ABSTRACT
“Viral” video clips circulating on the internet have been centrally featured in popular protests against police use of violent force against suspects, particularly members of racial and ethnic minorities. In most cases, however, the police officers whose actions are documented on such videos have not been indicted, tried, convicted, or even sanctioned for using excessive force. Such cases exhibit a disjuncture between a popular sense that such video evidence “speaks for itself,” and official investigations that deploy rules of evidence and expert testimony to discount or recontextualize what the evidence shows. The “popular vision” of such videotapes contrasts with what Charles Goodwin dubbed as “professional vision” in his analysis of how expert witnesses re-analyzed a video of police beating a suspect in the 1992 Rodney King police trial to make it out as evidence of reasonable police practice. As a legal matter, it is not a foregone conclusion that “professional vision” will take precedence over “popular vision,” but legal standards, control over the collection and release of evidence, and organizational features of the criminal justice system militate against the prosecution and conviction of police officers. This paper examines a rare case in which a police officer was charged and convicted for murdering a suspect, and draws conclusions about how the ability to speak for such evidence is contingent upon concerted social and political action within and beyond the courtroom.
