Even so. From what I can understand of this, I am very leery that it be admitted as evidence. Actually, as corrupted as the system is, it may get in after all.
But, it involves too much subjectivity on the part of the creator. It might be useful if there were better raw data - say three different videos from different angles. But this amalgamation is not that. Too much assumption and speculation.
MOM back for redirect.
Defense doesn’t really need this.
I can see it played during final arguments as the defense postulates its opinion as to what happened but not as evidence.
“Angry Trayvon” APP game.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/07/09/angry-trayvon-app-sparks-outrage/
It’s not “evidence”. It’s “demonstrative evidence.”
Big difference.
no...I’ve prepared court exhibits. it’s really impossible for the creator to create. what it does is add a time element.