Opinion ID: 799955
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Video Clips

Text: In the district court, the judge had before him video footage of the events in question although they are not specifically discussed; and the government's brief in this court cites to these materials. The video clips were submitted by the FBI in support of its motion and consist of clips from material aired during local news broadcasts. Plaintiffs say that the film 6 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2721 (3d ed. 1998); see also Horta v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1993) (Summary judgment is to be decided on 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any.' (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c))). In its current form, Rule 56 states that a court considering summary judgment need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record. Fed. R. Civ. 56(c)(3). -18- clips were not properly authenticated, violate the Best Evidence Rule, Fed. R. Evid. 1001(2), and may not be relied upon in deciding this case. Authentication is a straightforward concept requiring a reasonable probability that the item in dispute is what its proponent claims. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a); United States v. Cruz, 352 F.3d 499, 506 (1st Cir. 2003). The proponent need not rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity; so long as the evidence is sufficient to allow a reasonable person to believe the evidence is what it purports to be, it is left to the factfinder to determine what weight it deserves. United States v. AliceaCardoza, 132 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1997). An item's appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with the circumstances, are all relevant. United States v. Holmquist, 36 F.3d 154, 167 (1st Cir. 1994); United States v. Paulino, 13 F.3d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1994). At issue here are clips from multiple news programs with proprietary production sets and locally-known television personalities from various stations, each including clips that indisputably show the same incident from different camera perspectives--all of which suggests these are actual news clips with footage from the scene. The video clips were accompanied by a declaration of Jessica Tirado Gonzalez, the general manager of Publimedia, a -19- company that specializes in monitoring Puerto Rico media outlets. Tirado's declaration said the FBI hired Publimedia and it recorded seven such programs about the incident--though only those portions of news broadcasts that pertained to the FBI's execution of the search warrant and not portions of news programs concerning other topics. Tirado stated that the four DVDs submitted by the defendants contained true and correct copies of those recordings. The plaintiffs do not suggest otherwise. The plaintiffs describe the videos as incomplete and extensively edited versions of the original TV broadcasts but make no claim of (or offer any reason to suspect) fraud or tampering, nor do they say that the videos do not show actual footage of the incident in question (in fact their own expert relied on the video footage in forming his own opinions). Cf. United States v. Wheeler, 800 F.2d 100, 106 (7th Cir. 1986), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Sblendorio, 830 F.2d 1382, 1393 (7th Cir. 1987); Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Spencer Handbags Corp., 765 F.2d 966, 973-74 (2d Cir. 1985). Further, the affidavits and depositions of several FBI agents expressly confirmed the accuracy of the footage on the four DVDs. For example, Agent Byers, designated as the FBI's on-scene media representative at the search warrant execution, said that numerous news outlets were present filming the incident, and also stated several times in substance that the media footage accurately -20- reflected what occurred (e.g., As shown in video footage and according to my direct observation . . . .). In sum, on the facts presented, there is no serious basis for disputing the authenticity of the videos. While the plaintiffs could have offered specific reasons why they are not fair depictions or argued that specific portions (or omissions) are misleading or prejudicial, they have not done so. See United States v. Goldin, 311 F.3d 191, 197 (3d Cir. 2002); Louis Vuitton S.A., 765 F.2d at 973-74; 2 Broun et al., McCormick on Evidence § 216, at 27 (6th ed. 2006). The authentication argument thus fails. The plaintiffs also repackage their attack as a Best Evidence Rule challenge, but the rule is a mechanical one and was satisfied here. The Best Evidence Rule, with some exceptions, requires the use of an original writing, recording, or photograph7 in proving its material contents, but a copy of a video recording is a duplicate admissible to the same extent as the original, Fed. R. Evid. 1001 & Fed. R. Evid. 1003 advisory committee's note, which largely ends the Best Evidence Rule inquiry in a case like this one. The plaintiffs say that language in an advisory committee note creates an exception for copies that leave out important material. See Fed. R. Evid. 1003 advisory committee's note (citing 7 Video tapes are considered photographs for purposes of the rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1001 advisory committee's note. -21- United States v. Alexander, 326 F.2d 736 (4th Cir. 1963)); Toho Bussan Kaisha, Ltd. v. Am. President Lines, Ltd., 265 F.2d 418 (2d Cir. 1958)). Here they say that the videos are incomplete because of the absence of footage in one video clip showing the entrance of journalists into the complex, and the absence in another clip of certain use of pepper spray. But this does not show that the videos are inaccurate or incomplete in the incidents that they depict or that taken together the tapes fail to include such footage of the entrance of reporters or the use of pepper spray. The exception alluded to by the plaintiffs is for extreme situations where there is reason to suspect extensive prejudicial manipulation, Alexander, 326 F.2d at 738 & n.4, or fraud, Toho Bussan, 265 F.2d at 424, and the plaintiffs' objections about the videos do not rise to such a level.