Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting prosecution to show a YouTube video where, although officer testified ?he did not know when the video was made or who produced it? he testified that the video was an accurate depiction of what it looked like on YouTube such that the trial court ?could conclude that the video would assist jurors in determining the facts of the case and motivation for the crimes? and where the court determined that the issues of when and who produced the video spoke to issues of reliability and weight and that the images on the video (picture of the alleged victim with an ?x? over his face, for example) coupled with evidence linking defendant to the crime of attempted murder ?sufficiently link[ed] the video with the defendant?
Nature of Case: Attempted murder
Electronic Data Involved: YouTube video