Video Evidence
October 2016
A Primer for Prosecutors
Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative
Global Justice
Information
Sharing
Initiative
Even ten years ago, it was rare for a court case to feature video evidence, besides a defendant’s statement.
Today, with the increasing use of security cameras by businesses and homeowners, patrol-car dashboard
and body-worn cameras by law enforcement, and smartphones and tablet cameras by the general public, it
is becoming unusual to see a court case that does not include video evidence. In fact, some esmate that
video evidence is involved in about 80 percent of crimes.
1
Not surprisingly, this staggering abundance of video
brings with it both opportunies and challenges. Two such challenges are dealing with the wide variety of
video formats, each with its own proprietary characteriscs and requirements, and handling the large le sizes
of video evidence. Given these obstacles, the transfer, storage, redacon, disclosure, and preparaon of video
evidence for evidenary purposes can stretch the personnel and equipment resources of even the best-funded
prosecutor’s oce. This primer provides guidance for managing video evidence in the oce and suggests
steps to take to ensure that this evidence is admissible in court.
2 / Video Evidence: A Primer for Prosecutors
Introduction
The opportunies inherent in video evidence cannot be overlooked. It is prosecutors
who are charged with presenng evidence to a jury. Today, juries expect video to
be presented to them in every case, whether it exists or not.
2
As a result, prosecutors
must have the resources and technological skill to seamlessly present it in court. Ideally,
prosecutors’ oces could form specially trained ligaon support units, which manage all video
evidence from the beginning of the criminal process through trial preparaon and the appellate
process. Short of that, individual trial aorneys
must understand the opportunies and be aware
of the potenal pialls inherent in video evidence.
Further, prosecutors must be diligent to ensure
that law enforcement invesgators have idened
and recovered all exisng video evidence relevant
to a case. In any event, to use video evidence
eecvely in the courtroom, prosecutors must
be familiar with evidenary foundaons to admit
the videos and the technological requirements to
successfully display those videos to the jury.
The purpose of this resource is to provide
prosecutors educaonal material, introduce
helpful resources regarding video evidence,
outline the benets of its use in court, and acknowledge the challenges faced by prosecutors’
oces in handling video evidence. A sample process ow is also provided as step-by-step
guidance on the general procedures and processes prosecutors may follow when preparing and
handling video evidence. It has been designed to correspond to the typical ow of a case from
receipt of evidence through the trial process. Finally, a glossary of terms used throughout this
resource is included, as well as a list of recommended resources for further reading.
This document was a collaborave eort executed through the Global Jusce Informaon
Sharing Iniave (Global), which is supported by BJA, Oce of Jusce Programs,
U.S. Department of Jusce. Global acknowledges that this document does not
address all subject areas of this complex topic but rather provides a high-level
understanding of video-evidence processes to help guide prosecutors.
To use video evidence
effectively in the
courtroom, prosecutors
must be familiar with
evidentiary foundations
to admit the videos
and the technological
requirements to
successfully display
those videos to the jury.
Video Evidence: A Primer for Prosecutors / 3
Examples
of Video-Evidence Sources
The following are examples of sources of video evidence from which video may be recorded or recovered.
• Security cameras/digital video recorders (DVRs) at government buildings, businesses, or private homes
• Trac and toll-booth cameras
• Red-light cameras
• License plate readers
• Video/audio recording technology triggered by gunshots
• Patrol-car cameras
• Body-worn cameras (BWCs)
3
• Law enforcement interviews of witnesses and suspects at police staons
• Social media providers (pursuant to search warrants) and/or screen captures made by law enforcement
• Forensic searches from digital devices (e.g., computer, phone, tablet), pursuant to search warrants
Benefits
of Using Video Evidence
It is important to note that while video evidence may be only one piece of evidence in a case, it can be extremely powerful.
The following are examples of the power of using video evidence in presenng a case to the jury.
