Digital Photography used in Court?

Hi,

 

I am just curious with all the advancements in digital. Is digital

accepted in a court of law for scenes of an accident? Or is film

still the only format accepted? Digital images can be so easily

manipulated. I read a long time ago that digital could not be used.

 

Thanks.

Bernard, yes, digital images are now used in courts all the time. Any photograph- film or digital- must be accepted into evidence. In all my years of litigating cases, and having taken some evidence photos for others, I never even saw a photographer called to the stand to authenticate a photograph. It is just very rare that a lawyer in a civil or criminal case will question the authenticity or provenance of a photograph.

 

However, if the content of an image were questioned, the attorney trying to introduce the photo would call the photographer to the stand. The photographer would identify himself as having shot the image, would testify as to how the image was made and would testify that the image was a true and accurate representation of the scene at the time the image was made. This would be true for a digital image or a film image.

Yes I have been paid to testify in court that I took the photo on such a date, time and place.

 

It is mostly a high elevation post accident shot of the scene.

 

I also have to testify the process from camera used to delivery of the final print/image file.

 

I was also asked to survey the print carefully and compare it to my original neg/file and comment that to my eye and best of my vision there doesn't seem to be any modifications made (retouching).

 

BTW I was paid my full photo rate for my time in court (full/half day)

 

Too bad I am not allow to photograph inside the courtroom, it would have made an interesting photo essay

I am a recently retired police officer and I was trained to photograph crime and accident scenes. I worked in Georgia so my answer probably does not apply to all states. With regard to using digital photos, I attended a crime scene school in 2000 where we were told that it depends on what the judge hearing the case allows in the court. Basically, if the officer or crime scene tech swears under oath that the photo is a true and accurate account of what was there the photo can be admitted into evidense the same way a witness testimony is admitted.

"is film still the only format accepted? ...I read a long time ago that digital could not be used."

 

My guess is that you read this online, the bastion of incorrect information about legal matters. Magazines are sometimes incorrect too such as when Popular Photography claimed that a photo could not be admitted into evidence without the testimony of the photographer. Imagine if that were true. Automatic surveillance camera photos? Excluded. A photographer clearly captures a shooting but later dies. Excluded. None of that makes sense.

 

Eric's response is accurate. I would add that the basic requirement for a photograph to be admitted to evidence is that a witness testifys to facts showing that they are able to know if the photograph fairly and accurately portrays the scene at issue and that it, in fact, is a fair and accurate portrayal. A simple example would be where a witness testifies that they saw a car spin out of control when it was driven over an oil slick in an intersection. The witness is then shown a picture of the intersection with the oil slick in it. If they testified that the image is a fair and accurate portrayal of the intersection with the oil slick in it, it comes in.

 

As Eric points out, it is extremely rare for a photograph to be challenged as a fake. In that case a scenerio like the one he laid out would unfold.

 

It is more common, but still rare, for challeges to be made on the primary issue. The ability of the witness to say the picture fairly and accurately portrays the scene. In that case a judge may decide that the testimony of the witness is so unreliable that the photo will not be admitted. It is possible, too, that the photo may be admitted because a witness did testify to the fair and accurate portrayal but also allow evidence or testimony that refutes that claim and let the jury decide which testimony is accurate.

Canon has added authenticity verification to its DSLR line, including the 1D, 1Ds, 1D Mark II, 20D, and 1Ds Mark II. In the 20D at least, it's an option to add authenticity information to each image (which is disabled by default). A separate kit from Canon can be used to verify that an image is unmodified when they were recorded with the option enabled.<p>

 

<i>"Data Verification Kit DVK-E2

While ease of manipulation is usually considered a key benefit of digital photography, officials involved in data verification considered it a liability until Canon's release of the DVK-E1, the world's first data verification kit for digital SLRs. This breakthrough was introduced as an option for the EOS-1Ds camera. And now Canon is offering a new improved version - the DVK-E2 - as an option for the EOS-1Ds Mark II, EOS-1D Mark II, EOS-1Ds and EOS 20D. Like its predecessor, this kit can verify whether or not a photo is an untouched original."</i><p>

 

<a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10598">http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10598</a>

I would like to thank you all for your informative responses!

Bernard, John Henneberger gave you a very good reply. Although continuity of the production of digital images seems to recieve the greatest scrutiny, it is the methodology of recording a scene that is being ignored, especially in the u.k. I know of one situation whereby no copy was made onto hard disk. The only evidence of the scene was therefore,the final print. Mr. Henneberger states that usually questions arise regarding whether the resultant photograph is a true representation of a scene. What I am concerned with is that any traffic scene recorded is made with the correct focal length so perspective is not distorted or accusations of distortion are not raised.

The problems in the u.k. are that officers pick up any digital camera, probably with a zoom lens. They are not aware as to the size of the ccd and the relation to focal length. Added to this they use the zoom lens as they feel. Therefore, they only way to find what camera settings were used is by reading off the data on software such as adobe cs ( then we have issues of playing the image through software ). If an officer presents an image which has distorted say, skid marks, and the image is markedly different from that of the difence then our problems arise. I say our problems, as I have been a Police Photographer for 19 years and a Lecturer for 4.

I hope this will set you on further avenues of enquiry.