Moreover, I'd think it would be quite trivial to place the camera in the court room if any judge were to seriously consider that defense, while the camera furiously exerts its right to silence.
So what happens when you are caught breaking into a building, and the camera is evidence of your crime?
This entire line of reasoning would completely destroy any kind of automated crime detection (security systems, security cameras), which is ridiculous on its face.
Further, what happens when you commit a crime where there are no witnesses? People are rightfully convicted of crimes based on "things" rather than the testimony of a person who saw it, regularly.
In order to introduce the video as evidence, they have to put somebody on the stand who will explain how the camera works and so on. And right there is your opportunity to confront them. You can ask all sorts of questions, like when was the last time they cleaned the lenses.
I'm going to need a source on that. I'm pretty sure a video can be entered as evidence without any actual witness to present it. Maybe you live in a state with unusual rules.
IANAL but I don't believe it does. In a criminal trial introducing one as evidence would require some substantial effort (witnesses testifying to location, lack of tampering, etc), but I believe (again, IANAL) that generally states treat camera violations as civil, thus avoiding this work. Whether that's a good thing or not is a different question.
This is not a myth. The government wants people to think this because they don't want the veracity of the camera being questioned. That would be too fair for a system based on cash-register justice.
The camera is not your accuser; the state is, using the camera as evidence of your violation.
It would be no different than a security camera catching you breaking into a building. The camera doesn't sue, the owner of the building does.