When should video tape be admitted in evidence in court?

[Igel]

8. When it's not testimony.

No swearing in, no testimony.

But it's better than hearsay evidence. "I heard so-and-so say such-and-such" now becomes an object that can be validated and examined. As such, it's a valid report of what a person said.

He might be fibbing. Telling tall tales. Lying through his teeth. But it's what he said. You'd admit letters that somebody wrote. You'd admit a diary. How's a videotape different?

In all cases, though, think of it as raising the bar. You don't want to testify? Fine--here's a video of what you said. Want to rebut yourself? Enjoy.

You wouldn't admit a nice report that the accused wrote for the court, knowing that its only purpose was to sway the jury, at least not let it stand. So I think I'd object to a videodiary made specifically for the jury. But if you're interviewed on some show, sure. Why not?

BTW, there are going to be very neat and tidy rules of evidence on judges', courts, or the state website about things like this. This is an empirical question that just needs a bit of Googling--unless it's behind a firewall with a lawyer/judge ID needed for access.