In what circumstances would the defense counsel have objected on the basis of evidence section 1523 of the secondary evidence rule?

writing."⁹ However, an objection on the basis of that section, an aspect of the secondary evidence rule, would have been misplaced, because Maguires testimony was admitted to explain the basis for the arrests, not to prove the content of the videos. (Cf. People v. Myers (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1226 & fn 1, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 447 [testimony at robbery trial that video showed that store clerk raised his hands offered to show use of fear].) In any event, defense counsel might have had a tactical reason to avoid invoking Evidence Code section 1523. ( People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266267, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134.) To wit, defense counsel may have preferred to avoid admission of the surveillance videos, which might have demonstrated even more clearly the objective reasonableness of the arrest. Without the videos themselves, the showing of reasonableness could only be based on Maguires testimony and the stills from the videos, which were less conclusive than the videos would have been, assuming (as we must for purposes of the claim on direct appeal [see ibid. ]) that appellants were the perpetrators in the videos.