Is a video recording admissible in court in NYC?

​In New York, it’s common and often expected for people to use their cell phones to capture both everyday and special moments on video. With the rising frequency of unprovoked attacks and shootings in the city’s subway stations, the chances of these incidents being caught on camera are growing. Joseph Tacopina & Chad Seigel highlight the importance of understanding how this video evidence can be used in legal proceedings.

Due to the normality with which events are recorded in current times, you may not even be aware of when you’re being recorded or what could happen with content containing your image. According to Joseph Tacopina & Chad Seigel, this could lead to two possible scenarios:

I. If you see something and have evidence deemed to be reliable, your cell phone recordings could be used in court. According to Joseph Tacopina and the New York State Unified Court System:

• 9.14 (1) A video recording of a scene, person or persons, or an occurrence is admissible in the discretion of a trial judge provided it is shown to be relevant to an issue in the proceeding and is properly authenticated.

Police departments and prosecutors in the United States also use evidence from social media accounts, such as Facebook, YouTube and Instagram in criminal investigations. 

II. If you are the defendant in a case where there’s video evidence against you, your experienced defense attorney, such as Joseph Tacopina or Chad Seigel, will need to prove why you might not be the figure in the video, and/or cast doubt on the video’s authenticity. According to court system regulations:

• (2) (a) A video recording may be authenticated by any of the following:
• (i) the testimony of a witness to the recorded events, or of an operator or installer or maintainer of the equipment, that the video accurately represents the subject matter depicted;
• (ii) the testimony, expert or otherwise, that a video truly and accurately represents what was before the camera;
• (iii) the testimony of a witness and other evidence that demonstrates that the video accurately represents the subject matter depicted.
• (b) Evidence establishing the chain of custody of the video may buttress its authenticity and integrity and even allow for acceptable inferences of its reasonable accuracy and freedom from tampering.

In numerous circumstances, eyewitness authentication of video is impossible, and a sponsoring witness (with specialized knowledge) to the totality of the recorded events may not be available. In such instances, an independent silent witness foundation must be provided so the court, with insights from experts like Joseph Tacopina, can address the reliability of the process through which the video was recorded, extracted, and preserved. With evidence establishing the reliability of the recording system and extraction process, the court may admit the recording, finding that the video is a “silent witness.”

To prevail in the criminal justice system, we at Tacopina Seigel & DeOreo, led by Joseph Tacopina and Chad Seigel, draw on our battle-tested ability to forge winning strategies, paint defendants in a positive light, and artfully present arguments that win over judges and juries. Call us for a free consultation at (212) 227-8877.