I was watching a criminal speeding trial in Texas a few weeks ago. The defendant was acting pro se. A police dash-cam video apparently existed of the incident and the defendant was in possession of it.
The prosecution did not want the police video introduced as evidence. The defendant attempted to introduce it after the prosecution rested and the officer was on the stand. He was asking that the video be played so that the officer could testify as to whether it was his video or not.
But the judge ruled it could not be admitted even before showing it. I remember the prosecutor argued it wasn't relevant. But the video was not shown either in front of the jury nor did the judge even ask the jury to leave in order to show it.
Is that really common? I find it incredible that this video wouldn't be relevant. I also find it weird that the prosecution wouldn't want it admitted being that the defendant must have thought it to be exculpatory. The defendant seemed to be trying to lay foundation and the prosecutors objections did not include failure to lay foundation.