There is an interesting article on the New York Times’ website on the U.S. Supreme Court entering the “era of YouTube.” There’s a petition before the high court in a case alleging police brutality that starts with a cite to a YouTube video. (Now what’s proper Bluebook form for that?)
The case itself is pretty grim. The defendant, who was having personal and financial troubles at the time, went to pieces after being pulled over for a driving infraction that would have meant a $175 citation. He refused to sign the citation, and was cuffed with hands behind his back. Sobbing and sitting on the side of the road, the defendant repeatedly refused to get up. A police officer used a Taser gun on him three times over the course of a few minutes in attempts to get him to cooperate. (Here’s the link to the six-minute YouTube video of the incident.) The defendant later sued.
Appellate judges would normally defer to the factual findings of juries and trial court judges rather than weighing the evidence themselves. But that quaint custom may be yet another victim of the Internet like, say, the Rocky Mountain News. Here’s how the New York Times piece concludes:
Michael R. Masinter, a lawyer for Mr. Buckley, said that “video evidence is inherently more compelling than recorded testimony.” But he did not claim that it is always better evidence, only that it works on the brain in a different way.
“It’s less a question of law,” he said, “and more one of how we have evolved as a species.”
So the next time you file a brief with the nation’s highest court, don’t be surprised if the justices tell you, “Thanks, but we”ll wait for the video.”
