Remove Admissibility Remove Evidence Remove Litigation
article thumbnail

Is a “Composite” Video Admissible and Can a Police Officer “Narrate” It at Trial? – Part 1 of 2

E-Discovery LLC

499 (2024), addressed introduction of a “composite” video as summary evidence and the use of police officers’ testimony describing it. This first blog addresses the admissibility of a “composite” video prepared by the prosecution. An innocent bystander was fatally shot while she was with her husband on a hotel patio in Annapolis.

article thumbnail

From Evidence to Misinformation: Courts Brace for Deepfake Challenges

Complex Discovery

Understanding how courts may handle AI-generated evidence will be crucial for those responsible for managing digital content, ensuring data integrity, and navigating complex litigation involving digital forensics. John Tunheim, delves into how the judiciary can prepare for the impact of AI-manipulated evidence.

Evidence 111
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

My Most Interesting Blogs From 2024

E-Discovery LLC

Is a Composite Video Admissible and Can a Police Officer Narrate It at Trial? Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Discovery of Admissible Evidence Is a Vehicles On Board or Dash Cam Video Protected From Disclosure as Work Product? Can a witness authenticate a video if the video contains images that the witness did not see?

article thumbnail

Is Marking Documents as “Work Product” an Admission that the Duty to Preserve is Triggered?

E-Discovery LLC

Generally, work product protects certain information prepared in anticipation of litigation. And, generally, the common-law duty to preserve is triggered when litigation is reasonably anticipated. 26(b)(3) protects “things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial” and Fed.R.Civ.P. For example, Fed.R.Civ.P.

article thumbnail

Is a Vehicle’s “On Board” or “Dash Cam” Video Protected From Disclosure as “Work Product?”

E-Discovery LLC

Plaintiff responded that the videos were not created in anticipation of litigation and therefore they are not protected work product. It explained that “there is nothing in the record to suggest that Defendant created the requested videos in anticipation of litigation. Next , the court overruled the improper boilerplate objections.

article thumbnail

Authentication of Surveillance Video by Lay Witness Under Silent Witness Doctrine

E-Discovery LLC

Therefore, in his view, the evidence was not sufficiently authenticated. This method allows for authentication by the presentation of evidence describing a process or system that produces an accurate result. see The “Silent Witness” Theory of Authentication of Video Evidence (July 5, 2024). Lorraine v. 534, 542 (D.

Witnesses 130
article thumbnail

“Boilerplate” Objections Are Generally Condemned; Except When They’re Not

E-Discovery LLC

26(b)(1)states: The former provision for discovery of relevant but inadmissible information that appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” is also deleted. It is replaced by the direct statement that “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”