Tell me, counselor, are you saying he cannot present the same video evidence at trial?
I’m not a counselor. He could. Why involve the public before going to court?
“.....are you saying he cannot present the same video evidence at trial?”
There is a strong chance it can be thrown out if the defense attorney argues the evidence is unfairly prejudicial. Courts will exclude evidence if its value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
The most overwhelming part of Sandman’s case against the media is that he, the poor 16 year old boy, was attacked in the press and they shouldn’t be “picking on” a young boy. If that video is played it obviously attempts to gain a prejudicial effect whether it’s the truth or not. Again, that’s the whole gist of his case and not that he was liabled, but liabled as a child.
Additionally, and you may see this one, they can argue that the audiotape is not a complete depiction and that its admissions may confuse the jury with a lack of pertinent evidence not displayed. If they had shown this first in court, at the time of the trial, it would have been thrown out. But the point of the harassment of that “poor young boy” would have been imaged in the minds of the jury. And that’s almost all this is for and little for the case itself.
rwood