Celebrity Video Judgement
June 9th, 2008 Posted in Digital Litigation Solutions, Legal Videography, Trial Consultants, Trial Graphics, Video Settlement Brochure, Video Site Inspections, Videotaping DepositionsSinger, songwriter, producer R. Kelly is performing on the biggest stage of his career as he defends against 14 counts of child pornography. Robert (R) Kelly faces 15 years in prison for acts allegedly performed in a now infamous sex tape. The special rules of “celebrity justice” that often protect celebrities may be at risk for R Kelly as the legal evidence video of his crime has been admitted and viewed by the jury in its entirety.
With few options for disputing what jurors saw with their own eyes, Mr. Kelly’s defense team has attacked the integrity of the tape itself, arguing that the 27 minute home-made film was doctored, if not manufactured, in an attempt to frame the singer. A defense forensic video expert called produced a doctored version of the tape on his home computer in a few hours.
The focus of this case has shifted away from the alleged actions of Mr. Kelly and now seems to be about the tapes validity. Not its contents, but its authenticity. The poor quality of the tape (which originally surfaced in February 2002) presents equal challenges for both experts hoping to impeach the footage as well as those who support its legitimacy. The primary point of contention is the presence/absence of a mole on the lower back of the man in the video record. Talk about splitting hairs!
Had this illicit footage been recorded on more advanced equipment, these arguments would be quickly laid to rest. A clean image with sharp focus and high contrast could have spelled disaster for Kelly’s counsel; guilt by multimedia trial presentation. There have been huge improvements in the arena of digital photography and legal videography in the last 6 years, most people now carry a decent 1.3 megapixel camera in their pockets (hint: cell phone). As technology continues to progress, it will become commonplace for a few seconds of home movie clips to condemn or exonerate the accused.
15 Responses to “Celebrity Video Judgement”
By Bud Colburn on Jun 9, 2008
It appears that the use of modern equipment would to be very relative inasmuch as the quality would not so questionable. Clean clear pictures with details enhanced should help defend or prosecute.
By LA on Jun 9, 2008
Dave Chappelle made fun of this 5 years ago and now it is finally going to trial…pooh on you R.Kelly
By Alle on Jun 9, 2008
14 counts…WOW! A video really speaks for itself..amazing it comes down to the discrepancy of a mole..!
By Sin on Jun 11, 2008
Technology is what it’s all about nowadays. You better watch yourself!!!
By J-boy on Jun 11, 2008
I could have told you that it’s all about moles! They’re a strange and unique identifier in a legal sense.
By Jas on Jun 11, 2008
How true! Unique identifiers like moles can sometimes make or break a case in trial deliberations.
By Reef on Jun 11, 2008
it amazes me how much technology can come into play in today’s modern courtroom, nice post guys
By Edwiin on Jun 11, 2008
When i think of R.Kelly i laugh and think of him being locked in a closet on South Park with Tom Cruise.
By san on Jun 11, 2008
finite technology for a technological age…will the bastard get his due?
By Fredrick on Jun 12, 2008
Kelly has declined to take the stand, but anyone who has listened to his music knows that he probably did it. I will be very impressed if his attorneys can discredit that video.. but if he does go to jail then R&B just wont be the same.
By Jerry Stelle on Jun 12, 2008
I would reduce the testimonials and add specific cases using this technology.
By Jerry Stelle on Jun 12, 2008
I would reduce the number of comments and add
specific cases using your technology.
By Jerry Stelle on Jun 12, 2008
I would reduce the comments and add specific
cases using your technology.
By Jerry Stelle on Jun 12, 2008
I would reduce the comments and add specific
cases that used your technology.
By CJD on Jun 12, 2008
Yes–big improvements have been made in the digital photography area withing the past few years. But a 1.3 megapixel cell phone camera produces a very low resolution image that is not scalable–I would delete that example.