A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE INJUSTICE. WOULD WE STAND FOR THIS?

DEFENSE: "Your honor, the defense would like to enter into evidence this videotape."

JUDGE: "The nature of this new evidence."

DEFENSE: "It is a video, time stamped to show that my client was at 

this location at the time of the Murder, and could not have committed the

crime for which he is charged."

PROSECUTION: "Your Honor we have not been notified of this New Evidence,

and not had a chance to view, or analyze the Quality and Validity of the information

contained in the video."

DEFENSE- "All that is necessary for Justice to be served is that we show the video to the

Jury, and let them decide. The Video speaks for itself."

JUDGE- "Well, if you assure the Court that it is a True Copy, and has not been altered or edited

in any way, I'll allow it."

PROSECUTION: "Your Honor, that directly violates the RULES OF EVIDENCE, you cannot allow 

this to be shown to the Jury without the State having the opportunity to examine it, and rule out possible

manipulation to bolster the Defenses Case."

JUDGE: I take Defense Counsel at their word, I'll admit it into evidence, and the Jury will be allowed to 

view the tape."

QUESTION- What type of Criminal Justice system would we have if a sitting Judge was allowed to

violate the RULES OF EVIDENCE like in the above example? 

That is why a Courtroom or Congressional Hearing is able to get to the truth of the matter, for our 

system doesn't allow one side to have blanket immunity from proper legal procedure.

Now tell me again about how Carlsons/fox Videotape should be taken at face value.