06/09/2026
The camera doesn't lie. But it doesn't tell the whole truth either.
Dashcams, bodycams, doorbell cameras, surveillance footage, YouTube, Facetime, Instagram, TikTok, . . . video is everywhere in injury cases now, and juries are asked to treat a few seconds of it as the final word on fault.
My latest in the New Jersey Law Journal: what video can't show, the moments before the frame, the context off-screen, and why the jury's judgment matters more now, not less.
Read it 👉 https://tinyurl.com/y7utr3zj
Can video evidence really tell the whole story? Einhorn, Barbarito, Frost, Botwinick, Nunn & Musmanno partner Dennis Shlionsky takes a closer look at the limitations of video evidence and the critical role juries play in evaluating what footage may leave unanswered.
As surveillance footage, dashcam recordings, and other forms of video evidence become increasingly common in personal injury litigation, questions remain about what such evidence can – and cannot – tell us.
While video may provide a powerful account of an incident, it does not always capture the full context surrounding the events at issue.
Dennis examines how juries remain uniquely positioned to assess credibility, interpret circumstances, and weigh evidence beyond what appears on a screen.
His analysis offers valuable insight into the evolving relationship between technology and the legal process, reinforcing the continued importance of the jury's role in determining fault.
To read the full New Jersey Law Journal article, please visit https://tinyurl.com/y7utr3zj.
With you, every step of the way.
