Slow Motion Video: New Jersey Speaks

[...]even when people are aware that an incidental factor (e.g., slow motion) has the potential to influence their judgment, they often do not correct sufficiently. ... If the New Jersey outcome paralleled that of other courts that have uncritically approved of slow-motion video, why read the opinio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Criminal Justice 2024-09, Vol.39 (3), p.56-57
Main Author: Epstein, Jules M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cameras
Conduct of court proceedings
Criminal intent
Evidence
Evidence (Law)
Juries
Laws, regulations and rules
Surveillance
Trials
Video tapes in courtroom proceedings
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:[...]even when people are aware that an incidental factor (e.g., slow motion) has the potential to influence their judgment, they often do not correct sufficiently. ... If the New Jersey outcome paralleled that of other courts that have uncritically approved of slow-motion video, why read the opinion? Because it acknowledges that caution is warranted and that in some instances the use of slow-motion replay may be unfairly prejudicial. The court went on to recommend to the Model Criminal Jury Charge Committee that it consider creating a model charge that specifically addresses situations in which, as here, a jury requests the replaying of surveillance video evidence, and to caution jurors to afford such evidence only appropriate and not undue weight in comparison with the other evidence at trial.
ISSN:0887-7785