or use perjury
Most evidence is circumstantial. That doesn’t make it inadmissible. Video evidence is, technically, hearsay. It’s often admissible under an exception for certain types of records that are considered to be reliable. However, as deep fake technology gets better and cheaper, this is probably going to change.
It’s tough to tell how much is Reynal and how much is Jones, since it’s Jones’ modus operandi to go off script on a rant. Seems like Jones’ intent was to get the “ad buy” fact in even though it is hearsay through the subterfuge of “this is how it made me feel.” No different than saying “I read in the Wall Street Journal that Ted Cruz is a pedophile and that made me feel sad.” Although I don’t know a judge that would strike that sentence.
Video is not a statement (or a gesture), and I would be very surprised if a court excluded a properly authenticated video as hearsay. Unless the video includes someone talking, which part could be hearsay. Video is tangible evidence, no different from photographs that are admissible so long as there is foundation from a witness that the photograph reasonably depicts what is claimed. Per the adage “the camera doesn’t lie,” juries trust video a lot more than direct testimony from a witness who may be biased, forgetful, poor eyesight, etc.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.