Originally Posted by
mstateglfr
In a civil case where the burden of proof is significantly lower than criminal, perhaps this could be used to persuade. Of course it would be disagreed with though.
In a criminal case where past behavior is considered when it pertains to convictions, that is hugely different from using amateur video uploaded where nothing ultimately happens and the defendant hasnt been allowed to defend their actions.
Im in no way a lawyer. I would expect any lawyer worth my time to go to town if the other side tried to use this as 'proof' for a criminal case(which would be how I would lose my DL for past behavior).
A tiger owner had the biggest tv show in the US, a reality TV host is president, and my kids sit 30' away from me every day for school and work- noting surprises me anymore so I accept there is a chance amateur footage of nothing happening could be used in a criminal court somewhere to show past behavior. It sounds completely absurd, but what isnt at this point.
You are not far off the mark. It would be very difficult to use any type of video in court, whether civil or criminal, without a witness that can testify under oath that they have personal knowledge of the events that are depicted in the video and it accurately depicts what occurred at the time of the occurrence. If you can get past that, then there is the issue of the rules of evidence that provide that evidence of past conduct cannot be used to show that the defendant engaged in that type of conduct at a later time. Those are the two main problems and there are others. About the only video that could be readily used is actual video of the event that is the subject of the case. And, then only if someone can testify that it accurately depicts what happened and that the video has not been manipulated in any way.
There is more to it, but that's the law in a nutshell.