Well, I haven't done a trial in many years, but I think that what many here (obviously not you, Dan) don't realize, is that the vast majority of photographs submitted as exhibits in a trial are ~not~ controversial. They depict crime scenes - where the "body" was found, a smashed window where entry to a premises was gained - that sort of thing. It saves the trier of fact (meaning the jury, or if there's no jury, the judge) from having to go to the crime scene to get an idea of the physical lay of the land, so to speak.
In my experience, the only photos of a crime scene taken by police officers that didn't make it as exhibits, are ones that everyone agreeed were accurate depictions - they were the autopsy photos of the victim of an axe murder. They were so gory that they would have had a prejudicial effect on the jury, and both the prosecutors and defence agreed that they shouldn't go in. Once the guy who took the picture (usually a police officer) says under oath that he took it, that it accurately represents what he saw at the time, and then establishes the chain of possession up to the trial date, it's made an exhibit. Period. I shouldn't see that it makes any difference if the image is digital or from a negative. Once it's made an exhibit, it's up to the trier of fact to decide how much "weight" to put on that exhibit, just as any other piece of evidence. Of course, the defence lawyer always has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness who seeks to have the photo made an exhibit, and at that time may (if the image is contentious) ask questions about framing, cropping, manipulation of any kind, etc. That goes for any image, no matter how produced. The effectiveness of that cross-examination may or may not affect the trier of fact in deciding how much weight the exhibit has. Just because an image was obtained digitally won't affect it's weight ~in and of itself~, imho. The amount of manipulation and the context in which it was taken will - and that type of evidence will be drawn out by cross-examination. Mind you, I'm applying my now fading memory of the law of evidence, which was admittedly acquired prior to the advent of the digital era... regards, frank "Daniel J. Matyola" wrote: > You are essentially correct. The photographer -- or someone else who > observed the scene being depicted -- must testify that the image > accurately reflects the conditions in issue at the time in question. > No one every inquires as to whether the image was originated by > traditional photography or digital photography. That is besides the > point, as long as a proper legal foundation has been laid by competent > tesitmony that the image is an accurate depiction of what it purports > to illustrate. > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
