3 ms·
Those are informative links. Sure. But that doesn't mean they have to prove it wasn't manufactured by martians 50 million years ago just because the other side
by anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Those are informative links. Sure. But that doesn't mean they have to prove it wasn't manufactured by martians 50 million years ago just because the other side brought up that possibility just to bring the piece of evidence in to the trial.
- FireBeyond 3y agoExactly, the standard is "reasonable doubt", not "any harebrained possibility whatsoever".
- gizmo686 3y agoThe standard for admitting evidence is far below reasonable doubt, even in a criminal case. Generally speaking, all you need is someone to get on the stand and say (under oath), "yes, that video is an accurate copy of the video I took". If you have that (absent other possible evidentuary concerns), it is up to the trier of fact (e.g. jury) to determine if how much they believe the evidence. The problem here is the prosecution cannot meet even that low bar, and instead is relying on the various exceptions to the requirement. Rule 902 lists evidence that is "self authenticating", and videos are not on it. https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-ix/rule-902/ https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-ix/rule-902/
- WalterBright 3y agoI complement you for spelling "harebrained" correctly.
- klyrs 3y agohttps://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/complement-and-compliment-usage-difference https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/complement-and...
- WalterBright 3y agowhooosh!