• Incorporate into opening and closing arguments (e.g., showing the jury crical parts of the defendant’s recorded
confession)
• Incorporate clips into a slideshow presentaon or trial presentaon soware
• Capture and print slls for use as supplemental exhibits
• Potenal for the in-court idencaon of the defendant as the perpetrator
• Captures the idened defendant in the act of comming the crime
• May corroborate eyewitness tesmony
• May be used to impeach defense witness tesmony
Benefits Challenges
&
Video evidence can come from numerous sources, with both benets and challenges.
4 / Video Evidence: A Primer for Prosecutors
Challenges
for Prosecutors Using Video Evidence
The resource challenges documented below do not come close to the degree of impact that the volume of video from
body-worn cameras will have on prosecutor oce resources, once BWCs are widely adopted across the United States.
4
Aside from these impending challenges, video evidence is subject to a host of other procedures and challenges that
dier from other types of evidence. These include the following:
• Having the proper video players and codecs installed on the prosecutor’s computer
• Having enough me and resources to review video, oen within severe court-imposed charging me constraints
(e.g., 24 to 48 hours) for in-custody suspects
• Obtaining and aording adequate storage
for the video in the prosecutor’s oce
• Developing processes and protocols for the
storage of video in the prosecutor’s oce
• Redacng video for privacy and legal
challenges
• Allocang sucient me for discovery, a
me-sensive and me-consuming process
involving redacon, rendering, and creang
copies of all discoverable video evidence
• The cost of equipment and soware to
review, process, prepare, and share video
evidence
• Ensuring that personnel have the
technical and legal training to comply with
constuonal disclosure requirements,
the Naonal District Aorneys Associaon
(NDAA) Rules of Conduct, Naonal Prosecuon Standards,
5
and all other relevant law
• If a video is edited, it must go through a rendering process. The current state-of-the-art, high-end video
rendering equipment and soware can cost in excess of $100,000. Video rendering can be accomplished with
desktop computers, but at a much slower rate.
Example: A prosecutor may have an eight-hour homicide video interview that the court has ordered to be
redacted to eliminate polygraph references. This can be accomplished by using video-evidence soware or
screen-capture soware. Both processes require rendering. Using a standard desktop, an eight-hour video may
take eight hours or longer to render.
• Responding to novel legal challenges related to the use of video evidence
• Preserving video evidence for appeal
As discussed in this secon, video evidence can come from a host of sources. It can be both
benecial to a case as well as challenging for prosecutors. The following secon will help
prosecutors address these challenges and will provide guidance on the video-evidence process.
Video Evidence: A Primer for Prosecutors / 5
Crime Scene to Courtroom
Video-Evidence Process
This secon provides specic guidance on the procedures
prosecutors follow and the processes they employ for the
receipt, handling, and use of video evidence, whether
that evidence is recovered by law enforcement, by
prosecutors’ oces directly, or by private cizens who
then turn it over to the prosecutor. Regardless of how
the evidence is received by prosecutors, the following
informaon should be helpful.
Video-Evidence Receipt
There are two main methods of transfer of video evidence
from law enforcement to the prosecutor’s oce:
• Cloud Transfer—One method for video transfer
is ulizing a government-approved secure cloud
provider. To the extent that law enforcement
agencies turn to cloud storage for retaining video
evidence, they should avail themselves of the cloud’s
ability to eciently transfer video-evidence les to
a prosecutor. Some cloud soluons also provide
remote viewing for prosecutors that does not
require physically moving the video-evidence les.
In addion, cloud funconality can allow for online
redacon, audit trails, and digital transfer of discovery
to the defense aorney. For more informaon on
cloud technology, refer to the Global Public Safety
Primer on Cloud Technology
6
—a high-level primer
for law enforcement and public safety communies
regarding video evidence and the cloud. Developed
as a frequently-asked-queson (FAQ) guide, the
primer answers straighorward quesons about
cloud technology and includes guidance for agencies
considering cloud vendor contracts. More important,
this resource provides crical informaon on privacy,
security, and data ownership, as well as a glossary
of cloud terminology and a list of recommended
resources.
