authentication challenge in California

2013(See People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 261 [“counsel’s decision to forgo implausible arguments or objections does not constitute deficient performance”]; People v. Torrez (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1091 [counsel is not required to make futile motions to appear competent].) Y.’s testimony was corroborated by Detective Ebert’s testimony in the trial court and by declaration here.

2013(See People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 261 [“counsel‟s decision to forgo implausible arguments or objections does not constitute deficient performance”]; People v. Torrez (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1091 [counsel is not required to make futile motions to appear competent].) Y.‟s testimony was corroborated by Detective Ebert‟s testimony in the trial court and by declaration here.

2013(See People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 992 [affirming denial of motion for discovery of police personnel records finding defendant’s “grandiose” allegations of a police conspiracy to frame him were not plausible].) 23 Based on the foregoing, we confidently conclude the recording of the library confrontation would have survived an authentication challenge.

2013(See People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 992 [affirming denial of motion for discovery of police personnel records finding defendant‟s “grandiose” allegations of a police conspiracy to frame him were not plausible].) Based on the foregoing, we confidently conclude the recording of the library confrontation would have survived an authentication challenge.

2013(See People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 261 [“counsel’s decision to forgo implausible arguments or objections does not constitute deficient performance”]; People v. Torrez (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1091 [counsel is not required to make futile motions to appear competent].) Y.’s testimony was corroborated by Detective Ebert’s testimony in the trial court and by declaration here.

2013(See People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 261 [“counsel‟s decision to forgo implausible arguments or objections does not constitute deficient performance”]; People v. Torrez (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1091 [counsel is not required to make futile motions to appear competent].) Y.‟s testimony was corroborated by Detective Ebert‟s testimony in the trial court and by declaration here.

2026(See People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 267 [to satisfy the authentication requirement, the proponent of the evidence must show it accurately depicts what it purports to be].) Beyond that, the trial court found Walker’s statements were self- serving hearsay that failed to satisfy any exception to the hearsay rule.

2023(People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 267 .) Some courts have interpreted that to mean the proponent must produce testimony from someone who can personally attest to the genuineness of the subject photo or video, to ensure it is not a fake or has not been altered in some way.

2023(See People v. Williams (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1126 [taking up forfeited issue “to forestall a petition for writ of habeas corpus based on a claim of ineffectual counsel”].) To satisfy the authentication requirement for a photograph or a video recording, the proponent of the evidence must prove it is a fair and accurate representation of the scene depicted.

2016Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting the page for the jury to determine whether he authored it.” {Id. at p. 1435.) The court emphasized that “the proponent’s threshold authentication burden for admissibility is not to establish validity or negate falsity in a categorical fashion, but rather to make a showing on which the trier of fact reasonably could conclude the proffered writing is authentic.” (Id. at p. 1437.) Similarly in In re K.B. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 989, 997 [ 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 287 ], the court found incriminating photographs from a cell phone, including website scree

2016Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting the page for the jury to determine whether he authored it.” {Id. at p. 1435.) The court emphasized that “the proponent’s threshold authentication burden for admissibility is not to establish validity or negate falsity in a categorical fashion, but rather to make a showing on which the trier of fact reasonably could conclude the proffered writing is authentic.” (Id. at p. 1437.) Similarly in In re K.B. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 989, 997 [ 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 287 ], the court found incriminating photographs from a cell phone, including website scree