This matter concerns a challenge to the trial court’s decision to permit the jury to replay surveillance video evidence in slow motion and with intermittent pauses during deliberations in a criminal trial. Although this case involved a criminal matter, the holding may also be utilized in a civil case. In the case of State v. Knight, 2024 N.J. LEXIS 1174 (Sup. Ct. Dec. 18, 2024), three men were on trial for robbing a victim behind a deli. The issue in Knight was whether the trial court properly permitted a surveillance video taken from inside the deli, showing four men walking outside past the deli’s back door, to be played in slow motion during deliberations.
Allegedly, three men robbed a victim behind the deli. The victim identified defendants as two of the robbers. However, at trial, defendants disputed the identification and their involvement in the robbery.
During the trial, the State presented a surveillance video taken from inside the deli about six seconds in length, that showed, for about two seconds, four men walking outside past the partially obscured window in the deli’s back door. In addition to playing the video as part of its case and again several times in closing, the State played the video once in slow motion.
During jury deliberations, the jury requested that the video be replayed several more times in slow motion, at other varying speeds, and with intermittent pauses. Although the defendants objected, the trial court judge permitted those playbacks under her supervision in the court room. Ultimately, the jury found defendants guilty of armed robbery and other defenses.
This conviction was appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed, finding no reversable error concerning the slow-motion video replays. The Appellate Division held that relevant “surveillance video evidence may be presented during a trial or closing argument . . . in slow motion or at other varying speeds or with intermittent pauses, if the trial court reasonably finds [it] would assist the juror’s understanding of the pertinent events and help them resolve disputed factual issues.” Further, the Appellate Division found that “trial courts have the discretion to grant a jury’s request during deliberations to replay surveillance videos in such modes one or more times, provided that the playbacks occur in open court under the judge’s supervision and in the presence of counsel.”
Further, the Appellate Division ruled that the trial court, in exercising its discretion as to whether to permit the replays of the surveillance videos should consider among other things the following:
A. Whether the video has a soundtrack that contains recorded statements of the filmed persons;
B. Whether the video is difficult to discern when played only at a normal speed;
C. Whether the video can assist in resolving disputed issues of identification;
D. Whether the video bears upon disputed issues of intentionality; and
E. Whether the video contains content that is particularly disturbing or inflammatory to watch repeatedly in slow motion.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Division and affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appellate Division decision. The Court concurred with the Appellate Division’s list of non-exclusive factors for trial courts to consider in exercising their discretion.
Further, the Supreme Court noted that watching a video in slow motion is not beyond the ken of an average juror. It would not require any kind of specialized knowledge. It would be similar to a case in which the Court had permitted the use of a conventional magnifying glass during deliberations to view a photograph in evidence. In that case, the Court had determined that the magnifying glass was not new evidence but nearly a commonplace tool familiar to the jury.
Here, the Supreme Court noted that playing in slow motion the same video that was properly admitted into evidence to highlight the action occurring on screen and assist the jury was no different from allowing a jury to use a magnifying glass to inspect a picture. However, some tools or functions may be so specialized that their usage constitutes an alteration of evidence or creating new evidence. In those type of situations, the Court noted that an expert may be needed to testify about the modifications.
Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the Appellate Division and upheld the trial court’s ruling to permit the video to be played back in slow motion.
