In most cases. any image. whether it is a digital photo, a photo from a negative or a slide, a drawing or a diagram can be admitted into evidence if someone testifies that it acurately portrays the conditions at the time in question and the court finds it would be helpful to the jury. In a criminal case, the state has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and courts are more strict, but the same basic rule would apply. Photographs -- or any other evidence -- to prove the identity of a criminal defendant are subject in the US to special burdens of proof because of the constitutional guarantee of the ability to confront all witnesses against you, but that has to do with what the purpose of the evidence is, not on what media it is reproduced.I don't think that digits id photos would be treated any differently than ones from negatives or slides. Photos taken by unmanned cameras pose a special problem -- whether digital or otherwise, in that the state must prove that the photo was taken at the proper time and at the proper location, and hasn't be confused or switched with another photo. That is where the chain of custody becomes important. The reason is that no witness can testify that he was there and the photo is an accurate representation of what occured or what the conditions were at the time.
frank theriault wrote: > Mark, > > I doubt that Australia, being a Common Law jurisdiction, like Canada, the US > and England, would be any different than you described, Mark. > > Basically, ~any~ image is "admissable"; how likely it is that it's been > manipulated or otherwise altered goes to the weight of that evidence, not > it's admissability as evidence or as an exhibit. Even drawings or sketches > are admissable. > > (Bucky, Dan Matyola, and any other lawyers out there, please jump in and > correct me if I'm wrong - I've been out of the loop a long time now...). > > Normally, if it's a police photo, the cop who took the photo is on the > stand, and he establishes "the chain" of handling. Under oath he says that > he took the photo, he took the film out of the camera, brought the film to > the cop lab, picked up the negs and prints, that the neg hasn't to his > knowledge been altered, that the print is an accurate unaltered one, and > that the print is a true and real representation of the scene that he > photographed (there's some "magic words" that they usually use, but these > are close enough...). > > I would imagine that for digital, the same scenario would be played out. As > long as they aren't altered, and the photographer says they represent his > recollection of the scene photographed, digital would, imho, be admissable. > > Remember, the vast majority of photographs go inot evidence on consent. If > they're accurate, and unaltered, there's no use in the defence keeping them > out. They can save a lot of time describing the minutae of a crime scene, > and make examination in chief (I think the Americans call it "direct > examination"?) and cross-examination much more efficient and effective. > > What the CNN article that Steve linked to seemed to be more about is > manipulation of images after the fact: computer "enhancement" of prints, of > fuzzy images, that sort of thing. That's been going on for years, and > really can be done to film sourced images just as much as digital. I think > that's a different issue. > > But, what do I know? > > cheers, > frank
