NCJ Number
10171
Date Published
1972
Length
19 pages
Annotation
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY USE OF VIDEO TAPE AND MOTION PICTURES AS EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS.
Abstract
VIDEO TAPE AND MOTION PICTURES CAN BE USEFUL AT CRIME SCENES, FOR RECORDING VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS BY AN ACCUSED, AT LINE-UPS, AND IN PHOTOGRAPHING PARTICIPANTS AT PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS. THE RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE USE OF VIDEO TAPE AND MOTION PICTURES IN THESE INSTANCES AND OTHERS ARE CONSIDERED. THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE GATHERED BY THESE TECHNIQUES IS DETERMINED BY ITS ACCURACY AS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF THE SUBJECT AT A GIVEN TIME AND ITS MATERIAL RELEVANCE TO THE DISPUTED ISSUE. THIS RULE APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE TO STILL PHOTOGRAPHS, SOUND AND COLOR MOTION PICTURES, EDITED MOTION PICTURES, AND VIDEO TAPE. THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF THIS KIND HAS WITHSTOOD NUMEROUS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES. IN THE CASES REVIEWED HERE, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT MOTION PICTURES TAKEN TO SHOW A DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR, CONDUCT, AND APPEARANCE ARE PHYSICAL RATHER THAN TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE. SINCE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, I.E. CONFESSIONS BY THE ACCUSED CONCERNING HIS OWN GUILT, THE SHOWING OF THESE MOTION PICTURES FALLS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. MOREOVER, MIRANDA WARNINGS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, UNLESS CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION HAS BEGUN. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AUDIO-VIDEO TAPES DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN INVASION OF PRIVACY. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SHOULD ACQUAINT THEMSELVES WITH THE LEGAL USE OF THESE TOOLS AND THUS AVOID VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. (SNI ABSTRACT)