|
Here is the plot:
Woman falls in front of man with all sorts of money spilling out of
her purse.
Man mugs the money from the woman leaving her tied up in an alley.
He leaves town with the money.
Woman is found by someone and the crime is reported with a warrant put
out on the man.
Eventually the man returns to town and is arrested.
Only when in jail the woman goes to visit him to tell him off for the
crime and he works his charm and gets the woman to start falling for
her in jail.
Captivated by his charms, the woman continues to visit him falling for
him.
She ends up going to the District Attorney saying she wants the
charges against him dropped.
The DA says once the case is presented to their office and is accepted
they do not intend to drop the case and she will be called in to
testify and expected to tell the truth.
Continuing to visit the man in jail, he works his charms on her more
to the point to where he asks her to marry him.
He has her bring a minister to the jail and they are married.
Now that the woman is his wife, the man's court appointed lawyer plans
on saying that since the woman is the man's wife she does not have to
testify against her husband in court on the crime.
Only the DA has something up her sleeve they did not count on.
The mugging occurred in public and was captured on video from a local
business with security cameras that clearly shows the crime taking
place.
--------------------------
This is where we are stumped in the story on where to go from here.
Would a court accept the video tape as evidence even without the
wife's tesitimony?
Yes, this is a work of fiction but knowing very little about the law,
we need help on where to go with the plot from here.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
:)
|
| |
| |
menudoboy13@yahoo.com wrote:
[man commits crime against a woman later his wife]
Your story has some real stretches in it, but I'll pass over those
because it's not your query.
This is where we are stumped in the story on where to go from here.
Would a court accept the video tape as evidence even without the
wife's tesitimony?
Yes. The video tape stands alone. This is assuming the participants in
the crime are identifiable on the tape. If, frex, they aren't, then the
testimony is needed to say, "Yes, that's me on the tape. You can see my
red scarf and yellow shoes I was wearing that day." ...and so forth.
-paul
ianal
|
| |
| |
On Mar 20, 7:23 am, menudobo...@yahoo.com wrote:
<potboiler novel's plot snipped>
Now that the woman is his wife, the man's court appointed lawyer plans
on saying that since the woman is the man's wife she does not have to
testify against her husband in court on the crime.
That's generally correct, in most USA states following the common law
evidence rule of spousal privilege or some statutorily enacted version
of same. However, even before they got married, a sensible DA would
probably drop the case if his star witness crapped out on him because
he would then know that he would not be able to put on sufficient
evidence at trial to convict, and his job goal is supposed to be doing
justice, not just getting convictions. But,
the DA has something up her sleeve they did not count on.
The mugging occurred in public and was captured on video from a local
business with security cameras that clearly shows the crime taking
place.
So long as some witness (other than the wife) can authenticate the
video (prove that it is genuine, by his testimony), and so long as the
faces in the video are sufficient to identify the participants, yes,
the video may be admitted into evidence. Whether that alone is
sufficient to prove that an intentional crime was committed may be
open to wide interpretation, and here's where your creative defense
lawyer may be able to raise reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds.
This is where we are stumped in the story on where to go from here.
Would a court accept the video tape as evidence even without the
wife's tesitimony?
The wife's testimony has nothing to do with the video evidence. They
are apples and oranges. The DA would call the store owner to the
witness stand, swear him in, and have him testify that "I run the XYZ
Store on Main St and we have a video surveillance system installed for
security. I am personally in charge of the video system and on day D,
I personally installed a videotape in the system as I routinely do
every day, and this item, People's Exhibit A, is the tape I removed
from the system at the end of Day D. I kept it in my locked safe in
my personal office that no one else has access to, until the police
came on Day D+1 and asked if they could review my security tapes for
Day D. I gave the tape to Officer Speed and he took it away. Yes,
this looks like the same videocassette I gave to Officer Speed." DA:
The people offer Exhibit A into evidence, Your Honor." Judge: "Any
objection?" Defense attorney: _____________. Judge: People's Exhibit A
is accepted into evidence." DA: "May we publish the exhibit to the
jury now, Your Honor?" Judge: "Any objection?" Defense
attorney:__________________. Judge: "You may play the video for the
jury."
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
|
| |
| |
menudobo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Now that the woman is his wife, the man's court appointed lawyer plans
on saying that since the woman is the man's wife she does not have to
testify against her husband in court on the crime.
Only the DA has something up her sleeve they did not count on.
