Exactly. If we’re looking at a tabloid picture (is this really a photo of the Titanic sinking with Amelia Earhart on board?) vs. “Your honor, here’s a photo of my client in Bermuda the day he was allegedly shooting someone in San Francisco” - then the provenance is key. A photo by itself won’t exonerate the client. It will need to include who took the photo, when, how, and documentation to support that timeline and a search for corroboration. (I.e. OK, he was in the Bermuda Hilton. Where’s the credit card trail and video evidence of him flying there, customs clearance, checking in, coming down for breakfast, paying for a cab to the airport, etc. etc. etc.)
I guess we’re reaching the point where isolated copies of a few minutes of security footage will be insufficient, without the full security camera one-hour block intact file.
OTOH, IANAL, accusing the prosecutor (an officer of the court) of deliberately fabricating evidence can be a career-limiting move for a lawyer if it turns out to be false.
However, we’re reaching the point where anything that is simply posted on social media can be totally fake, in case all those click-bait thumbnails about fabulous aircraft, “remember X - you won’t believe how they look now…”, “this video will soon be banned”, and “great photo fails” are not evidence enough that with enough bad resolution you can fake anything already.
I would never accuse an attorney of fabricating evidence…but…
It’s surprising how often an attorney can’t play a video on their computer and a paralegal/office person/teenager offers to “convert” the video to a more “useful or friendly” format. I see quite a few videos that have been run through VLC and then provided to us during discovery. I must render an opinion about whether the video file is a true and actual copy. Often, it’s not.
Also, I will get requests to “enhance” a video to make things “clearer.” It’s CSI, of course. I usually have to decline and explain that I would be altering the video significantly. When a person is only 8 pixels wide in an image, you’re not going to be able to do a facial identification.
I guess I have to ask - what makes it an untrue copy? Videos and photos are just pixels.
is it reducing or increasing the pixel count - i.e. interpolating pixels that didn’t exist? Interpolating extra frames, or removing frames? Contrast changes or brightness, hue etc.? These latter can be done by fiddling with monitor settings during playback too - is that allowed?
Or are you obliged to explain precisely why the video/photo as shown (likely) differs from the reality as captured?
(Yes, I’m amazed how quickly all the security cameras relevant to TV dramas have gone from less than 480i black and white to 4K colour.)
It’s a combination of many factors. And, yes, I do have to explain a lot. Resizing and interpolating pixels may or may not make a difference. It depends on the use of the video.
For example, I may be asked to form an opinion about whether the truck driver turned on the hazard flashers BEFORE or AFTER the collision. Since the video probably came from a convenience store or gas station, the area of interest is usually a very small part of the image. I may be measuring and graphing just a few pixels over the course of 10 seconds.
Plus, most of my cases are civil. Much lower bar to clear.