Recording of TD & BM. Editing?
My thought is they would not allow the edited version? It would have to be the (1) raw original but I'm not sure what happens in these types of circumstances where someone shot video, (2) edited and (3) broadcast an edited version which is what people saw.
@Momofthreeboys bbm
red#bm You raise good points, but respectfully I disagree in part, but may be misinterp’ing CO Rules of Evd below.
As a preface, repeating from my prior post, is TD's audio-video
recording*
admissible as evd in BM's crim trial? Before it is admitted & shown to jury, atty offering it must "lay the
foundation" by calling the maker
TD to witness stand to
testify under oath to
authenticate audio-video recording, as a
true & accurate representation of their conversation & actions shown that day & place. If TD testifies it’s a T & A representation, then likely admissible as to stmts BM made, imo, as long as content is also relevant.
Now, re your points.
(1) Is only ^^^“
raw original” admissible? As I read Rules of Evd. 1001 and 1003,** the original* is admissible or a
duplicate** is
admissible, unless there is a genuine question as to its authenticity, like my
green ex. in footnote.
(2) Is edited/
altered*** version admissible? Per below, yes, as long as alterations are given a “full and satisfactory explanation” before admission.
(3) Is TD’s
podcast/broadcast version of recording
relevant to the version/duplicate a party offers as evidence at BM’s crim trial? “What people saw” on TD’s podcast may not be the “raw original” version and may have been edited. Imo, the podcast version is not relevant, re admissibility to the original or duplicate, if TD can authenticate it at trial. Iirc, TD did not livestream the vid, so we do not know what, if anything, was altered
If the original recording or any version is offered
, opposing atty can argue against admission, and if admitted, can
cross examine TD to elicit information about alterations/edits.
Finally as some commented, the recording may
not be particularly
incriminating in itself. Bits & pieces, well, maybe, in conjunction w his stmts to others. For ex, if BM said on recording “this” happened at 2:00 pm but told someone or LE “this” happened at 5:00pm, jury may see deliberate
deception.
I haven’t watched it since last summer, don’t recall details.
Welcoming comment or correction, esp’ly from our legal professionals. my2ct.
____________________________
* Rule 1001, Definitions
"(1) Writings and recordings….consist of letters, words… by handwriting, typewriting, printing,… mechanical or electronic recording…
“(2) Photographs. "… include still photographs,… video tapes, and motion pictures." sbm
bbm
Same CO rule also defines "original" and "duplicate" which are ( surprisingly??? ) close to common sense definitions.
** Rule 1003 - Admissibility of Duplicates
"A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original {{{ Ex, hypo only: if BM/def team denied that man shown was BM or audio portion was not BM’s voice, that someone else’s voice had been dubbed in to say --- I strangled Suzanne to death. Yes, a waaaay out there hypo.}}} or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original." bbm. Green phrase inserted by me.
***
Summary of a CO appellate ct ruling re admitting a duplicate.
"If alterations in the duplicates and/or the originals of otherwise admissible documents have been made, such documents are still admissible provided a full and satisfactory explanation of such alterations is made prior to their admission. People v. Wolfe, 662 P.2d 502 (Colo. App. 1983)" bbm
^
https://casetext.com/rule/colorado-...tographs/rule-1003-admissibility-of-duplicate
