Insights · Evidence

How courts decide whether a video can be trusted

March 2024 · 4 minute read

A video is not evidence the moment it is recorded. Before a jury ever sees it, the footage has to be authenticated, shown to be a fair and accurate depiction of what it claims to show, and that is where many clips run into trouble.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, the party offering a recording must produce enough proof that the item is what they say it is. For video, that usually means establishing where it came from, that it has not been altered, and, crucially, when it was recorded. New York's Guide to Evidence on video recordings reflects the standard most courts apply: a recording is admitted once its authenticity and accuracy are established.

Where the date and time come in

The recording's date and time sit at the center of that test. A timestamp that ties cleanly back to the original file supports the claim that the footage is what it purports to be. A timestamp that cannot be explained does the opposite: it hands opposing counsel an opening to argue the video is unreliable. Even when a discrepancy goes only to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility, weight is what decides close cases.

The practical lesson is simple. Treat the timestamp as part of the evidence, not a cosmetic detail. Footage whose date and time can be traced to the original recording is far harder to challenge than footage where the clock is a question mark.