As Hardy explained, “a particular piece
of evidence is not required to be wholly dispositive of guilt in order to constitute
direct evidence, so long as it proves directly a disputed fact without requiring an
inference to be made. In other words, even if a particular item of evidence does not
3
conclusively require a guilty verdict, so long as the evidence proves directly a fact
in question [in Hardy, the actus reus], the evidence is direct evidence of guilt” (id.
at 248, 250-251; e.g. People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990, 992 [1993]

https://www.nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/4.02_Direct_and_Circumstantial_Evidence_Defined.pdf

In other words, just because the video doesn't capture the words the judge spoke to the lawyer doesn't make it circumstantial.  Direct evidence establishes facts where those facts may have been disputed if not for the video.

The entire case does not have to rest on a single piece of evidence to make it direct.

The video shows without question what transpired in the courtroom in sequence and specifically who was involved.  You don't get more direct than that.

if someone else on the jury thinks like you, then i'm sure they might argue that without an audio recording, the tape doesn't carry the weight for a conviction.  but you're ignoring the defense lawyer's testimony, anything the court recorder or bailiff overheard, etc. 

Witness testimony is also direct evidence.

And a federal jury found her guilty. Looks like there was enough evidence.

 Looks like someone was wrong again, like usual.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

And a federal jury found her guilty. Looks like there was enough evidence.

 Looks like someone was wrong again, like usual.

The news played the courtroom videos.  The judge let them leave through a restricted part of the courtroom and then tried to distract them with discussions with another judge.  Had their not been plainclothes officers watching quietly, the illegal aliens would have escaped. 

The evidence is clear to anyone who bothers to be objective and not be so argumentative while staring at the facts.