3 ms·
It’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
by _djo_ 5y ago
It’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.