What for example one hubbyist of a videocam started to take video of the a passage in one downtown suburb at night in his hotel room, filming people passing by in one of the dimly lighted street then sudden he saw a woman being maul, beaten and rob by two men, but by zooming diligently with the camera he has clear picture of the two perpetrators.
Now the question- Is this considered admissable in the crime of robbery if he will present this in court? Because some lawyers if he happens to defend the two guys would tell the judge that this is clearly a manifestation violation of the rights of the accuse. Is this true? Because the video tapes clearly state the two men who are his client who robbed a woman downtown are already guilty therefore no need to present witness or evidence to prove that they are innocent of the said charges. Which is against the provision of any accuse or violation of the constitution. Is this correct?
stop smoking weeds when u answer this.
1 response so far ↓
1 cybersharque // May 10, 2009 at 1:18 pm
The law is funny about cameras and videos. Actually, the video is not "the" evidence. Except in administrative proceedings (traffic tickets for the most part), the evidence is the testimony of an eyewitness.
Q. Were you at x dimly lit street on Y date at Z o'clock.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you observe something happening?
A. Yes, I saw D beating the bejeezus out of V.
Q. Did you have a video camera with you?
A. Yes, and I videotaped the beating.
Other lawyer: Your honor, I request a voir dire of the tape.
Judge clears the jury out of the courtroom for voir dire, shows the videotaped images to the witness.
Q. Is the videotaped image a fair and accurate representation of what you saw?
A. Yes.
I offer the videotape in evidence.
After the judge decides that the videotape is relevant the case and not overly prejudicial, the jury comes back in and the tape is re-played and the witness repeats that then video shows what he saw.
You can't cross-examine a videotape. The "evidence" is the witness saying that he saw what the tape shows. The footage is just demonstrative of the witness' testimony.
You must log in to post a comment.