Who is Qualified to Express an Opinion on Image Comparison?
A fundamental question in the forensic process of image comparison is what qualifies a proposed expert to express such an opinion for the court’s consideration. Various contenders ranging from people with no qualifications whatsoever, to wedding videographers, production video specialists, experts from the non-imaging world, and certified forensic video analysts have appeared in...
State Supreme Court Rules on Admissibility of Expert Motion Tracking Evidence
In dynamic video-recorded scenes where several people move around within the frame and from camera to camera it can be difficult to accurately track the movement of individuals. This makes it challenging for the trier of fact to understand what is happening generally and to differentiate the actions attributed to each individual. Motion...
Canadian Court Restricts Evidence of Forensic Video Analyst in Murder Trial
In preparation for a Canadian homicide prosecution, a forensic video analyst performed several technical and analytical processes on video images that captured relevant events. The defence objected to most of the work performed by the analyst and in a pre-trial motion during which the analyst gave extensive testimony, the trial judge ruled on...
The Pedagogical Expert Witness: Teaching Complex Science in the Courtroom
The following article, applicable to experts in all areas of expertise, was written by me in conjunction with my Courtroom Testimony for Expert Witnesses course and will soon be published in the Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal. It will be available on an Open Access basis and once published, it will be...
Image Technology and Visual Literacy Issues in the Rittenhouse Trial
The November 2021 trial in State of Wisconsin v. Rittenhouse garnered significant media attention across the United States, in part because of its rather sensational facts, and in part because it was televised. Some interesting video technology and visual literacy issues arose during the trial that have allowed for some reflection and commentary...
Case Study: Social Media Video Ruled Inadmissible
Social media sites have provided both benefits and challenges to investigators, counsel, and the court. The benefits they can provide are manifold. The amount of communication that is conducted through social media platforms is staggering, largely relegating voice communication via telephone a place in the history books. Many people who use social media...
The Silent Witness Theory for the Admission of CCTV Video Evidence is Alive and Well: Case Examples Presented
Video evidence does not gain admission simply because counsel tenders it for entry at trial. It must be supportable under either the illustrative evidence theory or the silent witness theory. Both theories are long-standing common law tests used to regulate the admission of video evidence in the courtroom. Under the illustrative evidence theory,...
Image Comparison Evidence in the UK: Have Things Changed?
I research, write, and lecture about international imagery law. In preparation for upcoming courses in the UK this summer, I was reviewing recent case law and came across a March 2022 case from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) that piqued my interest. It is consistent with previous case law but appears to...
Image Annotations and the Courtroom
When is it permissible to include annotations on images presented as evidence in court? Are there limits to the types of annotations that are permitted? How can you make a strong case for admission? This article discusses these questions and charts a strategy for obtaining favorable rulings on this topic. While some images...
Case Study: Homeowner Authenticates Burglary Video Recordings
A recent appellate decision from Maryland provides a helpful example of how homeowners (and by extension business owners) can be utilized to authenticate video recordings and illustrates who is permitted to express an opinion on the identification of someone shown in the recordings. In Frayne v. State of Maryland, 2021 WL 5358880 (Court of...