4 ms·
The argument that I have heard so far is that up until this point, when police enter a house and make an arrest, the jury doesn't see the accused until his lawy
by koenigdavidmj 13y ago
The argument that I have heard so far is that up until this point, when police enter a house and make an arrest, the jury doesn't see the accused until his lawyer gets to clean him up, put him in a suit, and get him to shut up. With ubiquitous cameras, the jury will now see the accused and his residence and will have that as their first impression of him.
- AnIrishDuck 13y agoI imagine that, if necessary, the accused's lawyer could argue that showing such footage would be unduly prejudicial. This would preclude the jury from ever seeing it (unless its probative value outweighed its prejudicial impact).
- nknighthb 13y agoSuch a video would be utterly irrelevant in most cases anyway. If you're in and out to arrest someone on a warrant, the actual events of that arrest have nothing to do with the reason they're being arrested, and would almost never come up in a trial to begin with.
- pmiller2 13y agoCorrect, but that doesn't apply to GPS in police cruisers. All that data can tell you is that the car was at X address at Y time, which is already obvious.