The mugging occurred in public and was captured on video from a local
business with security cameras that clearly shows the crime taking
place.
This is where we are stumped in the story on where to go from here.
Would a court accept the video tape as evidence even without the
wife's tesitimony?
Yes. This is a question regarding evidentiary foundations. The only
foundation necessary for a videotape is testimony that it accurately
depicts the events shown, that the video hasn't been altered or
erased, and that nothing has been omitted. The testimony of the video
system manager and operator would be sufficient. If I were the
defense attorney I would attack the chain of custody of the tape to
undermine both the foundation and the jury's confidence in its
accuracy.
|
| |
| |
In article <b8i4u314ssns95p92k84tovlcjdoiucrrj@4ax.com>,
<menudoboy13@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is the plot:
[[.. snip improbable fiction story plot outline ..]]
This is where we are stumped in the story on where to go from here.
Would a court accept the video tape as evidence even without the
wife's tesitimony?
Of course. A 'complaining witness' is _NOT_ a necessity for either
the filing of charges, nor for getting a conviction.
Yes, this is a work of fiction but knowing very little about the law,
we need help on where to go with the plot from here.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Note: your basic premise has a FATAL flaw. DA _cannot_ keep the security
video secret from defense. There's a minor matter called "discovery",
whereby prosecution must expose everything it knows -- exculpatory _or_
incriminating -- to the defense. Raymond Burr courtroom antics not
withstanding.
note: Defense attorney has problems with _his_ plans, as well. "spousal
immunity" extends *only* to things that occurred _during_ the marriage.
Victim _can_ be compelled to testify against (now-) husband regarding
things that happened =prior=to= the ceremony.`
'Victim' risks misdemeanor charges of 'filing a false report', if she tries
to repudiate the report she made of the original crime.
"Victim' risks felony perjury charges if she lies about the events at her
husband's trial. The video tape, the original police report, and the
witnesses to the -making- of the report, are "more than sufficient" to
ensure conviction, should it come to _that_.
One thing she could _try_ would be to get herself incarcerated in a
foreign country. Where they won't let her out of jail in time to come
testify at his trial.
|
| |
| |
In article <b8i4u314ssns95p92k84tovlcjdoiucrrj@4ax.com>,
menudoboy13@yahoo.com wrote:
Now that the woman is his wife, the man's court appointed lawyer plans
on saying that since the woman is the man's wife she does not have to
testify against her husband in court on the crime.
Spousal privilege may not apply to events before they were
married, and it may also not apply in cases where the wife
is the victim of the crime in question. In any event, the
police would certainly have taken a statement and collected
evidence from the woman and the crime scene before the charges
were filed, and that stuff will be admissible since they did
not even know each other at that time.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
On Mar 20, 7:23 am, menudobo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Here is the plot:
Woman falls in front of man with all sorts of money spilling out of
her purse.
Man mugs the money from the woman leaving her tied up in an alley.
He leaves town with the money.
Woman is found by someone and the crime is reported with a warrant put
out on the man.
He has her bring a minister to the jail and they are married.
Now that the woman is his wife, the man's court appointed lawyer plans
on saying that since the woman is the man's wife she does not have to
testify against her husband in court on the crime.
<snip>
I can't help with the legal issue, but you might want to look for some
reports on Richard Condo. His life is sort of a, uh, more extravagant
version of your plot.
Among other things
- charged with assaulting his (latest) wife, and jailed waiting trial
- gets his (court-appointed, I think) lawyer pregnant while awaiting
trial
- his lawyer helps him escape during a court hearing (she is later
disbarred)
- he takes his wife hostage. During a 12-hour escape, he beats her
severely, causing serious permanent damage.
- after a few months, his wife refused to press charges, returned to
him (with some sort of relationship with the lawyer)
- he was convicted based on other evidence, but on much lesser charges
than probably would have occurred with the wife's testimony. (I think
he was faced with being declared a "dangerous offender," which
essentially means life in prison.)
This story was about five years ago, I think. He was released on
parole in 2006, I think.I haven't heard anything about him lately.
Before all this happened, he wrote a (self-published) book about how
he gets women to support him in the style to which he wants to be
accustomed. Apparently he is quite adept at it.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 21, 8:05 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
note: Defense attorney has problems with _his_ plans, as well. "spousal
immunity" extends *only* to things that occurred _during_ the marriage.
