4 ms·

The prosecution presented modified evidence, claiming that the modification doesn't change it, which the defense objected to. Why would the burden of proof not

The prosecution presented modified evidence, claiming that the modification doesn't change it, which the defense objected to. Why would the burden of proof not fall on the prosecution?

_djo_ 5y ago
Zooming into a video using the built-in feature on a device is modified evidence now? We'd have to rerun a bunch of trials in that case. The fantastical claim was from the defence. Onus should be on them to prove it, rather than making the prosecution prove a negative.
- core-utility 5y ago
  What does "built-in" have to do with anything? The entire point of the issue was that it wasn't just zoom in, it was enlargement (think upscaling). The software has to actively interpolate and add pixels where it thinks they're necessary in order to do so, and that changes the image. In most cases, it's probably not a big deal. But when it's from a nighttime camera of a person several hundred feet away that's only a few pixels in the original frame, there's a lot to go wrong there.
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    'Built-in' matters it's not custom software used by the prosecution on which no expert could be consulted. It's also likely that precedent testimony exists on using an iPad to zoom into an image or video in other cases.
  - stefan_ 5y ago
    What do you think happened when they watched the video material on a screen? Are you by any chance caught up in some politics over this case to make such a ridiculous suggestion?
- ImprobableTruth 5y ago
  So if in 5 years the iPad really uses AI when zooming, it's perfectly fine because it's a built-in feature? What an absurd argument. And both the prosecutions and defense's claims were fantastical, unsubstantiated (beyond some incorrect 'common sense' handwaving) and wrong - so since it's the prosecution that wants to enter new evidence, it's perfectly fine to ask them to back to it up. This isn't 'proving a negative', it's just asking them to prove that what they said (that zooming doesn't change the evidence).
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    This wasn't 'new evidence', it was an iPad being used to play a video for Rittenhouse during cross-examination, in which he was being asked to describe the events being shown. Both prosecutors and defence attorneys have used the same mechanism countless times in previous cases, without issue, because it is actually common sense that pinch to zoom is not going to substantively change what's shown in a video like that.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      There was not a question regarding visual facts previously. Much of the video usage was used to either establish timing or things someone said. In this case the prosecution wanted to significantly zoom into very grainy footage to ask about an object a few pixels wide, on footage so grainy the prosecution couldn't identify the face of their own lead witness. The defense raised the question regarding zooning altering or adding pixels and the judge said flatly he didn't know. All the prosecution had to do was bring in an expert on video to explain how zoom works - or have the expert do a non-fractional proportional zoom.
      - snickerbockers 5y ago
        I wonder how reliable even the source video is at pixel-scale? If it's encoded with something like MPEG then not every macroblock is updated every frame, and even if it was then there are still compression artifacts created by the discrete cosine tranform.
    - 5y ago

The prosecution presented modified evidence, claiming that the modification doesn't change it, which the defense objected to. Why would the burden of proof not fall on the prosecution?

_djo_ 5y ago

Zooming into a video using the built-in feature on a device is modified evidence now? We'd have to rerun a bunch of trials in that case. The fantastical claim was from the defence. Onus should be on them to prove it, rather than making the prosecution prove a negative.

core-utility 5y ago
What does "built-in" have to do with anything? The entire point of the issue was that it wasn't just zoom in, it was enlargement (think upscaling). The software has to actively interpolate and add pixels where it thinks they're necessary in order to do so, and that changes the image. In most cases, it's probably not a big deal. But when it's from a nighttime camera of a person several hundred feet away that's only a few pixels in the original frame, there's a lot to go wrong there.
- _djo_ 5y ago
  'Built-in' matters it's not custom software used by the prosecution on which no expert could be consulted. It's also likely that precedent testimony exists on using an iPad to zoom into an image or video in other cases.
- stefan_ 5y ago
  What do you think happened when they watched the video material on a screen? Are you by any chance caught up in some politics over this case to make such a ridiculous suggestion?
ImprobableTruth 5y ago
So if in 5 years the iPad really uses AI when zooming, it's perfectly fine because it's a built-in feature? What an absurd argument. And both the prosecutions and defense's claims were fantastical, unsubstantiated (beyond some incorrect 'common sense' handwaving) and wrong - so since it's the prosecution that wants to enter new evidence, it's perfectly fine to ask them to back to it up. This isn't 'proving a negative', it's just asking them to prove that what they said (that zooming doesn't change the evidence).
- _djo_ 5y ago
  This wasn't 'new evidence', it was an iPad being used to play a video for Rittenhouse during cross-examination, in which he was being asked to describe the events being shown. Both prosecutors and defence attorneys have used the same mechanism countless times in previous cases, without issue, because it is actually common sense that pinch to zoom is not going to substantively change what's shown in a video like that.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    There was not a question regarding visual facts previously. Much of the video usage was used to either establish timing or things someone said. In this case the prosecution wanted to significantly zoom into very grainy footage to ask about an object a few pixels wide, on footage so grainy the prosecution couldn't identify the face of their own lead witness. The defense raised the question regarding zooning altering or adding pixels and the judge said flatly he didn't know. All the prosecution had to do was bring in an expert on video to explain how zoom works - or have the expert do a non-fractional proportional zoom.
    - snickerbockers 5y ago
      I wonder how reliable even the source video is at pixel-scale? If it's encoded with something like MPEG then not every macroblock is updated every frame, and even if it was then there are still compression artifacts created by the discrete cosine tranform.
  - 5y ago