In probate trials, witness testimony and video evidence can be very important. But what happens if the witness testimony contradicts what a video shows? Can a Florida probate judge choose to believe the witness over a video that literally shows opposite facts? What if a witness testifies that a decedent did not sign her own will, while a video shows that the decedent, in fact, DID sign her will? What if a Florida notary states that she witnessed the decedent signing a deed, when a video shows that the decedent’s sister forged the decedent’s signature on the deed? You may want to read a January 31, 2017 opinion from The Supreme Court of Florida, Wiggins v. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Although this is not a Palm Beach probate or Florida trust case, it is a very important opinion, as probate litigators frequently rely on both witness testimony and video evidence.
Here, Wiggins was arrested for driving under the influence(DUI). His driver’s license was suspended because he refused to perform field sobriety exercises. Once arrested, Wiggins requested a formal hearing. His license suspension was upheld so Wiggins appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court ruled for Wiggins because it was determined that there were inconsistencies between the officer’s arrest report and the real-time video footage taken from the officer’s dashboard in his law enforcement vehicle. The officer’s report stated that Wiggins had changed lanes quickly in front of the officer, whereas the video showed that the officer was the one who had changed lanes. Despite the video evidence, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles appealed this matter to the First District Court of Appeal. The First DCA disagreed with the circuit court and ruled in favor of the Department of Highway and Motor Vehicles. Wiggins appealed to The Supreme Court of Florida, and they ruled in favor of Wiggins. The Supreme Court held that a circuit court must reject an officer’s testimony, and not consider it to be competent substantial evidence, when that testimony completely contradicts video evidence. This makes sense! To read the entire case, click here.