Why is video evidence refused?
Would a tape recording of a telephone conversation be refused also?
There are many reasons, ranging from the practical and pragmatic to the legal. That’s an inadequate answer, but the list is long, and it would also change by state.
Among the top 3:
1) SC is generally swift and informal. It isn’t funded to operate like higher courts. Video equipment, overhead projectors etc. don’t exist. Bring your own? Hearings are designed to start and finish in 10-20 minutes. Giving you 30 minutes to set-up and 15 minutes to screen and then starting the case isn’t going to happen.
2) Evidence is not generally admitted beforehand. Therefore, nobody, including the court, knows what it’s going to see. It could be inflammatory, improperly prejudicial or some porno tape that your kid substituted for a joke. No.
3) SC is informal, but the rules of evidence aren’t thrown out the window. The bench officer is expected to self-monitor, rather than deal with motions in limine and the objections that attorneys might raise to evidentiary introduction. When you add to that the fact that advance discovery is not permitted in many, if not most states, you recognize that there is no means such as exists in higher courts to verify and authenticate evidence. You could cobble together bits and pieces of anything from anywhere and, if you’re skilled, come up with a fake that simulates the real thing. The risks outweigh the benefits.
The list could go on and get more detailed, but I trust that you get the idea. Rules of evidence have a sound, logical basis to ensure the integrity of the proceeding. Practically and costs aside, those protections don’t exist in SC. That facilitates the operation of SC; satisfying the needs that you pose is inconsistent and counterintuitive.
A state such as FL has a SC rule permitting the court, at its discretion, to make a general procedural rule a part of the SC proceeding. I’m not FL. I suppose such a SC rule holds the potential for making a proceeding the functional equivalent of a trial in a higher court, with all of the limits and protections re-instated. I don’t know for a fact, but I suspect that discretion is cautiously exercised and applied. Otherwise SC disappears for practical purposes.