> I'm sure everyone would agree that people have eyes and phones and that a phone can take pictures. Why is that a fact claim? Just show the pictures.
Every single one of those questions is establishing a fact in the record without which the opposing counsel would potentially have grounds to object to the presentation of the pictures. You can’t just show pictures without an explanation through facts themselves introduced as evidence, whether by testimony or otherwise, unless freely stipulated by the opposing party, of what the evidence is, where it came from, and why it is relevant.
Again, yeah, it makes crappy theater. The rules are about due process for the parties in a case, not keeping the proceedings engaging for an audience.
Every single one of those questions is establishing a fact in the record without which the opposing counsel would potentially have grounds to object to the presentation of the pictures. You can’t just show pictures without an explanation through facts themselves introduced as evidence, whether by testimony or otherwise, unless freely stipulated by the opposing party, of what the evidence is, where it came from, and why it is relevant.
Again, yeah, it makes crappy theater. The rules are about due process for the parties in a case, not keeping the proceedings engaging for an audience.