Evidence: Getting It on Tape

The Miami police department now videotapes moving, talking mug shots of every suspect arrested. “It takes from 30 to 40 seconds,” explains Officer Lloyd Hicks, who runs the project, “and it’s like a walking wanted card. Officers checking the ident tapes later really get the feeling that they know the man they’re after.” During a race riot outside a high school in the Chicago suburb of May wood, Sheriff Joseph Woods had his tape crew record the entire scene. When police brutality was later charged, Woods simply hauled out his tapes and proved his deputies innocent.

A bit belatedly, lawmen and lawyers are beginning to recognize the advantages of video tape. In Detroit, police lineups of suspects have been videotaped, making it possible for witnesses to do their viewing when convenient for them. An added benefit for assault and rape victims: they do not have to undergo the trauma of physically facing the assailant again. In fact, the only drawback many police departments see to video tape is price. The complete Ampex system of camera, sound recorder and receiver, which is generally conceded to be the best and most adaptable, costs $1,654 for just one.

Absent Experts. One unit is all that Peoria, Ill., Lawyer Tom Cassidy needs, however, and he finds that it has more than paid for itself. When he draws up a will, Cassidy has his client read it over in front of the camera. Then he asks questions calculated to prove the willmaker is of sound mind, and winds up the taping by having the document signed and witnessed. He predicts that any subsequent challenge will have little chance in the face of such evidence. He has also taped standard instructions to witnesses and clients, explaining the basics of testifying. That saves him an hour with each person. When he must be away, he tapes information for a client instead of canceling appointments.

Cassidy has also been videotaping depositions, paralleling an experiment of the bar association of Akron. The reaction by judges to dry runs has been lively, with special interest in the taped testimony of such expert witnesses as doctors and ballistics specialists. Trials are often delayed because an expert cannot testify at a time convenient to the court. By videotaping his testimony before the two opposing lawyers, he can appear whenever he has time. So far, apparently, only one court has admitted any video-taped evidence. In Charlestown, W. Va., the police had taped a drunk driver after his arrest. At his trial, Municipal Judge John Charnock allowed the video tape as secondary and corroborating evidence. He found the man guilty.

Blocking Out Objections. Other courts will probably soon have to decide what uses of video tape are admissible. Professor Charles Joiner, associate dean of the University of Michigan Law School, sees no reason why tapes should be barred. In the not-so-distant future, he predicts, “the testimony of each party and witness could be taken at his convenience, and when all is in readiness the jury could be shown the tape.” Lawyers will still probably want most witnesses to appear live in court. But Professor Joiner points out one further persuasive advantage of tape. The jury would see and hear only those parts of the testimony that were properly admissible, thereby blocking those attorneys who introduce clearly objectionable material so that juries will hear it before it can be ruled out.