California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Jones, C054903 (Cal. App. 12/31/2008), C054903 (Cal. App. 2008):
Use of a magnifying glass to scrutinize photographic exhibits is not classified as an experiment introducing new evidence into the trial. In People v. Turner, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d 174, the jurors used a magnifying glass to scrutinize a photograph of the defendant taken from a video at the market where she purportedly negotiated a forged check. By using the glass, the jurors could discern the lines on defendant's outstretched hands in the picture and compare them to defendant's when she stood before the jury in the same position. (Id. at p. 179.) The appellate court refused to classify the jury's use of the magnifying glass as an experiment because it introduced no new evidence. Because this photograph had been introduced at trial, use of the magnifying glass only allowed "`a more critical examination'" of the evidence already offered at trial. (Id. at p. 183.) "At most, the use of the magnifying glass involved an extension of the jury's sense of sight [citation]." (Ibid.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.