Imagine if it was you or a loved one that was murdered and a neighbor's camera caught the suspect breaking into the house.
>You could testify once that this is your camera and here are the mp4 files (and their sha sum). And that would be it.
This is just how the rules of evidence work (also equal protection and due process), you can't just submit video, there needs to be testimony to introduce the video into evidence. Further, the defendant has a constitutional right to cross examine the person who introduces the video into evidence.
>Equally, technically they didn't see anything as the video caught by the camera could actually be made up.
Yes, and the Defense will hammer this point home. You didn't see the murder right? If the video actually shows what it alleges to show, the defendant breaking into the home, you have no evidence the defendant actually killed the homeowner right? You have no evidence the defendant even confronted the deceased correct? Of course there are other questions about handling the video and chain of custody, but the obvious being was the video edited (by you or the police after turning it over to them)? Do you have a copy of the original video you turned over to police (is there a difference between the copies, etc...).
As another commented said there is no difference between the video and if you eye-witnessed the suspect entering the home, you would still testify one way or the other (including acknowledging you didn't see the suspect commit the murder and have no knowledge if the suspect committed the murder, its possible someone else could have broke in when you weren't watching, or around back, etc...)
The idea of cross-examining the person who introduces security camera video doesn't really make much sense. If the camera actually witnessed the crime what could the installation possibly have to do with it? The only time it could be relevant is if the camera simply showed when/where the suspect was.
I would like to see the system modified somewhat--in criminal trials everyone has to disclose what they are going to present anyway. The other side should be required to indicate if and in what way they are going to challenge the evidence. If there's no dispute about where the camera is then nobody need be available to testify to where it is. (As it's cloud there's no issue of when.)
>The idea of cross-examining the person who introduces security camera video doesn't really make much sense.
Well interestingly this is a major issue in red light camera cases. Initially as cities were implementing red light cameras, the ticket and court case were all essentially automated.
In many jurisdictions this was challenged on multiple grounds, but one of the biggest issues (which most courts tending to agree with) is violation of the defendants rights to cross examine the State's witness and improperly introducing the video into evidence (generally it was introduced by affidavit from some record keeper in the camera company).
That's basically a technicality. If the video clearly shows the entire offense (to me that would include showing the entire yellow so it can be measured against what it should have been) nothing else should matter.
On the other hand, if the camera doesn't show everything the camera software is in effect testifying--and it comes down to if there are any flaws in the software. The government does not have a good track record on this--breathalyzers inherently are relying on the software and the manufacturers won't permit examination (discovery refused, there goes the DUI case)--so in some places it's been declared unquestionable.
(Never mind that the breathalyzer inherently has a considerable error margin due to biology--the ratio between blood alcohol and breath alcohol varies from person to person. Quick screening test, fine, evidence for conviction--not in my book.)
You could testify once that this is your camera and here are the mp4 files (and their sha sum). And that would be it.
Equally, technically they didn't see anything as the video caught by the camera could actually be made up.