List of things I am finding, let's add one more.
Appendix 2 page 64
There is a series of composites that MOM is admitting into evidence. In Composite 2, he describes the photos of GZ's injuries. He includes the well known ABC shot, and the evidence pictures taken at the station.
There is a third composite that he describes on pg 64 at the very top of the page.
This is actually my third exhibit that I would like you to consider which is a cell phone video that was taken by the witness at the scene and directly after the injury. It is significant to the extent that it shows the injuries to my client's nose and the blood around the nose and mouth.
The State didn't object because they had already seen it.
WTH? What video?
The part that jumps out is that there is a video record of the injuries and blood on GZs face. The one witness had taken three pictures with his iPhone, GZ's head, TM's body in situ, and the flashlight. I remember the grainy B/W that was taken while GZ was in the patrol car but that was a still and he had already been cleaned up by EMT's, IIRC. The officer forgot he had taken the picture or something. I remember it didn't get turned in right away but a few days later.
Is the witness a civilian or LE? Is the grainy shot of GZ in the back of a patrol car taken as a still from a video? Is he mischaracterizing a photo as a video?