"Same as it Ever Was":

Why Audio-Video Recordings in and of Trial Court Proceedings Should Not Change the Standard of Appellate Review

July 19, 2024

By Eric Magnuson and Samuel Thumma

At a hypothetical trial, the only eyewitness testimony to the events in question is presented to the jury by video deposition. In that same hypothetical trial, the only other evidence that directly addresses key disputed facts is a video recording taken from a security camera showing an individual generally resembling the defendant in height and build, but which does not clearly show any facial features or other identifying characteristics. Assuming these pieces of evidence are properly admitted, on appeal, what is the appropriate standard of review to be applied to the factual determinations of the court or jury based on that evidence?

The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.

Disclaimer

Eric J. Magnuson

Partner

Chair, Appellate Practice
Pronouns: he/his

Hon. Samuel A Thumma

Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

Related Publications

December 7, 2022
Briefly: Electing Justice: How to Judge Judges
Eric Magnuson - Minnesota Lawyer
November 30, 2022
SCOTUS Term in Review
Ryan Marth and Caitlinrose Fisher - Eight Circuit Fall 2022 Newsletter
November 15, 2022
Briefly: Behind the Veil of Judicial Recusal
Eric Magnuson - Minnesota Lawyer
November 1, 2022
Briefly: 'Extraordinary Circumstances' For Relief from Judgment
Eric Magnuson, Brandon Carmack - Minnesota Lawyer
September 27, 2022
Briefly: 8th Circuit Introduces Quality Control Aid for Briefs
Eric Magnuson and Sandra Badin - Minnesota Lawyer
Back to Top