context: A second doctrine for authenticating a videotape is under the "silent witness" theory. This theory applies when no person can verify, by personal observation, that the videotape actually represents what occurred.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: photos taken at an automatic teller were admissible under the "silent witness" theory since foundational requirement was satisfied circumstantially by evidence which establishes the reliability of the process or system which produces the photograph
citation_a.sentence: See also United States v. Howell, 16 M.J. 1003 (A.C.M.R.1983) (photos taken at an automatic teller were admissible under the “silent witness” theory since foundational requirement was satisfied circumstantially by evidence which establishes the reliability of the process or system which produces the photograph); United States v. Taylor, 530 F.2d 639 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845, 97 S.Ct. 127, 50 L.Ed.2d 117 (1976) (videotape was admissible after a government witness talked about operation of camera even though no witness actually verified the transactions observed within the tape); State v. Bunting, 187 N.J.Super. 506, 455 A.2d 531 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1983) (testimony regarding installation, activation and view of the camera, use and security of the camera, the testing and removal of film, and testimony as to the chain of custody of film was sufficient foundation to admit film which was taken during commission of the crime).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: videotape of defendant removing groceries through rear door of store while store personnel were absent was held admissible
citation_b.sentence: See Fisher v. State, 7 Ark.App. 1, 643 S.W.2d 571 (Ark.Ct.App.1982) (videotape of defendant removing groceries through rear door of store while store personnel were absent was held admissible).