U.S. v. Seifert

• Decision Date: 19 April 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-2849.,05-2849.
• Citation: 445 F.3d 1043
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Susan Anne SEIFERT, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

445 F.3d 1043

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Susan Anne SEIFERT, Appellant.

No. 05-2849.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 14, 2006.

Filed: April 19, 2006.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Kimberly K. Hall of St. Paul, MN.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Robert M. Lewis, AUSA, of Minneapolis, MN.

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Susan Anne Seifert was convicted of arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). She appeals, arguing that the district court¹ abused its discretion in admitting into evidence a digitally-enhanced surveillance videotape, and that the evidence as a whole was insufficient to convict. This court affirms.

On the night of December 29, 1999, a fire destroyed a building owned by Seifert's employer. A surveillance videotape, recovered from the rubble, shows dark images of the scene before the fire. The video depicts a person moving in the space of the building where the fire started, and smoke coming from that space after the person leaves. The Government argues that this person is Seifert.

Before trial, Seifert moved to exclude a digitally-enhanced copy of the original video. At a hearing outside the presence of the jury, Jack Hunter, a recently-retired employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, testified. Hunter, an expert in electronic surveillance and video analysis, described the computer program that enhanced the image. Because the original video is "time lapsed"—slower than normal speed—Hunter "real-timed" the enhanced copy. Hunter also explained that the original video is a "quad image," with the screen divided into quarters to depict images from four cameras. Hunter enlarged the video from the relevant camera, discarding the output from the three irrelevant ones. Finally, because the original image is dark, Hunter brightened it, additionally brightening the suspect and the surrounding area more than the rest of the image. On cross-examination, Hunter maintained that he simply enhanced the original video and did not manipulate it. Reviewing both the original and enhanced videos, the district court admitted the enhanced video:

It appears to the Court that the enhanced imagery depicts the same image [as the original tape]. It does so in a fashion which does not change the image, but assists the jury in its observation and viewing of the image, which will enhance their understanding. I find that it's still accurate, authentic and trustworthy, and under those circumstances, I will permit its use in the trial.

The enhanced video was played for the jury. The jury also saw surveillance footage of Seifert, recorded about 35 minutes before the fire when she came in the office to assist a coworker. During closing argument, the Government noted similarities between Seifert in that footage and the arsonist in the enhanced video. Both individuals have short gray hair, and are wearing light pants, a dark jacket, and a white shirt with a dark emblem on the front.

Seifert argues that the district court erred in admitting the enhanced video because no one could know for certain whether it accurately reflects the original. Seifert emphasizes that Hunter failed to record his changes to the video. Finally, Seifert asserts that "Hunter's enhancements required judgment-decisions about which lines to make clearer, which shadows to erase, and which to make darker."

The district court's evidentiary ruling "will not be disturbed unless there is a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion." Bennett v. Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc., 318 F.3d 868, 878 (8th Cir.2003), quoting United HealthCare Corp. v. American Trade Ins. Co., 88 F.3d 563, 573 (8th Cir.1996). This court "will not reverse a judgment...