How admissible is video surveillance in a prosecution?
Get Legal Help Today
Compare Quotes From Top Companies and Save
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
How admissible is video surveillance in a prosecution?
I was recently questioned about a credit card theft where the suspect bought alcohol with a stolen credit card. He was filmed on video surveillance inside the liquor store using the stolen card. Supposedly this person looks a lot like me, but isn’t me. I denied any knowledge of the theft when questioned. How admissible is this video footage if I were to be charged with this fraud crime on the basis of me looking like this individual?
Asked on August 26, 2010 under Criminal Law, Kansas
Answers:
SJZ, Member, New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney
Answered 13 years ago | Contributor
As a general rule, it would be admissible, so long as it's relevance and bona fides can be shown (e.g. it was from that store, at that time). The fact that it's admissible merely means that it, along with other evidence, would be submitted to the trier of fact (e.g. the jury) and would be considered in coming to a verdict. You--or more accurately, your attorney, since you should definitely retain one if charged--could of course try to attack the evidence on several bases, including that there is reason to think it was tampered with, that it is too grainy to be certain of what you're seeing, that the person in the evidence has certain particular differences from yourself, etc. Some attacks may go to an attempt to exclude, or keep out, the evidence entirely, but that generally requires showing there is something suspect or unreliable out it; other attacks are just refuting it in some way, like refuting eyewitness testimony.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although AttorneyPages.com has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.