State v. Melendez, 291 Conn. 693, 970 A.2d 64 (2009)

Key Insight: Having previously established a standard for the authentication of computer generated evidence in State v. Swinton, 268 Conn. 781,847 A.2d 921 (2004), court highlighted distinction between ?technologies that may be characterized as merely presenting evidence and those that are more accurately described as creating evidence? and held that unmodified surveillance footage did not constitute computer generated evidence for purposes of Swinton; testimony of camera operator that the footage presented to the court was the same footage he observed when the images were originally captured was sufficient to authenticate the unmodified video; court?s admission of modified video footage was harmless error

Nature of Case: Sale of narcotics

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.