erindale Dr.  Valrico, FL 33596 He currently serves as CAALA President. • Videotapes, Photographs, and Audio Recordings, Videotapes and photographs of an event or a particular location can also be enormously helpful to a jury. This foundation allows the evidence to be admitted only for illustrative purposes only, not as substantive evidence. They are important, of course, but they’re not the focus of what we’re going to talk about. … A criminal sanction remains available under Penal Code section 135, as are disciplinary sanctions against attorneys who may be involved in spoliation. Technologists tell us that we are in the age of ubiquitous video. … We do not believe that the distinction between sanctions available to victims of first-party and third-party spoliation should lead us to employ the burdensome and inaccurate instrument of derivative tort litigation in the case of third party spoliation. Presenting the jury with the traffic-collision report diagram can lend needed credibility to your client’s testimony and also serve as a helpful demonstrative aid to the jury. Both Google Maps and Google Earth are comprised of overhead satellite imagery and street views of almost every location in the state. However, that does not prove that the content on the social-media page was reliable. . In other words, witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, content, location, or any other means provided by law can be sufficient. (People v. Cheary (1957) 48 Cal.2d 301, 312.) It is a bit more complicated with security video that a custodian of records did not personally observe. (McAllister v. George (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 258, 262.)