3 ms·
This inverts the burden. The prosecution proposed the exhibit, and so the burden is on them to show that everything about it - that the chain of custody was val
by trothamel 5y ago
This inverts the burden. The prosecution proposed the exhibit, and so the burden is on them to show that everything about it - that the chain of custody was valid, that the processing done on it was meaningful - is correct. It's not the defense's place to prove them wrong.
All of the other evidence was processed through forensics software, and displayed on Windows laptops. Then, at the last minute, the prosecutor asks to show this late-discovered evidence on an iPad. Watching the trial, that felt suspicious - why should this one piece of evidence be shown in a novel way?
- _djo_ 5y agoIt’s not a new exhibit being introduced, and the zoomed in form is not evidence. Therefore there’s no chain of custody question. It was being used to show the footage to the witness on the stand, in order for them to explain what’s shown on it. As has been done in American courts hundreds of times before. Now sure, the witness and prosecution or defence could argue that a witness doesn’t need to make guesses about what they’re seeing on zoomed in low-quality footage when under cross-examination. That happens all the time, too. What doesn’t happen every time is for iPads to be rejected for this purpose because of magical AI ‘logarithms’ inventing imagery.
- trothamel 5y agoI believe this was entered into evidence separately from the video as a whole: https://twitter.com/frostycharacter/status/1459722429949878276/photo/1 https://twitter.com/frostycharacter/status/14597224299498782... That means the jury will be able to see this as its own exhibit. (It may have been assigned two exhibit numbers.) And I'd say it makes sense. Each additional processing step can change the image. For example, if one used the waifu2x algorithm to scale the image up, that would certainly be wrong.