Even though photo manipulation has always been possible in darkrooms the world has never seen anything like Photoshop and similar photo altering software products. Photos can now be faked by people with basic computer skills. Can photos still be used as evidence in court cases or not? If not when was the law changed?
First off, “legal tender” means “acceptable as payment”.
To your question: I doubt whether photographs were ever uncontestable evidence and lawyers would presuamably feel free to challenge the status of a photo if they felt it would hurt their case.
picmr
Are photographs admissable as evidence? Yes.
Do lawyers contest them in court? Probably only since the first one was ever used in a court case.
First off, “legal tender” means “acceptable as payment”.
In this instance Pimcr, it was intended as a pun.
Photos can be retouched with ease, negatives are a tad harder and you would be asked to supply those so the defense can have thier own experts validate the photos.
You are also making a terrible assumption here that it isn’t also easy to detect photos that have been altered.
Typically, you wouldn’t even have to do that. You can blow the image up and tell the difference in coloring and shadows to know that a picture has been altered.
As digital cameras and even digital Camcorders become more widespread it will be interesting to find out how much wieght they carry as evidence.
CandyMan
I have quite a bit of experience in testifying in court cases and relying on photographs as evidence, so I can tell you that they do still carry weight. You have to also remember that when you introduce material into evidence you are swearing as to its authenticity and that what the photograph shows is actually what you saw on the ground. The photograph is usually marked as to the date, time, and place it was taken. Usually, you arent’ allowed to say much about what’s in photograph itself, the theory being that the photo speaks for itself. It usually goes something like: “Your honor, on August 15, 2000, I visited the property located at 1234 Elm Street and took these photographs.” The defense attorney can ask you about them, but usually doesn’t ask much because by asking he’s opening the door for you to expound on your answer.
Long story short: Yes, photographs can be introduced as evidence. The judge and/or jury gives them whatever weight they see fit. Doctoring a photograh is simply not worth the increcible price (perjury, obstructin of justice, etc. are all felonies and are not looked kindly on by judges)the “doctoring” side would have to pay should they be caught.
Sure they’re acceptable as evidence. It’s just that the non-introducing party gets to cross-examine the hell out of them.
Right–just like that pesky OJ Simpson DNA evidence.
Having been a witness in a trial not long ago an aerial photograph was used to establish where and when certain things occured and thus to tie the witness statements together.
It was not used as stand alone evidence.
In fact, it’s worthwhile to point out that a photograph, alone, is not admissible - it requires someone to authenticate the photograph - to swear that it is a fair and accurate representation of whatever it’s purporting to show.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rules 1002 and 1003) original negatives are not required unless a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the photo.
- Rick
To hijack the thread just for a bit:
The most unusual piece of evidence I ever saw brought into court was a segment of a pine tree and a photograph showing the tree growing through an old car. I was prosecuting the owner of a junkyard and was using aerial photographs to show that he had expanded over time. He had a forester go out to his property, photograph a pine tree growing up through the engine compartment of a Studebaker, cut the tree down, count the rings, and estimate the trees age. His argument was, of course, that the car had been there at least as long as the tree was growing, so that particular section of the junkyard was in existence as of that date, even if it didn’t show up on the aerial photograph. I still won the case, but that was a pretty clever move.
BTW, I think the defense attorney was the basis for Jaba the Hut - grossly fat, greasy, dirty, rumpled (no, not Rumpole, rumpled), but smart as hell.
When I saw the title of this thread, I immediately thought of the scene from Kentucky Fried Movie- “Photo for the Daily News?”
What others have said is correct. The photo is admissable, but you should have someone authenticate it (“I tokk this picture on xx/xx/xxxx of a …”) and the other side may still challenge it.
In response to the original post there are distinct differencs between traditional photographic prints and those from digital sources so it would be easy to tell prints apart.
OTOH a manipulated digital print could be photographed with a film camera then a print made from that. Film grain might obscure artifacts from the digital print…