Victim _can_ be compelled to testify against (now-) husband regarding
things that happened =prior=to= the ceremony.`
There are actually two marital-type privileges. One is the "pillow
talk" privilege, and the other is the testimonial privilege. Both are
aimed at preserving marriages. The former can bar only interspousal
communications made during the marriage, while the latter can bar all
testimony during the marriage. There is a "spouse victim" exception
to the latter, though. As I recall, either spouse can raise the
"pillow talk" privilege, but only the defendant spouse can raise the
other one.
OP would be correct that the husband could prevent his wife from
testifying against him, but for the spouse victim exception.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 20, 7:23 am, menudobo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Here is the plot:
[snip]
Now that the woman is his wife, the man's court appointed lawyer plans
on saying that since the woman is the man's wife she does not have to
testify against her husband in court on the crime.
Only the DA has something up her sleeve they did not count on.
The mugging occurred in public and was captured on video from a local
business with security cameras that clearly shows the crime taking
place.
--------------------------
This is where we are stumped in the story on where to go from here.
Would a court accept the video tape as evidence even without the
wife's tesitimony?
We see a lot of hypothetical posts where a video which "clearly shows
the crime" fortuitously but belatedly turns up after the trail has
gotten underway. The basic premise is a little unlikely: most
surveillance videos are not that clear, and both the prosecutor(s) and
the defense lawyer(s) would have been looking pretty hard for such
videos long before the trial started. Even before the case went to
court, the cops probably would have in this case talked to the "local
business" and probably would have been informed that a video camera
happened to be pointed at the scene of the crime.
Regardless of when the tape turns up, the prosecution can't pull a
Perry Mason by producing it in court with no advance warning. The
defendant and his counsel does have the right to examine the new
evidence--- and if his lawyers are any good, they can present their
own theories about what is or is not "clearly shown" on the tape.
Even the clearest video is open to multiple interpretations, as can be
seen in any of number of high profile legal cases where videos were
used as evidence.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:37:12 -0400, Timothy
<Timothy.Horrigan@alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
Regardless of when the tape turns up, the prosecution can't pull a
Perry Mason by producing it in court with no advance warning. The
Why does everyone blame Perry Mason? He was a defense lawyer and could
do such things.
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
|
| |
| |
Robert Bonomi wrote:
Note: your basic premise has a FATAL flaw. DA _cannot_ keep the security
video secret from defense. There's a minor matter called "discovery",
whereby prosecution must expose everything it knows -- exculpatory _or_
incriminating -- to the defense. Raymond Burr courtroom antics not
withstanding.
Just one question to clear up something that I've not been 100% sure
about. I realize the prosecution has to provide ALL information that
they're aware of, even if it hurts their case (i.e. exculpatory) but
does the defense have to provide such back?
I.e. if John is accused of murder and the defense knows where the gun
is, they don't have to tell the DA, do they? But if the DA knew that the
finger prints on the gun were Jane's and not John's, then they DO have
to divulge that to the defense even if they had no plans to use it in
any way during the trial, correct?
(OK, so it was, basically, two questions. So sue me<g>)
|
| |
| |
In article <d71nu319e1tlmhmfp5q1hms53jgklbrg1s@4ax.com>,
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
Just one question to clear up something that I've not been 100% sure
about. I realize the prosecution has to provide ALL information that
they're aware of, even if it hurts their case (i.e. exculpatory) but
does the defense have to provide such back?
no.
I.e. if John is accused of murder and the defense knows where the gun
is, they don't have to tell the DA, do they? But if the DA knew that the
finger prints on the gun were Jane's and not John's, then they DO have
to divulge that to the defense even if they had no plans to use it in
any way during the trial, correct?
Mostly correct. With _very_limited_ exceptions, defense counsel is prevented
from revealing *anything* that defendant tells them.
*HOWEVER*, if knowledge "adverse to defendant's case" comes to counsel's
knowledge by _other_ means, counsel, as an 'officer of the court', _may_
be compelled to disclose that information to the court and the other parties
involved in the case.
Taking your hypothetical, if _John_ tells his lawyer where he hid the gun,
that communication is protected.
OTOH, if John is comatose in the hospital (say from injuries received during
his capture), and his _brother_ tells the lawyer "I saw John ditch the gun
at thus-and-such location", *THAT* knowledge, -not- being from a privileged
communication, *may* be subject to some form of forced disclosure.
|
| |
| |
|
