Md. Supreme Court to rule on Baltimore criminal case involving video authentication

Listen to this article

The Maryland Supreme Court has agreed to hear a criminal case that will determine whether the Maryland Appellate Court lowered the requirements for authentication of video evidence when the court admitted video of a shooting.

The high court granted certiorari late last week to decide whether authentication of video through the “pictorial testimony theory” is permitted, where a witness did not see the entirety of the events depicted in the video.

In an unreported opinion written by Senior Judge James R. Eyler and decided in October of last year, the Maryland Appellate Court affirmed the Baltimore City Circuit Court’s ruling that found Christopher Mooney guilty of second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and illegal handgun possession, among other charges. The trial court sentenced Mooney to a total aggregate sentence of 28 years’ incarceration.

On appeal, Mooney argued the video depicting him firing shots into the back of a vehicle and subsequently fleeing the scene should not have been admitted by the trial court because the foundational requirements for authentication were not met.

Specifically, according to the appellate court’s opinion, Mooney argued that the witness, and target, of the shooting could not authenticate the video under the pictorial testimony method of authentication because the witness “was not a witness to the entirety of the video.” According to Mooney, the witness did not see the “critical shooting part of the video” because the witness had his back to Mooney when Mooney fired the gun.

According to the appellate court’s opinion, under the pictorial testimony theory of authentication, photographic evidence can be authenticated through the testimony of a witness with personal knowledge, and videos are admissible “to illustrate testimony of a witness when that witness testifies from first-hand knowledge that they fairly and accurately represents the scene or object it purports to depict as it existed at the relevant time.”

The state of Maryland argued that Mooney’s claim as to authentication of the video was not preserved because Mooney did not make this specific argument at trial. The appellate court rejected this argument, finding Mooney’s argument that the video, captured by a residential Ring camera, could have been altered was sufficient to preserve his appellate claim.

“Although [the witness’s] back was facing Mooney when Mooney shot him, [the witness] testified from personal knowledge about the location and events of the shooting, as captured on the video,” the appellate court wrote. “The limitations on [the witness’s] peripheral vision during the shooting went only to the weight of his testimony and not to the admissibility of the video.”

Counsel for Mooney did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

In September 2021, Mooney approached the witness outside a medical marijuana dispensary in Baltimore City. At trial, the witness testified that he suspected Mooney was involved in a sexual relationship with the witness’s then-girlfriend and mother of his child.

According to the appellate opinion, after a brief exchange between the two, Mooney stopped behind the witness’s vehicle, fired shots into the back of the vehicle and fled the scene. One of the bullets struck the witness’s back near his spine but did not penetrate his body.

A Baltimore City Police Department detective obtained a nearby residence’s Ring video footage of the shooting, which the state of Maryland introduced into evidence at trial over Mooney’s objection.

A spokesperson for the Maryland Office of the Attorney General declined to comment.

The case before the Maryland Supreme Court is scheduled for June, according to court records.