Opinion ID: 390302
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Nature of Videotape Evidence

Text: 40 The district court stated that whatever the force of the presumption, I am also convinced that the circumstances of the present case are indeed sufficiently extraordinary to require denial of the broadcasters' application. 501 F.Supp. at 859. The district court emphasized as its first point the very great difference between videotape evidence and other forms of evidence. Id. The court explained that (t)he viewer of videotape becomes virtually a participant in the events portrayed. Id. at 860. 41 In considering whether the nature of the videotape evidence is a factor that might reasonably be relied on to justify denial of an application to copy evidence, it is necessary to bear in mind that generally the right to copy has been considered to be correlative to the right to inspect. As copying techniques grew more sophisticated, the courts adjusted the common law right to include the right to copy public records by mechanical means. In Moore v. Board of Freeholders of Mercer County, 76 N.J.Super. 396, 408, 184 A.2d 748, 754 (Super.Ct.App.Div.1962), the court stated: 42 We come, then, to the core question of whether the common law right which persons like plaintiffs have, to inspect and copy public records, is limited to hand-copying. Plaintiffs seek to photocopy by the use of modern tested equipment, portable and compact, and well known in the public market. To ignore the efficacy and practical worth of such equipment, and to compel plaintiffs to resort to laborious and time-consuming hand-copying, would substantially impair their right to inspect and copy. 43 To prohibit photocopying with proper equipment is to ignore the significant progress which our generation has witnessed. Photocopying is an everyday procedure in business and professional offices, large and small. Plaintiffs cannot be restricted to the use of pen, pencil and pad. Were we to accept the reason defendants advance for denying the right to photocopy, then it might well be said that a records custodian in some past day could, with equal justification, have insisted that the interested citizen use quill instead of pen, or pen instead of typewriter. 44 The only limitations upon the use of photocopying equipment must be that such equipment does not occupy an unreasonable amount of working space or unreasonably interfere with the regular routine of the office involved, and that its performance be such as not to damage or impair the physical records themselves or their contents. 45 The district court appears to have been particularly concerned because rebroadcast of the videotape evidence would cause dissemination of powerfully convincing evidence beyond the confines of the trial arena  501 F.Supp. at 860. There can be no question that actual observation of testimony or exhibits contributes a dimension which cannot be fully provided by second-hand reports. As the court stated in Oxnard Publishing Co. v. Superior Court of Ventura County, 68 Cal.Rptr. 83, 95 (Ct.App.1968): 46 Important, sometimes vital, parts of the trial, including the appearance, demeanor, expression, gestures, intonations, hesitances, inflections, and tone of voice of witnesses, of counsel, and of the judge are not there. In the absence of public attendance a substantial part of the real record of the proceeding will have been permanently lost to public scrutiny. 47 However, such publicity, rather than favoring rejection of the application, may in fact support its grant, absent compelling reasons to the contrary. Chief Justice Burger recognized that in the practicalities of information dissemination in contemporary American life, (i)nstead of acquiring information about trials by firsthand observation or by word of mouth from those who attended, people now acquire it chiefly through the print and electronic media. In a sense, this validates the media claim of functioning as surrogates for the public. Richmond Newspapers, 100 S.Ct. at 2825. Replication of the trial court experience may contribute to the public's understanding of the events which were the subject of the trial proceedings, and thereby enhance its comprehension of the functioning of the entire criminal justice system  Id., quoting Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 587, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 2816, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring).