Nope.
I am a lawyer and the standard for admissibility of pictorial evidence is: (1) you are the person who took it and testify as to its creation (2) you are the person depicted and testify it “is you” (3) you were there at the time and testify the pic/video accurately rep’s what happened (4) no-one objects and its intro’d by stipulation [99% are this way as no-one seriously disputes pics/video].
Alternate method is to intro it as a “business record” - which would also apply in this case. The ‘custodian’ of records comes in and testifies [usually through a written declaration] as to the manner of recording, date, time, ordinary practices, etc.
Again, almost never is an issue that is seriously argued.
..........so, why do you think Shaman’s lawyer did not use this video?
Remember the article I was reading and commenting on stated the video (portions of Shaman walking the halls) had been out a long time ago.
I hope his lawyer will file a motion to vacate the conviction based on violations of Brady v. Maryland.