When Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols went to trial for the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, there was just one piece of video evidence against them. It was grainy security camera footage from the lobby of a building a few blocks away. For a moment, the bomb-laden rental truck could be seen driving past. And then the power cut out.
But now, things are different. In the three decades since the Oklahoma City Bombing, the world has changed. If you leave your home to put gas in the car, go shopping, or grab a bite to eat, you’re almost guaranteed to be on camera. Just leaving your neighborhood, you’ll likely appear on neighbors’ security cameras from block to block. Anyone could trace your route with enough effort.
This change in the world we live in has changed trials, too. Prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers report being overwhelmed with the volume of video evidence that they must sort through in any criminal trial. The average amount of video evidence in a murder case can be as much as 300 gigabytes. And jurors have come to expect to see surveillance footage, including body-worn camera and dashcam footage, in order to do their jobs. If you’ve been accused of a crime, video evidence is very likely to play a part in your case.
Why So Much Video Evidence in Criminal Investigations?
As a society, we’re recording more than ever before. According to the SafeHome.org 2026 Home Security Market Report, an estimated 74.9 million U.S. households have security cameras, and 58.9 million use video doorbells. That’s about 61% of U.S. households — up from 52% just two years ago.
More than just privately owned home security systems, many metropolitan areas have built networks of surveillance cameras and license plate readers. For example, the city of Denver recently dismantled its network of more than 100 cameras because of reports that the company that owned them, Flock Group, had shared extensive data with federal immigration officials. But they’re not going without a network, just switching contractors — probably to the contractor that already handles their police force’s body-worn cameras.
These private and metropolitan security systems are so extensive that they can play a large role in any criminal investigation if enough resources are dedicated to them. When UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thomson was shot by an unknown assailant, The New York Times reported that the suspected killer could be located on surveillance video hundreds of times over the course of 11 days before the killing. Detectives used this footage to construct a surveillance footage timeline that led them to Luigi Mangione.
Video Evidence Is Overwhelming Lawyers, and Courts Just Weren’t Built for It
Prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys report that this much video evidence is changing the way they handle criminal cases. The recording boom means that lawyers now must devote extensive resources to storing, managing, reviewing, and organizing footage for use at trial. If you’re a defendant, your attorney may need to request full access to the original video files and the systems they’re stored in, not just clips. In cases where identification or use of force is contested, a qualified forensic video expert may have to analyze frame rates, compression artifacts, and metadata to challenge or confirm what the footage appears to show. Many law firms just aren’t resourced for that workload.
Further, prosecutors have a duty to disclose potentially exculpatory information to the defense. But since they don’t have time to review 100% of the video evidence to determine what’s exculpatory and what’s not, some prosecutors report that they just hand over almost all recordings. Some observers suggest this may give defense attorneys a strategic edge, but it can also burden both sides with the task of finding key moments in a massive volume of footage.
Just the act of turning over video evidence can be more complicated than you’d think. The file sizes of some videos are so large that they’re stored in a secure, cloud-based evidence management system and can’t simply be emailed to opposing counsel. And when video evidence is played in court, courtrooms aren’t equipped to make this easy. Courts are often in historic buildings that weren’t built with technology in mind — even though jurors expect to see videos played during criminal trials.
When Video Evidence Is Admissible in Court
There are other challenges, too. Not all video evidence may be admissible in court. When courts evaluate it for admissibility, they often focus on the chain of custody to ensure the recording has been properly handled from the moment it was collected. Establishing authenticity is also essential, meaning that the video must be a true and accurate representation of events. Any signs of tampering, including edits, alterations, unexplained gaps, or AI use, can mean that the video is excluded from the case and cannot be used.
Watching Justice Play Out, Literally
Overall, if you’ve been accused of a crime, video evidence is more likely to play a part in your case than ever before. It may even help ensure a better, more just outcome because jurors and judges can see clear evidence of exactly what happened instead of relying on witness testimony. However, there’s a long way to go, and video evidence can be misleading as well as clarifying. Prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys still need to solve for the extensive time it takes them to manage this evidence, and many courtrooms need technical improvements so that we can all watch justice play out.