Agencies may also be interested to learn about the
Federal Risk and Authorizaon Management Program
(FedRamp)
7
—a government-wide program that
streamlines federal agencies’ ability to make use of
cloud vendor plaorms and oerings and introduces
an innovave policy approach to developing
trusted relaonships between federal agencies and
cloud vendors. While FedRamp requirements are
mandatory for federal agencies using the cloud,
the standards and list of FedRamp-compliant
cloud vendors may be of interest to public safety
agencies. FedRamp requires that cloud vendors who
want to secure federal data in the cloud undergo
security assessments to ensure compliance with
the Federal Informaon Security Management Act
of 2002 (FISMA)
8
and with the Naonal Instute of
Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Security and
Privacy Controls for Federal Informaon Systems and
Organizaons (NIST 800-53).
9
For more informaon
on FedRamp, refer to www.fedramp.gov. To view
FedRamp-compliant vendors, refer to www.fedramp.
gov/marketplace/compliant-systems/.
• Physical Transfer—Another method for law
enforcement agencies to turn over video les to a
prosecutor is physical transfer via discs, ash drives,
SD cards, portable hard drives, etc., or by providing a
link to les or including in an e-mail aachment.
It should be noted that in most cases, video evidence
is collected from some type of DVR; however, there
are excepons, such as video evidence collected from
smartphones and social media. This resource, however,
addresses how a prosecutor receives video evidence that
law enforcement collects, regardless of its source, format,
or quality.
Law enforcement agencies should provide prosecutors
with two complete copies of the video evidence. The
rst copy should contain the video in its original format
as recovered (with the proprietary video-player soware
included). The second copy should contain the video in
a playable nonproprietary format (e.g., MP4, WMV, AVI,
MPEG).
Note: Some DVRs/devices can export video les to an
MP4 format
10
with the metadata all in one le. These
les can play in the proprietary media player with the
metadata displayed, as well as in a standard media player
with just the video and sound. This is a recommended
format.
6 / Video Evidence: A Primer for Prosecutors
Privacy Redaction
Prosecutors’ oces will need to develop their own
individual policy regarding the privacy redacon of
video when it is shared for discovery and/or Freedom of
Informaon Act (FOIA) purposes. In some jurisdicons,
police departments make the inial privacy redacon on
the discovery copy of the video and then it is reviewed
by the prosecutor’s oce prior to release by the defense.
In other jurisdicons, the prosecutor’s oce prepares
and redacts all video prior to release for discovery to the
defense. In some cases, videos cannot be redacted prior
to release for discovery, and protecve orders may be
necessary.
Video-Evidence Preparation
Whatever process a prosecutor uses to prepare and
render video for trial, the process should be transparent
to the court and, when requested, to the defense. The
following is an example of a video-evidence preparaon
process from a prosecutor’s perspecve—from receipt
of the video to post-trial. It represents a scenario in
which evidence is rst received by the prosecutor’s oce
on disc, ash drive, or portable hard drive. This sample
process ow is provided as step-by-step guidance on the
general procedures and processes prosecutors may follow
when preparing and handling video evidence.
Pre-Trial
• Store and back up video les (e.g., video discs),
including images of any physical wring or labeling
on the outside of the discs,
11
consistent with the
prosecutor’s case management process, policies, and
available resources.
• Review received les to determine whether addional
privacy redacons and/or witness safety concern
redacons are needed.
• Provide a copy of the redacted video les to defense
counsel, pursuant to local discovery rules and
pracces.
• As needed for presentaon in court, prosecutors
should be able to obtain from law enforcement
a copy of the unredacted original video le in
a nonproprietary format (e.g., MP4, WMV, AVI,
MPEG). It is recommended that prosecutors and
law enforcement consult on what video format(s)
work best for use in court. If a prosecutor chooses
to accept only the proprietary format from law
enforcement, he or she may have to use the provided
proprietary soware, when available, or download the
player from the manufacturer to export the video to
a nonproprietary format. Prosecutors also could use
screen-capture soware to render a copy of the video
in a nonproprietary format, assuming the prosecutor
is able to fully authencate the video.
