How would a defense lawyer argue to exclude photos and video evidence from a trial?

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Although this might vary from case to case with the specific circumstances, the basic way to argue for the exclusion of such evidence is to claim that it is not trustworthy.

First of all, it is very easy in today's world to "doctor" photographs and video recordings.  A defense attorney could argue that such evidence might not truly show what it purports to show because it might have been altered.

Second, it is quite possible that a photograph (in particular) or even a video recording might not show the totality of the circumstances surrounding what has happened.  A photograph shows one moment in time without showing anything about what happened just before or even one moment after.  A video recording is also limited in time.  It also may not have high quality audio and the picture itself may not be completely clear.  If such things are admitted as evidence, juries may tend to give them more weight than they should be given due to their limited nature.

Therefore, a defense lawyer could argue that such evidence is too prone to being altered and is too likely to tell only one part of a given story.  Because of this, the lawyer could say, the evidence should not be admissible.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
Soaring plane image

We’ll help your grades soar

Start your 48-hour free trial and unlock all the summaries, Q&A, and analyses you need to get better grades now.

  • 30,000+ book summaries
  • 20% study tools discount
  • Ad-free content
  • PDF downloads
  • 300,000+ answers
  • 5-star customer support
Start your 48-Hour Free Trial