Can a video film or footage considered admissable in the court of law?

What for example one hubbyist of a videocam started to take video of the a passage in one downtown suburb at night in his hotel room, filming people passing by in one of the dimly lighted street then sudden he saw a woman being maul, beaten and rob by two men, but by zooming diligently with the camera he has clear picture of the two perpetrators.





Now the question- Is this considered admissable in the crime of robbery if he will present this in court? Because some lawyers if he happens to defend the two guys would tell the judge that this is clearly a manifestation violation of the rights of the accuse. Is this true? Because the video tapes clearly state the two men who are his client who robbed a woman downtown are already guilty therefore no need to present witness or evidence to prove that they are innocent of the said charges. Which is against the provision of any accuse or violation of the constitution. Is this correct?





stop smoking weeds when u answer this.

Can a video film or footage considered admissable in the court of law?
The law is funny about cameras and videos. Actually, the video is not "the" evidence. Except in administrative proceedings (traffic tickets for the most part), the evidence is the testimony of an eyewitness.





Q. Were you at x dimly lit street on Y date at Z o'clock.


A. Yes.





Q. Did you observe something happening?


A. Yes, I saw D beating the bejeezus out of V.





Q. Did you have a video camera with you?


A. Yes, and I videotaped the beating.





Other lawyer: Your honor, I request a voir dire of the tape.


Judge clears the jury out of the courtroom for voir dire, shows the videotaped images to the witness.





Q. Is the videotaped image a fair and accurate representation of what you saw?


A. Yes.





I offer the videotape in evidence.





After the judge decides that the videotape is relevant the case and not overly prejudicial, the jury comes back in and the tape is re-played and the witness repeats that then video shows what he saw.





You can't cross-examine a videotape. The "evidence" is the witness saying that he saw what the tape shows. The footage is just demonstrative of the witness' testimony.
Reply:Apparently so. This United States Supreme Court case included a video in the slip opinion. This is the first time by the way, that a video has been introduced as part of a Supreme Court opinion.





http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/0...


And scroll down to "Scott v. Harris" an 04-30-07 case.


Here is the PDF link: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/0...





You will need Adobe Acrobat reader for the text.


You will need "Real Player" if you want to watch the video.
Reply:Had you discontinued taking Valium when before asked?





Anyways, it depends on the country.


Some use routine observation of public places,


if you want a strict privacy, simply stay at home.
Reply:It's the same as if a security camera in a parking lot captures a crime. It can be presented as evidence. The have a whole group of people in LA called cop-watch that goes around video taping arrests after the King trial. It's not against the law, although not everyone especially the criminally minded want to have their faces appear on tape.