• The nonproprietary video can then be redacted, as
needed, for consideraons of relevance, prejudice,
12
and trial strategy.
• Before trial, create a CD or a DVD of the video
to be marked and admied as an exhibit to be
authencated by the witness(es).
a. Tip: Computers oen freeze when playing videos
from disc drives. It is recommended that video
les be copied from the exhibit disc onto the
hard drive of the computer that will be used in
the courtroom for playback to allow for seamless
playback during court.
Advanced Video Use Tips
Prosecutors may consider using slideshow or trial presentaon soware to present
video evidence in court. It allows for case organizaon, seamless presentaon, and
exibility on direct examinaon and cross-examinaon.
1. Depending on the needs or strategy of the case, a prosecutor may want to have the audio
porons of any video transcribed for use as exhibits in court. Current ligaon soware
allows video les to be synchronized to transcripts for simultaneous viewing in court. It is
important to note that this process can be me-consuming and expensive.
2. Prosecutors may wish to idenfy clips for use in opening, direct, cross, and closing statements
with slideshow soware and/or trial presentaon soware. If necessary, individual clips can
be created with nonproprietary video soware or with screen-capture soware. These clips are made
from video les that have already been provided to the defense counsel. Prosecutors may consider creang a disc
of clips to admit as a separate exhibit with defense spulaon; however, this is not required, since in most cases the
original disc was already admied for the record.
Video Evidence: A Primer for Prosecutors / 7
b. Tip: Avoid using adhesive labels on discs (e.g.,
evidence sckers) to prevent adverse eects on
playback and damage to the data contained on
the disc. The label should be placed, instead, on
the envelope or CD case. However, it is advisable
to write the case number or other idener in
permanent marker on the top of the CD as the
data is on the boom and is unaected by the
wring on top. This will be helpful if the CD
becomes separated from the CD sleeve/case.
• In some cases, one may wish to capture individual
frames (i.e., sll images) from the video that can
be marked as separate exhibits and used in court.
Be sure to provide copies of these to the defense.
Whatever process is used to create the sll images
should be disclosed and placed on the record.
• If any enhancement
13
of the video and/or sll images
is required, this should be completed only by a
qualied expert witness, not the prosecutor.
• Test video playback of all les on the actual device
that will be used to play them in court before
introducing them into evidence.
Trial
• For video les to be introduced into evidence, they
must be authencated. This can occur when an
eyewitness with knowledge teses that the video
le is a fair and accurate representaon
14
of what
transpired, or when no eyewitness is available to
tesfy, the “silent witness theory” can apply.
15
If
introducing video evidence under this theory and
absent a spulaon, it is a good pracce for a
prosecutor to prepare to call, if necessary, a witness
who can tesfy to the operaon of the device that
recorded the video, the witness who recovered the
video and placed it on evidence, any witness with
Trial Tip
An eyewitness to the material on the video may answer quesons about events shown
in the video as it is played for the jury or shortly aer it is played, depending on the
jurisdicon. In addion, a witness who has some specialized knowledge about the video or
the events depicted therein that is helpful to the jury in understanding the video may tesfy
about that knowledge. For example, a person familiar with a subject in the video may idenfy
that person, or an ocer who has viewed the video mulple mes or in slow moon may point
out items in the video that might not be apparent on full-speed inial view. However, neither
the prosecutor nor any witness can give an opinion about what the video shows that does not rest
on special knowledge that the jury does not have. Doing this invades the province of the jury and is
improper.
knowledge, and/or any other relevant chain-of-
custody witnesses.
16
• It is crical for prosecutors’ oces to maintain
technologically current equipment for the display of
video evidence in court.
• At trial, if a prosecutor chooses to play clips of a video,
those clips must be from a video le that is already
admied as evidence (see Advanced Video Use Tips).
• During a trial, if less than the full video is played, the
record must reect what poron of the video (me
sequence or transcript reference) is being played for
the jury.
• It is important to ensure that all of the jury can see
and hear the video while it is being played.
