“So, I THINK (I’m not a lawyer) Shaman’s lawyer couldn’t admit into evidence what we are now seeing because of evidentiary rules barring him from doing so.”
I think chain of custody matters more for prosecutors. It may apply to both sides, but prosecutors are the ones who have restrictions on them to protect the rights of the accused. The government (the accuser) has no such rights to protect.
You are wrong. That is not how rules of evidence work in court.
IF there was a chain of custody issue (1) that is a defense, not a prosecution issue since it is the gov. that holds every link of that chain and (2) there is nothing, just nothing, casting doubt on the ‘chain’ of this video. Came directly from the gov. to the reporter. Gov. is the only entity in possession of originals. There is no ‘chain’ here.
Stop with the red herrings.