UPDATES & ANALYSIS

A video of a video could be used as evidence in criminal trial, Iowa Supreme Court holds

by Rox Laird | October 13, 2025

A video of a video may be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial provided there is proper foundation that the evidence is what it is said to be, the Iowa Supreme Court held in a decision handed down Oct. 3.

In the case of State v. Manning, the State was unable to introduce a convenience store’s surveillance video showing an altercation in the parking lot that led to assault charges against Terence Manning Jr., because the store supplied the incorrect time stamp. Instead, video from the arresting officer’s body camera that captured the store video was accepted into evidence by the Polk County District Court, and Manning was convicted by a jury of willful injury causing serious injury.

The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed Manning’s conviction and ordered a new trial, concluding that neither the officer’s testimony nor the testimony of other witnesses properly authenticated the officer’s body camera recording. On further review, the Iowa Supreme Court in a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Susan Christensen vacated the Court of Appeals decision and affirmed the district court judgment and sentence.

The question in this case is whether the State satisfied the authentication requirement in Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.901(a), which states that “the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” And in the context of a video recording, the Court has previously said authentication “demands only that the fidelity of the (video’s) portrayal be established.”

Because the police officer was unable to testify to the veracity of the convenience store security video, the State relied on authentication testimony from the victim. And because the victim had blacked out during the assault, he was able to speak about the veracity of the video only to the point when he passed out.

In such cases, courts have adopted the “silent witness” theory to admit video recordings. The Iowa Supreme Court adopted this approach in a 1980 decision that said a witness “who describes the photographic process employed and testifies it produces accurate pictures” can authenticate photographic evidence.

In Manning’s case, the jury could conclude the video was authentic based on the victim’s testimony regarding what it showed up to the point where he blacked out, at which point the Court concluded that the assault was complete and the remaining footage shown to the jury was “harmless.”

Although this case might seem novel, police dashboard cameras and body cameras are now the norm in law enforcement, and in the judicial system, as Chief Justice Christensen acknowledged at the start of her opinion: “The law is always adapting to technology, and this case is no exception.”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2025-26