• Jury deliberaon: Requests by the jury for playbacks
of video evidence are common. One common
pracce is to bring the jury back to the courtroom for
any requested playbacks during deliberaons. If the
court orders that the jury have access to the video in
the jury room, a prosecutor should ensure that any
laptop or playback device (1) has no other les on it
other than the soware required to run the video,
(2) cannot be connected to the Internet, and
(3) has been inspected by defense counsel, who has
conrmed this inspecon on the record.
Post-Trial
• It is a good pracce for the prosecutor’s oce to
maintain a copy of all digital exhibits shown to the
jury. Responsibility for maintaining trial exhibits will
vary by jurisdicon.
8 / Video Evidence: A Primer for Prosecutors
Litigation Technology Units and Training
Given the increasing volume of video evidence prosecutors are faced with on a daily basis, prosecutors’ oces should
consider establishing ligaon technology units (LTUs) to support the prosecutor’s preparaon and use of video evidence
at trial. A typical LTU should be supervised by a technically savvy aorney with trial experience. Qualied rered law
enforcement invesgators, legal interns, and clerical sta are examples of personnel who could make up the technicians
in such a unit.
Prosecutors’ oces should pursue training on trial presentaon soware, slideshow soware, video/audio eding
soware, trial advocacy, and courtroom technology.
Conclusion
The growing amount of video now available from security cameras, patrol-car dashboard and body-worn cameras, and
smart devices is creang a signicant strain on budgets and resources across the jusce domain. While the availability
of video evidence can present opportunies for prosecutors who are charged with presenng evidence to a jury, the
complex process of transferring, storing, redacng, disclosing, and preparing video evidence for evidenary purposes is
having a considerable impact on prosecutors’ oces. With video evidence esmated to be involved in approximately
80 percent of crimes, prosecutors must have the resources and technological skill to seamlessly and eecvely present
video evidence in court. To do this, they must have a clear understanding of both the benets and challenges of video
evidence and, more important, the soluons and techniques to address them. This primer provides general guidance
on the procedures and processes prosecutors may follow, from pre- to post-trial, when preparing and handling video
evidence.
Video Evidence: A Primer for Prosecutors / 9
Terms
Original le—A le that is connuous and free from
unexplained alteraons (e.g., addions, deleons, edits,
or arfacts) and is consistent with the stated operaon of
the recording device used to make it. However, Federal
Rules of Evidence (FRE) 1001(d) denes an original of a
wring or recording as “the wring or recording itself
or any counterpart intended to have the same eect by
the person who executed or issued it. For electronically
stored informaon, ‘original’ means any printout—or
other output readable by sight—if it accurately reects
the informaon.”
17
Further, “if data [is] stored [on] a
computer or similar device, any printout or other output
readable by sight, shown to reect the data accurately, is
an ‘original.’” Lorraine v. Markel Am Ins Co, 241 FRD 534,
577 (D Md 2007). FRE 1001(e) states that a duplicate is
“a counterpart produced by a mechanical, photographic,
chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or
technique that accurately reproduces the original.”
Proprietary video—A video le format that is unique to a
specic manufacturer or product that contains data that
is ordered and stored according to a parcular encoding
scheme, designed by the company or organizaon to
be secret, such that the decoding and interpretaon
of this stored data is easily accomplished only with
parcular soware or hardware that the company
itself has developed. A proprietary format also can be
a le format whose encoding is in fact published but is
restricted (through licenses) such that only the company
itself or licensees may use it. It is important to note
that not all proprietary soware exports the proprietary
players with the video les. If a law enforcement agency
chooses to use a proprietary format, it is a best pracce
for prosecutor oces to encourage the law enforcement
agency to use only proprietary soware players that have
the ability to export video into a nonproprietary format.
Nonproprietary video—A video format that is not
encumbered by any copyrights, patents, trademarks,
or other restricons so that anyone may use it at no
monetary cost for any desired purpose.
Screen-capture soware—Soware that can capture
screenshots of images and videos and save them as
graphic les or record a computer screen and save the
recordings as video les.
