Which specific video clips were entered into evidence in the Rittenhouse trial and who filmed them?
Executive summary
The trial’s core audiovisual evidence included multiple bystander cellphone clips, at least one live-stream, and a drone video that became central to prosecution arguments; prosecutors obtained a higher-resolution drone file from an individual who later delivered it to investigators, while much of the on-the-ground footage came from anonymous witness phones and local livestreamers subpoenaed in the case [1] [2] [3]. Defense lawyers repeatedly argued that the state gave them a compressed, lower-resolution copy of the drone footage and that procedural handling of those files prejudiced their ability to respond [2] [4].
1. The key clips jurors watched — a short inventory
Jurors were shown multiple pieces of video evidence including footage of Joseph Rosenbaum chasing and throwing a plastic bag at Kyle Rittenhouse just before Rosenbaum was shot, cellphone and crowd videos capturing the immediate chaos and people carrying the wounded, and a drone-shot sequence that showed wider overhead movements of Rittenhouse and the crowd that prosecutors used to argue he provoked or maneuvered toward danger [5] [1] [6]. Reporters and wire services also described prosecutors playing grainy, enlarged video stills in court to illustrate sequence and positioning before and during the shootings [7] [8].
2. Who filmed those clips — named and anonymous sources
At least some footage originated from local livestreamers and bystanders: the New York Times identified Koerri Washington as a local live streamer who arrived to document the protests and was later subpoenaed, indicating livestream footage formed part of the evidentiary record [3]. Much of the ground-level cellphone footage shown in court derived from anonymous witnesses and crowd members; outlets described them generically as “video” or “footage” from people recording the scene rather than attributing every clip to a single, published name [1] [5]. The drone footage was provided by an individual who came forward during the trial and transferred a higher-quality file to a detective, per prosecutors’ account [2].
3. The drone video controversy — chain of custody and compression disputes
Defense counsel said they initially received a compressed, lower-resolution copy of a key drone video and only got the larger file after trial evidence had closed, prompting multiple mistrial requests; prosecutors said the discrepancy resulted from a “technical incident” [2] [4]. Reporting states the higher-resolution drone file was physically handed to a detective and then shared by email or AirDrop to defense counsel, while the state maintained the footage itself was not intentionally withheld [2]. The dispute fueled courtroom argument over whether jurors’ review of the footage during deliberations was fair, and whether enlargement and enhancement methods used by state and defense experts introduced distortion or reliably represented actions [9] [10].
4. What's clear — and what reporting does not show
Coverage confirms the categories of clips entered into evidence (bystander cellphone footage, livestreamed material, the drone video) and that specific people like Koerri Washington were subpoenaed, but available reporting does not provide a definitive, item-by-item list in open sources tying every admitted clip to a named filmer in court filings summarized by the press [3] [1]. Sources also document litigation over image enhancement techniques and whether zoom/enlargement altered interpretation, but they do not publish a complete chain-of-custody inventory for every clip jurors reviewed [10] [2].
5. Why these details mattered to both sides
Prosecutors used the drone and crowd footage to argue about movement, proximity and whether Rittenhouse’s conduct escalated the situation, while the defense attacked the quality and timing of certain files to undercut those inferences and to insist jurors should view the clips in context; these evidentiary fights — especially over the drone file’s resolution and origin — were pivotal enough to prompt repeated mistrial motions and extensive expert testimony about video analysis methods [7] [2] [6]. Journalistic accounts therefore focus as much on the provenance and clarity of footage as on the images themselves, because resolution, editing and delivery affected how jurors could assess intent and self‑defense claims [4] [10].