This morning in the trial of NJ State Trooper Higbee, his commander testified about a video made of his approach to the scene while emergency vehicles were still working there. He identified a critical image in a video as an “illuminated” warning sign for a stop sign ahead at the intersection. Commentators on TruTV debated vigorously the meaning of this testimony and how jurors are likely to have heard it.

For once I completely agree with the lawyers: the warning sign’s visibility will be of considerable importance to the jury during deliberations—and it is critical that the defense must clarify this issue in great detail. These word matter a great deal.

However, I wonder whether it’s relevant to the issue of criminal guilt or innocence.

As far as the warning sign goes, as a juror what I would want to know is the source of the illumination to which the witness referred: was it an overhead street light, or reflective tape, or the lights of the approaching vehicle?

However, what I want to know even more is where the warning sign was positioned in relation to the K-turn or U-turn Trooper Higbee made when chasing the speeder. If the trooper turned at or near the warning sign, then he might not have had an opportunity to see it before he sped up.