This forum has had a couple topics posted on this subject before but I may need a bit more help.

PCS w/ Intent trial coming up on the 17th stemming from a controlled buy. The CI made the purchase and was wearing a button camera which was recording audio and video. The tape is pretty good other than the small detail that the bad guy's face is never actually seen in the video although his voice is clearly audible, his body is clearly seen and the snitch can testify to identity (he has bought crack from him numerous times including multiple times in conjunction with narcotics department at the PD - my favorite type of "how do you know him?" cross examination question. The control cop and another cop were doing surveillance and say they can also identify the bad guy. Not the best facts but its what we have. Here is the problem - CI was arrested in our office Friday morning on unrelated charges. He wasn't excited about testifying in the first place and now it is a crap shoot if the subpoena will ever find his hands and if it does, what he'd actually say in court. I feel like I can try it without the testimony of the CI if need be, but I am struggling with video authentication and identification. Tips and "go get 'ems" are appreciated. Thanks for y'all's help.

and not to mention to the 5th Amendment elephant in the room.

Can't the investigator who was working the CI testify about the camera, how & when it was placed, and how long it was with CI before returned to the investigator to authenticate the video? (Hoping it was only with the CI for a limited time and immediately returned to the investigator.) Is anyone else familiar with defendant's voice -- like the investigator or other officers who have arrested him in the past?

"Is anyone else familiar with defendant's voice -- like the investigator or other officers who have arrested him in the past?"

This is how the control officer can identify him. They have dealt with him so many times that they can ID him with a blindfold on.

Authentication of the video - since the cop wasn't wearing the camera, and wasn't "there" for the buy, can he testify that it has not been altered?

I think e. hernandez is on the right track- all you need to show is that the video was made properly, and represents accurately what it purports to represent. Whoever set up the camera can testify that it was working properly, that it was set up correctly, that the video was downloaded, it wasn't corrupted, and that it hasn't been edited. That should be enough to get it admitted.

Then it's up to your officers to put the context around it and to connect the guy in the video to the guy sitting in the defendant's chair.

Thanks for your help, guys. I also foresee a 404(b) issue with the investigator ID'ing the crook - have any of you dealt with this? Sure it would be easy if the cop was the crook's play cousin, but they know him because he is a drug dealer - thoughts?

sorry I glossed over your original post where it says the officers can also id the D.

As to the officer/s testifying about how they know D, I have dealt with it this way: just have the officers say they have encountered him during the course of their duties as a police officer. That is ambiguous enough to not prejudice the defendant -- they could have met him as a victim, informant, suspect, person in the community. If the defense wants to clarify the ambiguity, let them.

Video: If the officer/s can testify the defendant returned the video camera to the officers very shortly after the drug deal/s, the chances of it being tampered with are greatly reduced. Then they can testify the CI didn't have an opportunity to edit the tape because they received it from CI almost immediately after the deal. [not trying to put words into their mouths, but that is normally how things happen when officers are working with CIs.]