Pixels and Prosecution: A Lesson from the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

There was a pivotal moment during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial where the prosecution requested it be allowed to take a screenshot of a frame from a video and enlarge the image to enhance its detail. The judge ultimately granted the prosecution’s request, likening the enlargement of the image to using a magnifying glass to view a photograph.

The judge’s rationale, however, highlights an obvious weakness in our legal system: technology is outpacing those of us who practice in it.

Enlargements of a photograph have generally been admissible in court, but only where the enlargement is not distorted or otherwise misleading. In the Rittenhouse trial, the judge believed the enlarged digital image was similar to using a magnifying glass to enhance a photograph. Unfortunately, the attorneys on the case did not do an adequate job of explaining why the judge was wrong. This could have had disastrous implications for their client.

PIXELS

Resolution refers to the number of pixels that compose a digital image. Most videos recorded these days are captured in high-resolution, meaning at least 1080p. 1080p resolution means there are 1,920 pixels horizontally and 1,080 pixels vertically, or (1,920 x 1,080 =) 2,073,600 pixels altogether.

When a screenshot of a frame of video captured in 1080p resolution is taken, if the image is viewed on a screen that has 1080p resolution, it will display the 2,073,600 pixels. But what happens when you zoom in or enlarge the screenshot? Now you are asking the screen to show 2,073,600 pixels of a smaller area of the image. How does the screen accomplish that? It uses an algorithm to add pixels to the image. Essentially, the algorithm tries to “guess” what pixels would be there if the original image had been taken of only that portion of the image. Thus, zooming in/enlarging the digital image requires the original image to be altered.

This is why the judge’s analogy in the Rittenhouse case to using a magnifying glass is incorrect. The magnifying glass assists our eyes in viewing the original image; it does not alter the image in any way. But zooming in on a digital image necessarily alters the original image.

PROSECUTION

Matters were complicated even further in the Rittenhouse trial when the prosecutor supported his argument for allowing the jury to see an enlarged version of the screenshot by asking the judge to view the enlarged image on an ultra-high-definition (UHD) television screen. A UHD screen has a resolution of 3,840 pixels horizontally by 2,160 pixels vertically, or 8,294,400 pixels total. That’s four times the number of pixels included in the original image. What do you think the television screen does to project that image? It uses an algorithm to fill in the missing pixels.

In essence, the prosecution took a screenshot from a video recording, used a program to zoom in on a portion of the image (thereby adding pixels to the original image), and displayed the altered, enhanced image on a large television screen that…added pixels.

When talking to colleagues about this, one comment I heard repeatedly was “it goes to weight, not admissibility,” meaning you let the jury see the enhanced image and argue that it has been altered and, therefore, not reliable. But trial court judges are gatekeepers; they are tasked with the duty of ensuring only reliable evidence is presented to the jury. Enhanced digital images aren’t merely altered; they are distorted. And the distortion can potentially have huge implications. A jury should never be permitted to see a distorted image. It is imperative that attorneys remain well-versed in technology as more of it is being used in the courtroom.