Visual Images in the Courtroom: a Historical Perspective
2008; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 14; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/13534640802416827
ISSN1460-700X
Autores Tópico(s)Photography and Visual Culture
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. David Mellinkoff, The Language of the Law (Boston: Little, Brown, 1963), p.vi. 2. Jennifer L. Mnookin, ‘The Image of Truth: Photographic Evidence and the Power of Analogy’, Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 10 (1998), pp.1–74 (pp.7–14). 3. Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, ‘The Image of Objectivity’, Representations, 40 (1992), pp.81–128. 4. Jennifer L. Mnookin, ‘The Image of Truth: Photographic Evidence and the Power of Analogy’. 5. Oliver Wendell Holmes, ‘The Stereoscope and The Stereograph’, The Atlantic Monthly, 3 (June 1859) [n.p.]. 6. Franklin v. State, 69 Ga. 39; 49 Am. Rep. 748 (1882). 7. Anonymous, ‘The Photograph as a False Witness’, Virginia Law Review, 10 (1886), p.644. 8. See for example, Charles Baudelaire, ‘Le Public Moderne et La Photographie’, in Curiosités Esthiques, Ouvres Complètes de Charles Baudelaire (Paris: Louis Conard, 1923), vol. 1, pp.264–72; Peter Henry Emerson, Photography, a Pictorial Art, The Amateur Photographer, 3 (19 March 1886), pp.138–39; Alfred Stieglitz, ‘Pictorial Photography’, Scribner's Magazine, 26 (November 1899), pp.528–37; Cf. Mary Warner Marien, Photography and Its Critics: A Cultural History, 1839–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 9. Luco v. United States (1859) 64 U.S. reports, 515. 10. Jennifer L. Mnookin, ‘The Image of Truth: Photographic Evidence and the Power of Analogy’, pp.41–42. 11. Cowley v. People 83 N.Y. 464 (1881) 478. 12. Editorial, ‘Photographs as Evidence’, Minnesota Law Review, 2 (1894), pp.91–96; George Lawyer, ‘Photographs as Evidence’, Central Law Journal, 41 (1895), pp.52–56; John Henry Wigmore, A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Boston: Little, Brown, 1904), section 791. 13. Jennifer L. Mnookin, ‘The Image of Truth: Photographic Evidence and the Power of Analogy’, pp.45–50. 14. For the judicial attitude toward another technology, the lie detector, during the same period, see Tal Golan, Law of Man and Laws of Nature: A History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), pp.211–53. 15. E. Sunderland, ‘The Inefficiency of the American Jury’, Michigan Law Review, 13 (1914), pp.307–09; Anonymous, ‘The Changing Role of the Jury in the nineteenth Century’, Yale Law Journal, 74 (1964), pp.170–97. 16. John H. Wigmore, A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, section 790. 17. Tal Golan, ‘The Emergence of the Silent Witness: The Legal and Medical Reception of X‐rays in the USA’, Social Studies of Science, 34 (2004), pp.469–99. 18. Tal Golan, ‘The Emergence of the Silent Witness’. 19. Sanford Withers, ‘The Story of the First Evidence’, Radiology, 17 (1934), pp.100–01 (p.100). 20. Bruce v. Beall (1897) 99 Tenn. 303, 41 S.W. 445. 21. Edward C. Halperin, ‘X‐Rays at the Bar, 1896–1910’, Investigative Radiology, 23 (1988), pp.639–46; William W. Goodrich, ‘The Legal Status of the X‐Ray’, Brooklyn Medical Journal, 17 (1903), pp.515–17; Orlando F. Scott, ‘Röntgenograms and their Chronological Legal Recognition’, Illinois Law Review, 24 (1929), pp.674–79. 22. Miller v. Dumon (1901) 24 Wash. 648, 64 Pac. 804. 23. Bruce v. Beall (1897) 99 Tenn. 303, 41 S.W. 445. 24. Elzig v. Bales (1907) 135 Iowa 208, 112 N. W. 540 25. Lyman P. Wilson, ‘The X‐Ray in Court’, Cornell Law Quarterly, 7 (1922), pp. 202–34; 335–51. 26. See Tal Golan, ‘The Emergence of the Silent Witness’. 27. Eugene F. Sanger, ‘Report on Malpractice’, Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, 100 (1879), p.46; George Law, ‘Malpractice Suits’, Denver Medical Times, 16 (1896), pp.2–11; Kenneth A. De Ville, Medical Malpractice in Nineteenth‐Century America: Origins and Legacy (New York: New York University Press, 1990). 28. See Tal Golan, ‘The Emergence of the Silent Witness’. 29. Mihran Kassabian, ‘The Roentgen Rays in Forensic Medicine’, Medico‐Legal Journal, 1 (1901), pp.407–17; Mihran Kassabian, ‘The Value of the Roentgen Rays in the Diagnosis of Fractures’, Archives of the Roentgen Ray, 9 (1904), pp.142–46. 30. Sidney Lange, ‘The Present Status of the Roentgen Ray’, Lancet‐Clinic, 26 (January 1907), pp.79–83 (p.79). 31. Lang v. Marshalltown L. & R. Co. (1919) 185 Iowa 940. 32. George H. Stover, ‘The Professional Position of the Röntgenologist’, New York Medical Journal, 91 (1910), pp.16–17 (p.16). 33. Ellsworth Eliot, ‘The Legal Responsibility to the Surgeon and Practitioner Which the Use of the X‐Ray Involves’, Annals of Surgery (Philadelphia), 3 (1916), p.483. 34. Marion v. Coon Construction Co. (1915) 216 N.Y. 178, 110 N.E. 444. 