|
Can someone tell me if printed photos from a digital camera would be admissible
in small claims court? Thanks!
|
| |
| |
On 13 Mar 2004 22:32:27 GMT, sheellah@aol.com (Sheellah) wrote:
Can someone tell me if printed photos from a digital camera would be admissible
in small claims court? Thanks!
They would be as admissible as any other kind of photo.
------------------------------
Bob Stock, California Attorney
Nothing I've said should be relied on as legal advice.
------------------------------
|
| |
| |
Sheellah wrote:
Can someone tell me if printed photos from a digital camera would be
admissible in small claims court? Thanks!
The court does not care what type they are.
I would think the courts are aware of digital cameras being rather common.
I've seen them used by the police.
|
| |
| |
Can someone tell me if printed photos from a digital camera
would be admissible
in small claims court? Thanks!
Anything is admissable if the other side doesn't object. In small
claims, the other side almost never objects to the admissability
of evidence. If the other side does object, a proper objection
would not be based on the fact that the pictures are digital. The
objection will be the lack of authenticaton. In superior court, a
photograph is introduced by an independant witness who testifies:
"I took the picture, I developed the picture, it has not been out
of my possession and control at any time except when I left it
lock in my safe, it has not been tampered with, and it accurately
depicts the scene at the time." In small claims, proper
authentication is unlikely because the photographer is the
plaintiff or defendant, not an independant witness, and the person
presenting the picture knows nothing about authentication of
evidence. So even if the judge accepts the picture as evidence,
don't expect the judge to trust it.
As a small claims judge pro tem I have seen pictures of a
perfectly clean apartment, which the tenant says were taken on the
day she moved out, and the landlord says were taken two years
before. I have seen pictures presented by a landlord to show how
the tenant trashed the apartment, followed by the tenant claiming
that the pictures were of another apartment in the building. I
have seen photos of damaged cars, without any proof that they were
of the right car.
It's possible the judge will decline to look at your photographic
evidence, but not likely. The best thing you could do is have an
independant professional take the pictures and testify about them.
McGyver
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:07:04 -0800, "McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com>
wrote:
In superior court, a
photograph is introduced by an independant witness who testifies:
"I took the picture, I developed the picture, it has not been out
of my possession and control at any time except when I left it
lock in my safe, it has not been tampered with, and it accurately
depicts the scene at the time."
As with all evidence, it depends on why it is being offered as to how
its admissibility is evaluated. If a photograph is being offered as
demonstrative evidence, e.g., to help the jury understand the physical
scene of an accident, the only testimony needed is that it accurately
reflects that scene and that it would be helpful to the jury. See
Dirosario v. Havens, 196 Cal. App. 3d 1224, 1232-33 (1987).
I don't think it need be introduced by an independent witness, nor
must it be offered by the taker, nor do I think any chain of custody
testimony is required. If the other side objects and questions that
the photo is reasonably accurate, I suppose that kind of testimony may
end up being helpful.
------------------------------
Bob Stock, California Attorney
Nothing I've said should be relied on as legal advice.
------------------------------
|
| |
| |
|
