The Missing Body-Worn Camera Segment
A defendant is charged with assaulting an officer during a traffic stop. The state offers Officer Reyes's body-worn camera footage. The file runs 14 minutes, but the timestamp jumps from 00:06:12 to 00:09:40 - a 3-minute-28-second gap that includes the moment the struggle began. Reyes testifies that the camera's battery died and rebooted automatically. Defense counsel obtains the device's internal log, which shows no power interruption; instead it records a manual stop-and-restart command at 00:06:12. The prosecution concedes the gap but argues the remaining footage is authentic because the file's hash matches the manufacturer's export record. The defense moves to exclude the entire video, or in the alternative to admit the log and give a spoliation instruction. The judge must rule before the jury is sworn.
1. Under the evidence-fundamentals framework, how should the court analyze authenticity of the video as a whole, and does the hash match resolve the question?
Read the worked answer
Authentication under Rule 901 asks only whether the proponent has produced evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the item is what it claims to be - a low threshold. The hash match proves the exported file is unaltered since export; it says nothing about whether the recording is a complete and accurate depiction of the event. The internal log showing a manual restart contradicts Reyes's battery-death explanation and bears directly on the video's trustworthiness as a record of the encounter.
The court should separate two questions. First, authenticity: the state can likely clear 901 with Reyes's testimony that the footage fairly and accurately depicts what he observed during the recorded intervals. Second, completeness and the best-evidence principle: a proponent offering a writing or recording implicitly represents it is complete; deliberately created gaps invite exclusion or a completeness remedy. Because the gap was apparently intentional, the court has discretion to exclude the whole exhibit, admit only the intact segments with a limiting instruction, or admit it and permit the defense to introduce the log as evidence of manipulation. The hash does not cure the gap - it authenticates the container, not the content.
2. If the court admits the footage, what standard governs the spoliation instruction, and what must the defense show to be entitled to it?
Read the worked answer
Spoliation sanctions are governed by the court's inherent authority and, in federal practice, by the principle that a party's destruction of evidence within its control may support an adverse inference where the evidence was relevant and the party acted with a culpable state of mind. The defense must show: (1) the state had control over the recording; (2) the missing 3 minutes 28 seconds were relevant to a disputed issue - here, whether the officer used excessive force first; and (3) the state acted in bad faith or with notice that the evidence was relevant. The manual restart command, coupled with the false battery explanation, is strong circumstantial evidence of bad faith.
A caution: an adverse-inference instruction is not a substitute for the defendant's burden of production; it merely permits the jury to infer the missing portion was unfavorable to the state. If the court finds the gap was negligent rather than intentional, no instruction is warranted. The court should make findings on the record, and the instruction should be phrased permissively ('you may infer') rather than mandatorily.