[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Hidden cameras to catch speeders




elandau@cais3.cais.com (Eric Landau) wrote:

>Checks, cameras, documents, videos, skid marks, blood stains, etc. don't 
>just walk into court and get themselves admitted into evidence.  They 
>must be introduced in support of testimony given by a human being, and 
>will be admitted into evidence by a judge only if he or she finds that 
>they do in fact support that testimony.

Sorry if I misunderstood your argument.  I just assumed the photoradar
evidence was presented by a police officer or photoradar technician,
rather than just floating into the courtroom alone and unaided.  If this
is in fact the case (as I assume it must be), we are in agreement -- that
physical or mechanically-collected evidence (such as a photo of a skidmark
or a radar photo), if presented by a cross-examinable person, is valid
evidence.  

>Sorry if this comes as a surprise, but it's that day already.  Only 
>"personally-presented" evidence (presented in conjunction with and in 
>support of the testimony of cross-examinable witnesses -- I remind you 
>again that evidence and witnesses are not the same thing) does count.  If

>it isn't in support of testimony, it will not be admitted.  It isn't just

>"evidence" because it's there, it has to be evidence OF something.  It 
>has to be evidence of something which has been asserted by a witness.

I believe I misunderstood your use of the word "witness" to mean a person
that actually saw the crime occur, rather than someone appearing in court,
and that led me to my previous line of reasoning.  

I think it is reasonable to assume that law enforcement organizations will
provide a witness (in the form of an officer or technician) in cases in
which a person contests a photo radar ticket.  Thus, all the same legal
avenues *are* available to the person contesting -- my original assertion.




S. Pierre Paret
Washington, D.C.  "Through Reason, or By Force."
spierre@aol.com


References: