Admissibility Of Day In The Life
Generally proponents have been successful in admitting these
films into evidence."' "Day in the life" films that have been properly authenticated, and structured to survive the defendant's objections," are usually admissible. An outline of the leading cases in
this area of the law will demonstrate the variety of factual circumstances in which these films are admitted, and will provide a starting point for an analysis of the evidential principles governing admission. The most noteworthy case is Grimes v. Employers
Mutual Liability Insurance Co.In Grimes, the plaintiff, having
suffered severe injury in an industrial accident, had a film produced which depicted him performing a variety of daily activities. The court held that the film was admissible and relevant in portraying the nature and extent of the plaintiff's damages. The
court's analysis exemplifies the basic theme alluded to above: "day
in the life" films are generally admissible if the foundation is adequate, and if they are not barred by a specific objection addressed to the particular film
A third case in which the court upheld admission of a "day in the life" film is Capara v. Chrysler Corp. In Capara, the plaintiff was severely injured in an automobile collision and brought a products liability suit against Chrysler. The plaintiff sought to introduce a ten minute film purporting to document the plaintiff's daily routine as a quadriplegic. The Capara court upheld admission of the film because it illustrated the injuries the plaintiff suffered, and the care he required. These cases demonstrate the variety of factual circumstances under which admission of these films has been upheld. Gaining admission of a "day in the life" film, however, is not a simple matter. In addition to extensive foundation requirements, a wide range of legitimate objections will be raised against an improper film. Because these films constitute a powerful evidentiary tool, most courts will closely analyze the merits of each objection, as well as the thoroughness of the foundation, in order to ensure that the defendant is not unduly prejudiced.
As a general proposition, "day in the life" films are admissible evidence. Admissibility, however, will always turn on whether the proponent has provided an adequate foundation. The film must be relevant to a material issue in the case, and must be thoroughly authenticated to guarantee the accuracy of its contents. If these foundation requirements are satisfied, the majority of courts will admit the film into evidence. Various procedural safeguards are required, or strongly suggested, in order to assure admissibility. The proponent should always provide the opponent and the court an opportunity to view the entire film prior to trial. This procedure might take the form of a motion for a preliminary hearing in order to promptly determine admissibility. Even so, admission is far from certain as the defendant has a barrage of powerful evidentiary objections at his disposal. Furthermore, some courts, like the courts in Haley and Thomas, may exclude these films because of an alleged inappropriateness in general, without relying on a specific objection. In order to minimize the possibility of exclusion, the proponent is advised to take the initiative by bifurcating the trial.
A third case in which the court upheld admission of a "day in the life" film is Capara v. Chrysler Corp. In Capara, the plaintiff was severely injured in an automobile collision and brought a products liability suit against Chrysler. The plaintiff sought to introduce a ten minute film purporting to document the plaintiff's daily routine as a quadriplegic. The Capara court upheld admission of the film because it illustrated the injuries the plaintiff suffered, and the care he required. These cases demonstrate the variety of factual circumstances under which admission of these films has been upheld. Gaining admission of a "day in the life" film, however, is not a simple matter. In addition to extensive foundation requirements, a wide range of legitimate objections will be raised against an improper film. Because these films constitute a powerful evidentiary tool, most courts will closely analyze the merits of each objection, as well as the thoroughness of the foundation, in order to ensure that the defendant is not unduly prejudiced.
As a general proposition, "day in the life" films are admissible evidence. Admissibility, however, will always turn on whether the proponent has provided an adequate foundation. The film must be relevant to a material issue in the case, and must be thoroughly authenticated to guarantee the accuracy of its contents. If these foundation requirements are satisfied, the majority of courts will admit the film into evidence. Various procedural safeguards are required, or strongly suggested, in order to assure admissibility. The proponent should always provide the opponent and the court an opportunity to view the entire film prior to trial. This procedure might take the form of a motion for a preliminary hearing in order to promptly determine admissibility. Even so, admission is far from certain as the defendant has a barrage of powerful evidentiary objections at his disposal. Furthermore, some courts, like the courts in Haley and Thomas, may exclude these films because of an alleged inappropriateness in general, without relying on a specific objection. In order to minimize the possibility of exclusion, the proponent is advised to take the initiative by bifurcating the trial.
Comments
Post a Comment