Rendering—The process by which video soware and
hardware convert video from one format to another.
Codec—A computer algorithm that controls the
compression/decompression and/or encoding/decoding
of audio and video les. A codec encodes a data stream
or signal for transmission, storage, or encrypon or
decodes it for playback or eding. It is possible for
mulple le formats to ulize mulple codecs. If a video
le will not play, many mes the problem has to do with
not having the correct codecs—a computer program that
both shrinks large movie les and makes them playable on
computers. In some cases, computers try to automacally
download a codec from the Web, but this may be blocked
based on connecvity or security sengs (for example,
some viruses are concealed in codecs). Prior to playing
a video, seek the help of IT personnel to get the proper
codec installed.
10 / Video Evidence: A Primer for Prosecutors
• Video Players, CNET oers links to many of the
video players/codecs needed to play video, such as
VideoLAN Client (VLC), Gretech Online Movie (GOM)
players, and more, hp://download.cnet.com/s/
video-players/.
• Comparison of Video Player Soware, Wikipedia,
hps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_
player_soware.
• Producing Camtasia Videos for Local Playback, hps://
www.youtube.com/embed/IM8XxDsOjks?vq=hd1080.
This video contains useful ps on export sengs to
use for rendering in general.
• “5 Tips for Using Mobile Video Evidence in Your
Agency,” PoliceOne.com, April 10, 2014, Panasonic
System Communicaons Company of North America,
www.policeone.com/police-products/police-
technology/mobile-data/arcles/7067437-5-ps-for-
using-mobile-video-evidence-in-your-agency/.
• “A Simplied Guide to Forensic Audio and Video
Analysis,” Naonal Forensic Science Technology
Center, Bureau of Jusce Assistance (BJA), Oce of
Jusce Programs, U.S. Department of Jusce (DOJ),
www.forensicsciencesimplied.org/av/AudioVideo.
pdf.
• “A Simplied Guide to Forensic Evidence Admissibility
and Expert Witnesses,” Naonal Forensic Science
Technology Center, Bureau of Jusce Assistance
(BJA), Oce of Jusce Programs, DOJ, hp://www.
forensicsciencesimplied.org/legal/index.htm.
• “Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: A New
Evidenary Froner,” the Honorable Alan Pendleton,
Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Minnesota State Bar
Associaon, October 14, 2013, hp://mnbenchbar.
com/2013/10/admissibility-of-electronic-evidence/.
— While not a video-evidence-focused arcle, the
“Analycal Framework” for the admissibility of
electronic evidence may be useful.
• “Addressing Video Evidence at Trial,” Doug Wyllie,
Senior Editor, PoliceOne.com, June 24, 2008, www.
policeone.com/police-products/invesgaon/
ps/1706936-Addressing-video-evidence-at-trial/.
• “Best Pracces for Image Authencaon, Forensic
Science Communicaons,” April 2008, Volume 10,
Recommended Resources
This list of resources provides a starng point for prosecutors wanng to learn more about video-evidence processes.
Number 2, FBI’s Scienc Working Group on Imaging
Technologies (SWGIT), www.i.gov/about-us/lab/
forensic-science-communicaons/fsc/april2008/index.
htm/standards/2008_04_standards02.htm.
• “Digital Evidence in the Courtroom: A Guide for Law
Enforcement and Prosecutors,” Naonal Instute
of Jusce (NIJ), DOJ, January 2007, www.ncjrs.gov/
pdles1/nij/211314.pdf. This guide focuses primarily
on digital computer evidence but is useful in guiding
prosecutors through the process of acquision,
integrity, discovery, courtroom preparaon and
evidence rules, and the presentaon of digital
computer evidence.
• “Forensic Imaging and Mul-Media Glossary Covering
Computer Evidence Recovery (CER), Forensic Audio
(FA), Forensic Photography (FP), and Forensic Video
(FV),” Version 7.0, Last Updated July 15, 2006,
Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video
Associaon (LEVA), www.leva.org/pdfs/GlossaryV7.
pdf.
