Chapter 6 - § 6.11 DAY-IN-THE-LIFE FILMS

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 6.11 DAY-IN-THE-LIFE FILMS

Colorado

No reported decisions. But see Maloney v. Brassfield, 251 P.3d 1097, 1109 (Colo. App. 2010) (surveillance video relevant because nature and extent of injuries "hotly contested," and video not scientific evidence requiring expert testimony).

Federal

➢ General. The prejudicial effect of a videotape of a person's behavior is to be judged on a case-by-case basis. See Durflinger v. Artiles, 727 F.2d 888, 894 (10th Cir. 1984).

➢ Pretrial Determination. Day-in-the-life film should be examined outside the presence of the jury to determine if the probative value outweighs the possibility of prejudice under FRE 403. Bannister v. Town of Noble, 812 F.2d 1265, 1270 (10th Cir. 1987). Prejudicial possibility is "significantly reduced when the subject of that film can be cross-examined at trial." Id.

➢ Admissibility. A video depicting an injured worker in his daily routine after amputation resulting from a work-related injury was admissible, where the judge viewed the entire video outside the presence of the jury and, when it was shown to the jury, the court explicitly instructed jurors that they were not to consider the accident's harm to the worker's family, and where the worker was present in the courtroom and

...