This is why the case will be interesting to watch. It may turn into a conviction, then let’s see if the defense finds a legal basis for an appeal. However, there may be a plea and then we will never see it played out...The Sixth Amendment ensures that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against them in a criminal action.
That said, can they even consider themselves witnesses by observing a video that occurredafter the fact? From my understanding he wasn't pulled over, therefore he has no valid accuser?
I've heard of several video/ speed trap tickets being thrown out, simply because there is no accuser/ witness to the actual crime.
don't post videos of crimesVideo led to charges for Westfield man shown driving 213 mph on I-465
Gabriel Sleiman's initial hearing is set for 8:30 a.m. April 30.www.wishtv.com
Seems like another case of keep your mouth shut.
But if I watch a video of a crime, aren't I a witness?The Sixth Amendment ensures that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against them in a criminal action.
That said, can they even consider themselves witnesses by observing a video that occurred after the fact? From my understanding he wasn't pulled over, therefore he has no valid accuser?
I've heard of several video/ speed trap tickets being thrown out, simply because there is no accuser/ witness to the actual crime.
Lots of crimes are charged based on video. If my Ring door camera catches you stealing a package off my porch, why couldn’t you be charged with theft?The Sixth Amendment ensures that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against them in a criminal action.
That said, can they even consider themselves witnesses by observing a video that occurredafter the fact? From my understanding he wasn't pulled over, therefore he has no valid accuser?
I've heard of several video/ speed trap tickets being thrown out, simply because there is no accuser/ witness to the actual crime.
A picture- moving picture in this case- is not a witness and the confrontation clause does not apply. They just have to be able establish when and where it was. Nothing new or novel here. They do have to "authenticate" the video, but that is pretty simple.The Sixth Amendment ensures that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against them in a criminal action.
That said, can they even consider themselves witnesses by observing a video that occurredafter the fact? From my understanding he wasn't pulled over, therefore he has no valid accuser?
I've heard of several video/ speed trap tickets being thrown out, simply because there is no accuser/ witness to the actual crime.
There are many morals to this story...one, not me, but one could say- or make sure there are no time, location or date markers in the finished video and the raw footage was....lost. I mean, I would never suggest someone do something reckless....but the prosecution does have to prove venue (the county) and that the charges were brought within the statute of limitations beyond a reasonable doubt.Valid points. I send people to jail all the time based on video evidence.
I guess the moral of the story is not to drive 200 mph on 465... and video it.
A picture- moving picture in this case- is not a witness and the confrontation clause does not apply. They just have to be able establish when and where it was. Nothing new or novel here. They do have to "authenticate" the video, but that is pretty simple.
I would claim deep fake.
Looks horrible right?
https://www.dexerto.com/entertainme...aming-video-goes-viral-but-is-it-real-990872/
Please! NO! Don't stop posting videos of crimes. I watch a LOT of "Stupid people doing stupid things" videos on the interwebz. Talk about mindless entertainment!!don't post videos of crimes
Luckily people that break the law aren't the brightest
Not true, legally. It may be a policy...or someone trying to extract themselves from something they do not want to deal with.I dont get one thing. Ive been told by officers that my video I shoot is not admissible and unless he sees the offense himself there is nothing he can do. Now he can take that video as supporting evidence for trial, but the video itself cant be the basis for a charge.
With the above advice (heard repeatedly) how does this actually hold water and get the guy charged? Which is it? Is it some nuance?
I dont get one thing. Ive been told by officers that my video I shoot is not admissible and unless he sees the offense himself there is nothing he can do. Now he can take that video as supporting evidence for trial, but the video itself cant be the basis for a charge.
With the above advice (heard repeatedly) how does this actually hold water and get the guy charged? Which is it? Is it some nuance?
Way back when, locally, the police would give a card containing contact info for the prosecutor's office to the complainant (in situations that were non-emergent), then the complainant would meet with the prosecutor's legal intern who would take information, possibly view a video (VHS or Mini CV) and hand it off to a prosecutor to make a decision about pursuing it. At least that's the way one former intern remembers it.Sounds like confusion over the misdemeanor exception rule. An officer cannot make an outright arrest on most misdemeanors he did not personally witness. The misdemeanors you can are called misdemeanor exceptions and, like felonies, only require probable cause be established by whatever means.
If you have evidence of a non-exception misdemeanor the officer cannot make an outright arrest but can use that evidence to establish probable cause (assuming the evidence is sufficient) for an arrest warrant for a later arrest.