I'm going to try to stick to the technical concerns this event raised, not the procedural ones. There was a previous witness who had enhanced several videos fo

I'm going to try to stick to the technical concerns this event raised, not the procedural ones. There was a previous witness who had enhanced several videos for the prosecution. He testified that part of the enhancement process did involve "adding pixels that weren't there previously". It seems important that these videos were enhanced by a person who has a professional reputation to uphold. Those videos were admitted as evidence. The defense is positing the concern that a similar enhancement process happens when you zoom in on a video on the iPad. If it does, there is obviously no professional oversight. Keep in mind that this is a very small section of the screen that they were concerned with - a very small number of pixels of a slightly different color than there surroundings would be construed to be the object in question. I have no idea if playback software the defense intended to use had an auto-enhance feature, but it does seem telling that the prosecuting attorney declined to certify when the judge asked that the video would not be altered. Instead he continued to make an argument of "we all do this all the time in our daily lives, it's common sense". I do not recall him mentioning which software he intended to use for playback, so it would be hard to say for certain whether he was correct or not.