The Supreme Court & YouTube

The Supreme Court has begun using YouTube as a means of evidence. The NY Times article that chronicles this says that if the justices can actually see videos chronicling the incidents at hand, they may not so easily go along with (or against) what jurors and lower-court judges ruled.

A law professor at Suffolk University, however, said that using videos as evidence is very dangerous. They are not cold hard facts such as DNA, but they are images taken from one perspective that could still be up for interpretation.

One lawyer argued that "video evidence is inherently more compelling than recorded testimony." He wasn't implying that it was better evidence, merely that it works the brain in a different way.

While this all makes sense, it certainly isn't new that a court of law would use a video as evidence. YouTube, however, is apparently the new way of doing it!!!