I am on the verge of retiring after 30+ years as a court
reporter. Obviously, and naturally, I know literally hundreds of
lawyers. As a prelude to retirement, a couple of years ago I
began to offer certain photographic services geared to the needs
of the legal community. It is proving to be both fun and
lucrative. I just don't want it to become full-time.
But I digress. Now to the point: I advise all my lawyer clients
to challenge ANY photograph offered in evidence at trial by an
opponent if it is in any way whatsoever detrimental to their
case. I tell them they should strenuously object based upon the
generally common knowledge of the trickery possible through
digital photographic manipulation and demand that an original
negative or transparency be produced to authenticate the picture
being challenged. Whether or not the objection is sustained by
the court, it still provides a great point to raise in argument to
the jury, because almost everyone nowadays has at least seen
enough tricked up TV commercials to realize you can't necessarily
believe it just because you saw a picture of it.
Earlier this month, on the same day, I had TWO lawyer clients
thank me for this bit of advice because they believe they
prevailed in cases they were trying at least in part because their
opponents used digital photographs and couldn't sufficiently
authenticate them and had to fume and fidget while enduring
bombast and charges of computerized chicanery in closing argument.
In keeping with my advice, I provide the negatives with all
photographs, which gives me an added bonus: I don't have to keep
up with all this crap! I deliver the photographs, the negatives,
and the bill, and then I go to the bank and forget about it.
Walt
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|