56
CRIMINAL JUSTICE | SPRING 2025
trial tactics
shirt “walking around.” Zimmerman also testified
that the video depicted him exiting his car while
holding his back where he was shot and running
to a nearby McDonald’s. The prosecutor argued
during closing argument that the video showed
Mooney walk past Zimmerman’s car and shoot
him from behind.
A jury found Mooney guilty of second-degree
assault; reckless endangerment; possession of a
regulated firearm after conviction of a disquali-
fying crime; wearing, carrying, or transporting
a handgun; illegal possession of ammunition;
and discharging a firearm in Baltimore City. On
appeal, Mooney challenged the admission of the
video.
The Applicable Rules
Early in its opinion affirming the convictions, the
court set forth basic rules on authentication:
Maryland Rule 5-901(a) provides that “[t]he
requirement of authentication or identification
as a condition precedent to admissibility is
satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what its
proponent claims.” Maryland Rule 5-901(b) sets
forth a nonexclusive list of ways to authenticate
evidence. The Maryland rules are the same as
Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 901(a) and (b),
and references below to Rule 901 include both
the Maryland and Federal Rules.
Traditional Methods of Authentication
After identifying the general authentication
rules, the Court explained two methods of
authentication that are specifically set forth in
Rule 901(b). It identified the first method as the
An Interesting Case
The Supreme Court of Maryland (the Court)
provided useful guidance on alternative ways
of authenticating video evidence in Mooney v.
State, 487 Md. 701 (2024). The facts of the case
are relatively simple. The prosecution charged
Christopher Mooney with the nonfatal shooting
of Joshua Zimmerman while Zimmerman was in
his car outside of a medical cannabis dispensary
in Baltimore City. Mr. Zimmerman testified that
he was shot in the back at night while sitting in
the driver’s seat of his car. During Zimmerman’s
direct examination, the trial court admitted into
evidence a video that had been recorded by a
camera, which might have been a Ring device
mounted on the exterior wall of a residence
near the site of the shooting. A detective re-
trieved a copy of the video, which was 1 minute,
51 seconds long.
Zimmerman testified before the video was
admitted that in the months prior to the shoot-
ing, he had suspected Mooney of sleeping with
Zimmerman’s girlfriend and that Mooney had
denied the allegation. Zimmerman testified
that immediately before the shooting, Mooney
walked past Zimmerman’s car, the two briefly
exchanged words, Zimmerman called Mooney a
“b[****],” and Zimmerman was shot from behind
after Mooney passed the car. Zimmerman did
not testify that he saw the shooter at the time
he was shot and, given the fact that the shot was
fired from behind the car, it was not possible for
him to have seen the shot fired.
Zimmerman testified that he had watched the
video in preparation for trial, the video was a
true and accurate depiction of the events that
occurred on the night of the shooting, and the
video did not appear to have been altered or
edited. Mooney’s objection to the video was
overruled and, after the video was admitted
into evidence, Zimmerman identified Mooney as
the person depicted on the video in the white
BY STEPHEN A. SALTZBURG
Circumstantial Authentication
of Video Evidence
STEPHEN A. SALTZBURG is the Wallace and
Beverley Woodbury University Professor at The
George Washington University Law School and is
a former chair of the Criminal Justice Section.
Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 40, Number 1, Spring 2025. © 2025 by
the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.
This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in
any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database orretrieval system
without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
