[creeper]

Jamo,

Serious discussion. First we must define hearsay. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 649 (5th ed. 1979). Hearsay is defined as "[a] statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.". Now that we see that hearsay applies to statements. A video is not a statement of a witness. The video was confirmed of when it was filmed and where. Under hearsay there are exemptions referring to :A. Admissions
and B. The Business Records Exception
. Neither which applies here.

As referring to videos lying . I would refer you back to me stating that the videos need to be shown in the total context. Start to finish of any act. I agree with you that the camera can shrink down distances. But it also shrinks down the size of the cars. A fairly accruate distance can be obtained by scaling down measurements accordingly. Video doesn't lie that there were no barriers or there was no starter.

As far as foundational questions, there were already amitted to. A few admitted to particapating at a certain date and place. Therefore the camera person would not be needed. Although , they would only be needed to state that he was a such place at such date. No further testimony would be needed. But, any further questioning would be helpful. Jurors will rely more on a video than witness testimony. All our cars have video's in them. 100% conviction rate when the video's are used for evidence. Most plead guilty. The same can't be said for eye witness testimony.

They are always up for challenge thats what they do. Defense lawyers hate videos.

Originally posted by Jamo
creeper
Still a stupid misspelling on my part--I normally check for things like that.

No poking--serious discussion. Are you taking the position that a video tape is not hearsay evidence? That foundational questions need not be asked as to how it was made--such as what affect zooming might have as to how close things appear to be to each other? Come on--I use videos all the time, and also defend against them--probably more so than in other areas of the law (we use security camera videos all the time to catch employees doing something, not to mention their use in labor disputes by both sides). Videos do "lie" all the time--they are subject to the whims of the person making them, or to the bent the offering party wishes to make of them. As a percipient witness (and others have posted here), the video shrunk the distances you think you see. Obviously, the perceptions of the various witnesses (human and otherwise) only comes into play once the evidence comes in, but is still subject to challange. BTW, DV's comment about shutting it down had to do with non-Spring Fling participants (a kid in a Mustang) being stupid.

Sometimes folks have a valid point, but it is overshadowed because of the delivery. Nobody likes being talked down to. I don't think anyone has a problem with someone saying "be careful".

You're right--folks poked at you, but you might want to consider the fact that you invited pokes in the butt by hitting them over the head with a stick. IMFHO