How to Admit Photos into Evidence

Pictures often become pivotal pieces of evidence in personal injury cases, especially in car and truck accident litigation. But how those photos are used—and whether they can be tied to the plaintiff’s injuries—can significantly sway a case.

This page is a guide to admitting photos into evidence. Our focus here is admitting property damage photographs into evidence. But you lay the foundation the same way for any photographs.

Admitting a photograph may seem straightforward, but the foundation must be carefully laid. Questions must confirm the photograph’s authenticity and accuracy, as well as rule out alterations or misleading representations. From the initial, “Are you familiar with this photograph?” to the final request to admit the image as evidence, this process is all about laying the proper foundation and ensuring the jury can trust what they see.

I will break down the exact questions you need to ask to get a photograph admitted and explore how courts navigate these issues at trial (or with your moot court judge).

How to Admit Photograph into Evidence

This is a sample direct examination to admit photos that is pretty much what our lawyers have used at trial:

Q: Are you familiar with this photograph?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: Can you describe what is shown in the photograph?

A: It shows the property damage picture to my vehicle after the crash.

Q: Was this photograph taken by you or someone you know?

A: I took the picture.

Q: Is this picture of your vehicle after the crash a true and accurate representation of you vehicle after the car crash with David Johnson on March 1, 2024

A: Yes.

Q: Is this photograph a fair and accurate depiction of what you saw at the time?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: Does this photograph accurately represent the scene as you recall it?

A: Yes, it does.

Q: Did you alter or manipulate this photograph in any way (2024 question we ask)?

A: No, I have not.

Q: Is this photograph a true and accurate representation of what it purports to depict?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: Your Honor, I would like to offer this photograph Exhibit A. We have established the foundation for its authenticity through the testimony of Mr. Davis, who took the photograph and can identify what is depicted in it. We ask that the photograph be admitted into evidence and made part of the record.”

Checklist for Admitting Photographs into Evidence

Another way of preparing to admit photo evidence would be using a checklist:

Foundation: Establish Familiarity
- Confirm the witness’s familiarity with the photograph.
  - Example: “Are you familiar with this photograph?”
- Identify the witness’s connection to the photo (e.g., took the photo, was present at the scene).
Authenticate the Photograph
- Verify that the photograph accurately represents what it purports to show. The phrase “fairly and accurately depict” is often used for determining whether a photograph or other visual evidence is admissible in court. You can use that language or you can use the redundant “true and accurate” phrasing as well, they mean the same thing.
  - Example: “Is this a true and accurate representation of the scene after the crash?”
- Confirm there have been no alterations or manipulations.
  - Example: “Was this photograph edited or modified in any way?”
Establish Timing and Context
- Verify when and where the photograph was taken.
  - Example: “When and where was this photo taken?”
- Link the photograph to the incident in question.
  - Example: “Does this photograph show the condition of the vehicle immediately after the collision?”
Rule Out Misleading Representation
- Confirm that the photograph provides a fair and accurate depiction of the scene.
  - Example: “Does this photograph fairly and accurately depict the damage to your car as you observed it?”
Address Potential Objections
- Anticipate claims of irrelevance or prejudice and prepare to demonstrate the photograph’s probative value.
- Use corroborating evidence (e.g., metadata, documents) to reinforce authenticity.
Introduce the Photograph
- Offer the photograph as an exhibit.
  - Example: “Your Honor, I offer this photograph as Exhibit A.”
- Ensure the record reflects that the foundation has been established.
Request Admission into Evidence
- Formally request that the photograph be admitted.
  - Example: “We ask that this photograph be admitted into evidence as a fair and accurate depiction of the vehicle damage following the incident.”
Address Objections if Raised
- Be prepared to argue relevance, authenticity, or lack of prejudice. Figure out all of the possible objections and get ready to address them.
- Highlight any supporting evidence or testimony.

Battlefields in Admitting Photographs into Evidence

Photographs are powerful pieces of evidence in personal injury and property damage cases. So getting them into evidence will often be a fight. Common objections include claims of irrelevance, arguments about potential prejudice, and accusations of manipulation or inaccuracy.

For example, defense attorneys may assert that a photograph showing minor vehicle damage is irrelevant to the case if it cannot conclusively establish the severity of injuries. This is a big issue in car accident cases and we will talk more about the issue and the Maryland law governing it below. Conversely, you also often see the argument that some graphic images are likely to evoke emotional reactions that unfairly sway the jury. You often see this argument with gruesome injury photos.

Another frequent objection is the possibility of photo manipulation—whether through edits, filters, or cropping—casting doubt on the photograph’s authenticity or accuracy. Additionally, photographs may face challenges if they lack clarity or are deemed ambiguous, that the judge thinks could confuse the jury instead of helping them understand the facts.