35. Charles Scott, Photographic Evidence: Preparation and Presentation (Kansas City: Vernon Law Book, 1942), section 269. Judicial Notice is a legal procedure of convenience whereby the court recognizes that a certain factual claim had reached the stage of a generally known truth, thereby relieving the litigants of the burden of producing evidence to prove that claim time and again. 36. John H. Anderson, ‘The Admissibility of Photographs as Evidence’, North Carolina Law Review, 7 (1929), pp.443–49. 37. The only attempt to develop such a theory – of best secondary evidence – found little following. See W. Mack, ed., Corpus Juris, 72 vols (New York: American Law Book, 1914–1922), vol. 22, p.992. 38. See for example, People v. Doggett (1948). In that case, a husband and wife were convicted of oral sex perversion. The only evidence introduced at the trial was a photograph taken of the defendants in flagrante delicto. No verifying witness was available, of course, but the photograph was admitted anyway. See also Hartley v. A.I. Rudd Lumber Co. (1937) 282 Michigan 652; Carner v. St. Louis‐San Francisco Ry. Co. (1935) 89 S.W. 947; Watkins v. Reinhardt (1942) 293 Alabama 243; Lohman v. Wabash (1954) 269 S. W. 885. 39. Dillard S. Gardner, ‘The Camera Goes to Court’, North Carolina Law Review, 24 (1946), p.244. See also the McKelvey's 1944 popular handbook on evidence that warned its readers that ‘some photographs, even though offered as explanatory of condition, take on a double character and are both illustrative of what the witness describes and mediums through which original evidence reach the jury.’ John J. McKelvey, Handbook on the Law of Evidence, 5th edn (St Paul, MN: West, 1944), §§380 and 669. 40. United States v. Hobbs (1968) 403 F.2d 977; United States v. Taylor (1976) 530 F.2d 639; United States v. Calyton (1981) 643 F.2d 1071. 41. United States v. Hobbs (1968); United States v. Taylor (1976); United States v. Calyton 1981) 42. Edward V. Olson, ‘Case Note: Evidence – Adoption of the “Silent Witness Theory” – Bergner v. State’, Indiana Law Review, 3 (1980), pp.1025–53; James McNeal, ‘Silent Witness Evidence in Relation to the Illustrative Evidence Foundation’, Oklahoma Law Review, 37 (1984), pp.219–44. 43. Catherine Guthrie, and Brittan Mitchell, ‘The Swinton Six: The impact of State v. Swinton on the Authentication of Digital Images’, Stetson Law Review, 36 (2007), pp.661–723; Theresa Rubinas, ‘File Cabinets: A Thing of the Past? Document Imaging Offers Alternative to Paper Trail’, Legal Management, 25 (2006), pp.50–52; David M. Louie, ‘Use and Admissibility of High Definition Video Visibility Studies, Computer Animations and Computer Simulations’, FDCC Quarterly, 87 (Fall 2007), p.58; Rotondo Broughel, H.James and Edgar B. Hatrick, ‘Digital Images: Don't Blink or You Will Miss Them’, Product Liability Law & Strategy (March 2005), pp.3–4; Jill Witkowski, ‘Can Juries Really Believe What They See? New Foundational Requirements for the Authentication of Digital Images’, Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 10 (2002), p.267; James I. Keane, ‘Prestidigitalization: Magic, Evidence and Ethics In Forensic Digital. Photography’, Ohio Northern Law Review, 25 (1999), p.585. 44. Jane Campbell Moriarty, ‘Flickering Admissibility: Neuroimaging Evidence in the U.S. Courts’, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26 (2008), pp.29–49; Neal Feigenson, ‘Brain Imaging and Courtroom Evidence: on the Admissibility and Persuasiveness of fMRI’, International Journal of Law in Context, 2 (2006), pp.233–55; Jennifer Kulynych, ‘Psychiatric Neuroimaging Evidence: A High‐tech Crystal Ball?’, Stanford Law Review, 49 (1997), pp.1249–70; Joseph Dumit, Picturing Personhood (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). 45. Laird C. Kirkpatrick and Christopher B. Mueller, Evidence: Practice Under the Rules, 2nd edn (Gaithersburg: Aspen Law & Business, 2008), § 9.31m p.1476. 46. Charles Wright and Graham Kenneth, Federal Practice and Procedure (Eagan: West, 1978) vol. 22, § 5172. 47. Robert D. Brain and Daniel J. Broderick, ‘The Derivative Relevance of Demonstrative Evidence: Charting its Proper Evidentiary Status’, University of California at Davis Law Review, 25 (1992), pp.965–67. 48. Consider for example how the lawyers will deploy the emerging technologies of virtual reality. See Jeremy N. Bailenson, ‘Courtroom Applications of Virtual Environments, Immersive Virtual Environments, and Collaborative Virtual Environments’, Law and Policy, 28 (April 2006), pp.249–70; Michael J. Thali et al., ‘Virtopsy – A New Imaging Horizon in Forensic Pathology: Virtual Autopsy by Postmortem Multislice Computer Tomography (MSCT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) – A Feasibility Study’, Journal of Forensic Science, 48 (March 2003), pp.386–403. See also Andrew E. Taslitz, ‘Digital Juries versus Digital Lawyers’, Criminal Justice Magazine, 19 (2004), pp.4–13.
Referência(s)