Reports may not trump photographs.
The reports MIGHT add some light or they might cause some smoke. Combine them with actual medical records, maybe an x-ray (who knows) and you may end up with something.
And just because the special prosecutor saw a report from some EMT (assuming she did), does not mean that she took it properly into account, either.
Yes, reports by trained medical professionals DO trump images that were not taken by police.
Do you know the chain of custody of the photo in question?
I'm going to make a bold leap and say: NO.
Dunk, slammed.
NO. They don't. You are making shit up without ANY shred of proper factual underpinning.
There is no such "rule."
Indeed, if the jury were to credit the photograph (without caring about who took the picture) and if, upon a good cross examination, the jury discredited to some extent the adequacy of the EMTs' factual reporting, the fact is, the jury could reject the EMT report in its entirety if they felt that justice called for that result.
And yes. In fact, we DO know something about the image. We know it was taken on a cell phone camera. We know it came embedded with information about the image including the "when it was taken" component. We know it was taken three minutes from when we know the gun was shot.
You went for a slam dunk and missed the hoop.
