Mid-trial ruling in a first degree murder prosecution concerning the admissibility of a police-prepared composite surveillance video compiled from approximately 84 hours of footage from multiple locations.
The court held the composite itself was admissible because it reproduced otherwise admissible raw videos without alteration and provided a useful chronology of events.
Applying the law governing videotape evidence, demonstrative evidence, and expert opinion, the court excluded circles, subtitles, commentary, and business labels as hearsay-laden and unfairly prejudicial.
The court admitted the running time clock evidence, but only with modifications to reflect a two-minute margin of error and to remove potentially misleading inserts and seconds.
