Cameras widen scope of evidence presented during trial

With the proliferation of surveillance and cellphone cameras, more Hawaii juries could end up watching videos like the one in federal agent Christopher Deedy’s murder trial, legal experts say.

The soundless video from the McDonald’s restaurant security cameras was played repeatedly for the jurors and dissected by the prosecution and defense to support each side’s version of the events on the early morning of Nov. 5, 2011.

A cellphone video taken by a bystander in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Kollin Elderts at the Kuhio Avenue restaurant also was shown to jurors.

Throughout the 20 days of testimony, lawyers directed Deedy as well as witnesses and police to watch the video images and explain to the jury what was happening.

"Without question, it’s going to be more and more common," said Jack Tonaki, head of the state Public Defender’s Office.

Said former city Deputy Prosecutor Franklin Don Pacarro: "I think it’s a sign of the changing times. All of these private business establishments are introducing security cameras to protect their patrons. Businesses are also protecting themselves from crimes. Civilians are mounting cameras on their homes. So nowadays, one of the first things police do in addition to the traditional methods of obtaining evidence is to check to see if there are surveillance videos available."

The point was underscored nationally in April when the FBI released surveillance videos and photos of the two suspects within three days of the Boston Marathon bombings.

In Hawaii, surveillance videos are often used by law enforcement to help identify and capture suspects in cases ranging from bank robberies to store thefts.

"It’s very common now," Tonaki said. "There’s going to be more and more cases that involve this type of evidence."

Technological advances have also increased law enforcement’s reliance on videos as the images become more fluid and sharper, experts contend.

"Everybody basically carries a video camera in their pockets now," Tonaki said, referring to cellphones.

Statewide, he said, his office handles many cases of fights, thefts and other incidents captured on video — usually by private surveillance cameras.

But there has been no corresponding increase in videos surfacing at trial because a theft suspect, for example, caught "red-handed" on the video might resolve the case by pleading guilty, Tonaki said.

Kenneth Lawson, a University of Hawaii law school faculty member who teaches criminal procedure and law, said that at department stores the technology has advanced to the point where the camera’s focus is good enough to determine the denomination of cash bills.

"The evidence is so strong because of the new technology, you will not see it come to trial," he said.

Tonaki said there may be a potential issue for trial lawyers to address if the surveillance and cellphone videos become so pervasive that jurors expect to see the recordings.

He said it might be like fingerprint evidence. The defense might point out the lack of prints on a weapon used in a crime, while the prosecutor would explain why the prints couldn’t be obtained.

Lawson said videos have already played key roles in some mainland trials, notably the case of the Rodney King beating by Los Angeles police officers in 1991. The beating was videotaped by a nearby resident.

He added, though, that the value of video depends on which side the viewer is "rooting for," similar to National Football League replays of a disputed fumble.

"Video plays a big part, but it also comes down to who tells the best story" based on the images and the evidence, he said.

"You got both sides telling you what your eyes are seeing," Lawson said.

The video in the Deedy trial is available for jurors to review.

The eight men and four women have deliberated for an afternoon and four full days without reaching a verdict to either acquit or convict Deedy of second-degree murder.

They resumes deliberations today.