2 ms·
Exactly, the standard is "reasonable doubt", not "any harebrained possibility whatsoever".
by FireBeyond 4y ago
Exactly, the standard is "reasonable doubt", not "any harebrained possibility whatsoever".
- gizmo686 4y 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 4y agoI complement you for spelling "harebrained" correctly.
- klyrs 4y agohttps://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/complement-and-compliment-usage-difference https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/complement-and...
- WalterBright 4y agowhooosh!