[anonymouskimmer]

Those are informative links. Sure. But that doesn't mean they have to prove it wasn't manufactured by martians 50 million years ago just because the other side brought up that possibility just to bring the piece of evidence in to the trial.

[FireBeyond]

Exactly, the standard is "reasonable doubt", not "any harebrained possibility whatsoever".

[gizmo686]

The standard for admitting evidence is far below reasonable doubt, even in a criminal case. Generally speaking, all you need is someone to get on the stand and say (under oath), "yes, that video is an accurate copy of the video I took".

If you have that (absent other possible evidentuary concerns), it is up to the trier of fact (e.g. jury) to determine if how much they believe the evidence.

The problem here is the prosecution cannot meet even that low bar, and instead is relying on the various exceptions to the requirement.

Rule 902 lists evidence that is "self authenticating", and videos are not on it.

https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-ix/rule-902/

[WalterBright]

I complement you for spelling "harebrained" correctly.

[klyrs]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/complement-and...

[WalterBright]

whooosh!