Overcoming these objections requires careful preparation and a strategic approach. To establish relevance, attorneys need to tie the photograph directly to an issue in the case, such as the severity of the accident or the resulting injuries. Witness testimony or expert analysis can further connect the photo to the broader narrative. It is equally critical to lay a strong foundation by having a witness who can confirm the photo’s authenticity. The witness should be prepared to testify that the image accurately depicts the scene or object and was not altered or manipulated. Addressing these points clearly during direct examination can preempt claims of inaccuracy or manipulation.

Corroborating the photograph with additional evidence is another effective strategy. Metadata, such as timestamps or geotags, can help demonstrate authenticity, while supporting documents like police reports or repair invoices provide context that reinforces the photo’s reliability. When opposing counsel raises concerns about potential prejudice, attorneys can almost always successfully argue that the probative value of the photograph outweighs any potential bias, especially if the image illustrates a key aspect of the case. (The fact that it will make the jury squeamish is not a valid objection.)

Minor Property Damage Photos and Maryland Law

In Mason v. Lynch, 388 Md. 37, 878 A.2d 588 (2005), the plaintiff stopped her automobile on a bridge in P.G. County and was rear-ended. The Prince George’s County Circuit Court Judge allowed the admission of photos of the plaintiff’s vehicle and let the defendant offer what is arguably a reasonable common-sense argument: how could these serious injuries have occurred given the limited damage to the vehicles? Plaintiff appealed.

A split Maryland Supreme Court, with a notable dissent written by Judge Raker, which Judge Bell joined, affirmed that the trial judge has the discretion to allow into evidence photographs that allegedly illustrate the inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s injuries from the car accident and the property damage sustained by the vehicles involved, even in the absence of expert testimony that establishes a correlation between property damage as illustrated in a photograph and the Plaintiff’s injuries.

Writing on behalf of the majority, retired Judge John C. Eldridge opined that “It is ordinarily within the discretion of the trial court to weigh relevance against any unfair prejudice which might arise from the admission of the photographs. … [accordingly], the trial court’s ruling on admissibility will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.” In so holding, the court considered and then rejected the Davis v. Maute holding that required expert testimony first establish a causal link between the damages to the vehicles and the injuries to one driver before the photo evidence of the damages to the vehicles becomes admissible.

Raker’s Dissent

Judge Raker’s dissent pointed to the scientific literature that shows there is no positive correlation between property damage and extent of the injury, arguing that “[t]here is no way that, based merely on the extent of property damage, a fact finder could assess the injury of a party and particularly, whether the impact exacerbated a preexisting injury. A review of the scientific literature expresses the view that there can be a strong inverse correlation between injury levels and measurable vehicle crush, especially in low speed, rear-impact collisions.”

How This Plays Out Practically

I said earlier personal injury lawyers in Maryland are on both sides of this issue. The defense lawyers play both sides of this issue, too. If the damage is significant, obviously defense lawyers want the pictures of the vehicles kept out of evidence. Conversely, in lower property damage but significant injury cases, they want to admit the photographs.

In these cases, the pictures are almost invariably admitted into evidence and the defense lawyers display large blow-up photographs of the cars involved and argue that the lack of significant damage means that the plaintiff could not have been seriously hurt in the accident. If there is an objective finding, such as a herniated disc, the defense attorneys argue that the condition was preexisting, not related to the accident, or that the plaintiff’s doctors were not properly reading the diagnostic findings.

Tactics

The best response to this is to warn the jury in opening statements that they can expect to see the photographs blown up and pointed to time and time again. This prepares the jury for the evidence and takes some sting out of the defense’s case. Just as importantly, fight the instinct of running away from the photographs. Admit that there was minimal property damage. Instead of pointing endlessly to the literature that shows a lack of a correlation, literature that bores a jury to tears and, while well-founded is counterintuitive to many jurors, we point out that extraordinary injuries sometimes happen in ordinary accidents.

Explain that while such an occurrence is rare, it is often the rare cases that make it to the jury (as any first-year law student knows from the remarkable cases that find their way into their textbooks). I think juries understand the concept that most cases settle and the strange ones are the cases that make it to trial. (Some get so caught up in the pictures you can’t win. That is also a possibility, unfortunately.)

Judge’s Discretion

In Maryland and other states that have a similar rule of law, photographs are not automatically admitted into evidence. Rather, it is up to the judge’s discretion in each individual case to determine whether the pictures would be of help to the trier of fact. You should still file a motion in limine to exclude photographs of the property damage to the vehicles when appropriate.

If you do these things and the plaintiff is credible to the jury and there is quality medical evidence to support the injury claim, a jury will ignore the minor property damage and award fair compensation for a plaintiff’s injuries.