• “Guidelines for Facial Comparison Methods,” Facial
Idencaon Scienc Working Group (FISWG),
February 2, 2012, www.swg.org/document/
viewDocument?id=25.
• “How to Play a DPD Confession Video,” Prosecutor
Kym L. Worthy, Wayne County Prosecutors Oce,
Michigan. This is an example of a guide made to assist
defense aorneys with playing proprietary police
video les received during discovery. hps://www.
linkedin.com/pulse/sample-how-instrucons-playing-
proprietary-video-le-patrick-muscat?published=t.
• Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video
Associaon (LEVA), www.leva.org.
• Statewide/Centralized Evidence Laboratories, Naonal
Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law,
hp://www.ncstl.org/resources/laboratories.
• Using and Presenng Digital Evidence in the
Courtroom: Training Material (CD-ROM), NIJ, DOJ,
2008, www.nij.gov/publicaons/pages/publicaon-
detail.aspx?ncjnumber=215094.
—This CD-ROM is an interacve training program on
using and presenng digital evidence in a courtroom
seng.
Video Evidence: A Primer for Prosecutors / 11
Endnotes
1 Dale Garrison, “Advanced Video Forensics,” Evidence Technology Magazine, July–August 2014 Issue, www.evidencemagazine.
com/index.php?opon=com_content&task=view&id=1688&Itemid=49.
2 Ibid.
3 “Body-Worn Camera Toolkit,” Bureau of Jusce Assistance, Oce of Jusce Programs, U.S. Department of Jusce, hps://www.
bja.gov/bwc/.
4 Kay Chopard Cohen, “The Impact of Body-Worn Cameras on a Prosecutor,” Naonal District Aorneys Associaon, hp://
ndaajusce.org/pdf/BWC_Blog_Post_Dra_09%2002%202015_FINAL.pdf.
5 Naonal Prosecuon Standards, Third Edion, Rules of Conduct, Secon 1–1.4, Naonal District Aorneys Associaon, hp://
www.ndaajusce.org/pdf/NDAA%20NPS%203rd%20Ed.%20w%20Revised%20Commentary.pdf.
6 Public Safety Primer on Cloud Technology, Global Jusce Informaon Sharing Iniave, Bureau of Jusce Assistance, Oce of
Jusce Programs, U.S. Department of Jusce, May 2016.
7 The Federal Risk and Authorizaon Management Program (FedRamp) is a government-wide program that streamlines federal
agencies’ ability to make use of cloud services and introduces an innovave policy approach to developing trusted relaonships
between federal agencies and cloud vendors. FedRamp provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorizaon, and
connuous monitoring for cloud services that secure federal data, www.fedramp.gov.
8 The Federal Informaon Security Management Act of 2002 requires each federal agency to develop, document, and implement
an agencywide program to provide informaon security for the informaon and informaon systems that support the operaons
and assets of the agency, including those provided or managed by another agency, contractor, or other source. hp://csrc.nist.gov/
drivers/documents/FISMA-nal.pdf.
9 Assessing Security and Privacy Controls in Federal Informaon Systems and Organizaons, Special Publicaon 800-53A, Revision
4, Naonal Instute of Standards and Technology, hp://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublicaons/NIST.SP.800-53Ar4.pdf.
10 MP4 in PowerPoint, FAASOFT, June 12, 2014, www.faaso.com/arcles/mp4-in-powerpoint.html.
11 In some jurisdicons, it is required to provide the defense with a copy of any wring or labeling on the outside of the disc.
12 People v. Musser, 835 N.W.2d 337 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2013).
13 Forensic Imaging and Mul-Media Glossary Covering Computer Evidence Recovery (CER), Forensic Audio (FA), Forensic
Photography (FP), and Forensic Video (FV), Version 7.0, Last Updated July 15, 2006, LEVA, www.leva.org/pdfs/GlossaryV7.pdf.
14 Authencang or Idenfying Evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), Rule 901, hp://federalevidence.com/rules-of-
evidence#Rule901.
