NJ Video Evidence

Video Evidence in New Jersey Criminal Cases

Video evidence can be a powerful tool in criminal prosecutions. Cameras are everywhere today – street corners, businesses, smartphones – capturing events that later become critical evidence at trial. But how New Jersey courts handle video evidence is complex and evolving.

This article examines key issues around video evidence in NJ criminal cases. We will cover common sources of video evidence, authentication and admissibility rules, strategies for using video effectively, and ways defense lawyers challenge video proof offered by prosecutors.

Common Sources of Video Evidence

Video evidence introduced in New Jersey criminal trials often comes from sources like:

• Surveillance cameras on streets, in stores, and around buildings
• Police dashcams and bodycams
• Bystanders’ smartphone recordings
• Security cameras in residences and businesses
• Nanny cams and hidden cameras
• Footage from TV news reports and media interviews

As more public and private spaces become saturated with cameras, video evidence proliferates.

Authentication of Video Evidence

Before video can be admitted as evidence in a New Jersey trial, it must be properly authenticated under N.J.R.E. 901. This requires proof that the video is what the party claims it to be. Authentication methods include[1]:

• Testimony of a witness familiar with the scene
• Testimony of a witness involved in recording the video
• Expert testimony confirming no tampering or alteration
• Proof of security features like encryption or watermarking
• Documentation of a continuous chain of custody

Failure to properly authenticate video leaves it vulnerable to exclusion by the defense.

Admitting Video Evidence at Trial

In addition to authentication, other requirements for admitting video evidence in NJ include[2]:

• The video must be relevant to facts at issue.
• The video cannot be unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or misleading.
• The video must not contain inadmissible hearsay if offered for the truth asserted.

Counsel lays the foundation for admission through testimony about how and when the video was obtained.

Strategic Use of Video Evidence by Prosecutors

When using video evidence at trial, prosecutors aim to[3]:

• Use short, impactful clips that prove key elements of crimes.
• Enhance the video with slow motion, zooming, and repetition.
• Create demonstrative aids like montages, transcripts, or voiceovers.
• Authenticate and admit footage through officer testimony.
• Argue the video proves guilt beyond any doubt.

Video often provides some of the most compelling proof for juries.

Strategies for Challenging Video Evidence

To counter damaging video evidence, defense counsel may[4]:

• File motions to suppress unlawful video surveillance.
• Object to inadequate authentication or hearsay.
• Dispute allegations of what the video shows.
• Challenge edits, enhancements, or metadata.
• Retain experts to analyze footage for tampering.
• Attack lack of clarity, focus, or completeness.

Raising doubts about video quality and accuracy can undermine its impact.

Enhanced Video and Narration by Officers

New Jersey courts scrutinize prosecutors’ use of enhanced video footage narrated by officers. In State v. Lazo[1], the NJ Supreme Court imposed limits, concerned it usurped the role of jurors in interpreting videos.

Modifications like zooming in or slowing down footage may be permissible. But courts are increasingly restricting officers offering subjective narration or interpretation.

Considerations for Body Camera Footage

Police body camera footage poses unique considerations, including[5]:

• Only capturing the officer’s vantage point
• Potential for turning off cameras improperly
• Bias based on what officers focus attention on
• Distortion from wide-angle lenses
• Undermining officer testimony if differences arise

Defense counsel scrutinizes bodycam videos for any issues calling reliability into question.

Jurors’ Reactions to Graphic Videos

A strategic concern around video evidence is jurors’ reactions to disturbing or grisly footage. Prosecutors must take care not to inflame passions and prejudice the defense by, for example[6]:

• Showing graphic footage unexpectedly
• Displaying horrific images repetitively
• Enhancing violent aspects unnecessarily

Judges may intervene or instruct jurors to view videos impartially and clinically.

Discovery of Video Evidence

New Jersey’s discovery rules generally require prosecutors to disclose all video evidence to the defense well before trial. But issues frequently arise over:

• Late disclosure of video found belatedly
• Withholding footage purportedly privileged
• Failing to preserve original versions of video

Alleged discovery violations concerning video evidence often generate fierce litigation.

Hiring an Attorney Experienced with Video Evidence

Given the complexities around video proof, retaining an attorney specifically experienced with challenging video evidence is crucial for defendants. An lawyer skilled at scrutinizing video can attack it on authentication, admissibility, accuracy, completeness and prejudice grounds.

Video increasingly forms the backbone of criminal prosecutions. Mounting an effective defense demands an attorney adept at overcoming video presented against you.