Opposing counsel frequently object to the use of compilation video presentations that have been prepared by video technicians and analysts. The stated reason for their objection is that such compilations are somehow improper or prejudicial to the interests of a fair trial but the real reason for most objections is that the compilations are too helpful in fact-finding. This article addresses the value of compilation video presentations and offers guidance for how to create a presentation that should withstand judicial scrutiny.

A compilation video presentation typically consists of sequential video recordings from different sources (e.g., CCTV, handheld cameras, smartphones, drones) that have been edited for relevance. A title slide prefaces each camera view depicting location, date, time, and other identifying information. The video content is often clarified, sometimes slowed down, and occasionally supplemented with graphical annotations. Perhaps the best way to start this discussion is with a recent example, Commonwealth v. Gomez, 2025 WL 1131343 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts).

Commonwealth v. Gomez

In this murder trial, the primary issue for the jury’s determination was whether the defendant was the person who shot and killed the victim. At trial, much of the eyewitness testimony was corroborated by CCTV video from the interior and exterior of the nightclub, CCTV video from three nearby business establishments, and video recorded by a photographer who was documenting the performers and the crowd. From these disparate recordings, a police video technician created a thirteen-minute compilation for use at trial. The technician examined all the relevant video recordings that showed events before, during, and after the shooting. He then placed a colored circle around the people of interest in different camera views, decreased the playback speed of the video that showed the shooting, and enlarged those portions.

In a pre-trial motion, the defendant objected to the introduction of the compilation video presentation premised on the belief that it would be used by the prosecution to offer lay opinion evidence as to whether the defendant was observed in the recordings, and that this would therefore usurp the role of the jury. Upon the prosecution confirming that no identification opinions would be led, the trial judge admitted the presentation. The trial judge also permitted the use of the coloured circle annotations on the basis that they functioned as the “electronic equivalent of a witness wielding an old-fashioned wooden pointing stick”. They were determined to be helpful to focus the attention of the jury. The defendant was convicted.

On appeal from conviction, one of the three arguments presented by the appellant was that the trial judge erred in admitting the compilation video presentation. The appellant reiterated his usurpation of the jury argument and argued that the compilation evidence somehow amounted to lay opinion evidence on identification. The appeal court noted that no witness identified the appellant as the shooter depicted in the compilation videos. Further, the technician neither described the clothing worn by the persons of interest, nor did he engage in a comparison of the questioned images of the shooter’s clothing and the known images of the appellant’s clothing. All the technician did was draw the jury’s attention to certain aspects of the images. The appeal court dismissed the appellant’s argument that the compilation amounted to impermissible identification evidence. The court also dismissed the appellant’s argument regarding the use of the coloured circles, the reduced playback speed, and the enlargements on the basis that the trial judge expressly instructed the jury that they were to decide on what value they drew from the images.

Commentary

When there are various sources of video recordings that have captured relevant aspects of an incident, including events leading up to and following the incident, the use of a compilation video presentation can be far more informative and helpful than playing the separate videos in isolation. Properly created, such a presentation can offer the court a sequential, informative view of relevant events that can assist in fact-finding. The value of such a presentation lies in its ability to provide a more comprehensive and logical exposition and analysis of dynamic events. It can help to show the relationship of one camera view to another and can help track people and other items of interest. Properly accentuated with reduced playback speed, enlargements, and graphical annotations, as were used in Gomez, the court can draw more value from the images than if they were presented one at a time and without supplemental technical enhancements.

The compilation video presentation in Gomez was not revolutionary, nor was the court’s allowance of it groundbreaking. Nonetheless, it is a helpful appellate reminder that this type of evidence, often criticized for being prejudicial, is often quite beneficial for the court. While not everyone is interested in ascertaining the truth, the goal of the trial process should be just that – determining what happened and who was involved. I offer one criticism of the Gomez presentation and one lament for an opportunity not undertaken. The criticism – the circles that were used were red. Though the court did not comment on that specific aspect of the presentation, the use of the colour red in a criminal case, especially a murder prosecution, should be avoided. There are many other contrasting colours to choose from that do not attract a negative connotation. Research has shown that the use of the colour red evokes a different, often prejudicial, visceral response from viewers compared to other colours. The lament – based on the description of the available evidence, this might have been a good case for the use of forensic image comparison evidence. Questioned images of people and clothing could have been compared to other questioned images to determine whether there was support for the proposition that there was a relationship between the people shown in the questioned images. Similarly, a comparison between the questioned images of the shooter’s clothing with known images of the defendant’s clothing, if available, would have been instructive. This work would typically be performed by a forensic video analyst.

From a legal perspective, the following characteristics would favour the admissibility of a compilation video presentation:

a) Each video must be independently authenticated.
b) All relevant videos must be included – don’t be selective nor partisan.
c) Each video must be edited in a fair manner.
d)There should be a title slide before each new video is presented – details shown should include the location depicted, date, time, length of the clip (either with a beginning and end time or elapsed time), and any other relevant identifying source information.
e) If there is a passage of time from one clip to the next, that should be noted in the title slide as well.
f) Graphical annotations should be of moderate size and prominence and in a neutral colour.
g) Any clarifications, reduction in playback speed, enlargements, and technical processes must be explained and show to have been done in a forensically sound manner.
h) Occasionally, judges will not permit the use of graphical annotations – therefore prepare a second version without annotations should it be required.

Properly trained and qualified forensic video technicians and analysts should evaluate the evidence that they have been given to consider. They should assess what value the evidence presents in its native form and what further forensic processes could be undertaken to unlock and present the full value the images have to offer. Doing so will often aid in the search for the truth, which should be the goal of forensic video technicians and analysts.