15 The silent witness theory is a theory in the law of evidence whereby photographic evidence (as photographs or videotapes)
produced by a process whose reliability is established may be admied as substanve evidence of what it depicts without the need
for an eyewitness to verify the accuracy of its depicon. In People of Illinois v. Taylor, 956 N.E.2d 431, 353 ILL. Dec. 569 (2011),
surveillance video of the defendant comming the crime was captured on a digital medium and transferred to a VHS tape for trial.
The defense connually objected on foundaonal grounds, arguing that it had not been shown that the camera worked properly.
The Illinois Court of Appeals, aer discussing the silent witness theory, found that the tape was inadmissible based on issues
demonstrang chain of custody, conrming the camera worked properly, ensuring the original digital recording was preserved, and
concerns regarding the method used to transfer the video from digital to VHS format. While the Illinois Supreme Court agreed with
the issues the Court of Appeals examined, it disagreed with its analysis and found adequate support for each foundaonal factor
within the trial record and under Illinois law. The tape was ulmately admied and the defendant’s convicon armed. Chain-of-
custody issues in establishing foundaon generally go to weight, not admissibility.
16 Chain-of-custody issues in establishing foundaon generally go to weight, not admissibility.
17 Federal Rules of Evidence 1001(d), hps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1001.
About Global
The Global Jusce Informaon Sharing Iniave (Global) Advisory Commiee (GAC) serves as a Federal Advisory
Commiee to the U.S. Aorney General. Through recommendaons to the Bureau of Jusce Assistance (BJA), the GAC
supports standards-based electronic informaon exchanges that provide jusce and public safety communies with
mely, accurate, complete, and accessible informaon, appropriately shared in a secure and trusted environment.
GAC recommendaons support the mission of the U.S. Department of Jusce, iniaves sponsored by BJA, and related
acvies sponsored by BJA’s Global. BJA engages GAC-member organizaons and the constuents they serve through
collaborave eorts to help address crical jusce informaon sharing issues for the benet of praconers in the eld.
IT.OJP.GOV/Global
Issued 10/2016
This project was supported by Grant No. 2014-DB-BX-K004 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice, in collaboration with the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative. The opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
U.S. Department of Justice.
Acknowledgements
A special thank-you to Global’s prosecutor draing team for their valuable contribuons in authoring and guiding the
development of this resource.
Kay Chopard Cohen
Naonal District Aorneys Associaon
David McCreedy
Appellate Secon
Wayne County Prosecutor’s Oce, Michigan
John Wolfstaeer
Courtroom Technology
New York County District Aorney’s Oce, New York
Appreciaon is also shared for the following individuals and organizaons who contributed to the development and veng of this
resource.
Kevin Bowling
20th Circuit Court, Oawa, Michigan
Represenng the Naonal Associaon for Court Management
Krisne Hamann
Bureau of Jusce Assistance
U.S. Department of Jusce
The Honorable William J. Ihlenfeld, II
United States Aorney’s Oce, Northern District of West Virginia
Represenng the Execuve Oce for United States Aorneys
David Labahn
Associaon of Prosecung Aorneys
Fred Lederer
Center for Legal and Court Technology
William and Mary Law School
Represenng the Naonal Center for State Courts
Patrick Muscat
Violent Crime Unit
Wayne County Prosecutor’s Oce, Michigan
Mark Shlia
Connuing Legal Educaon and Trial Technology
Cook County State’s Aorney’s Oce, Illinois
The Honorable Barbara Mack
Naonal Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
Mark Perbix
SEARCH, The Naonal Consorum of Jusce Informaon and
Stascs
Raj Prasad
Wayne County Prosecutor’s Oce, Michigan
Sean Smith
New York Prosecutors Training Instute
Christopher A. Toth
Naonal Associaon for Aorneys General
Members of the Criminal Intelligence Coordinang Council
and the Naonal Associaon for Court Management’s Joint
Technology Commiee who parcipated in the veng of this
resource.