A white woman has apologized after calling police on a black man and saying 'there's an African American man threatening my life'
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:18 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
I applaud your research. As I said the video is all that's needed.

1) The video has sound
2) Christian and Amy can be identified.
3) Christian recorded the video. He doesn't have to be in court to verify that. His voice is on the video.
4) He did it with his Iphone. It's probably in the cloud.
5) The video can be corroborated with the 911 call for time and date.
6) The DA will view the video before going into court.
7) The scene can be easily identified. It's stable.
8) It's a live video it depicts the scene as it was.
9) A video forensic expert can confirm the videos authenticity.

Again, a first year law student can win this one. I'll be looking for the case disposition.


You would need a reason to show the video. No one on that list was there except Amy Cooper and Christian Cooper. There would be no reason to show the video.

Any of the witnesses you listed above could testify and tell their full story w/o having to show the video.

Amy Cooper is not going to push to show the video. Christian Cooper refuses to testify.

A forensic expert can only testify that yes, there was a video on Christian Cooper's iphone. However, that point is not in dispute.

A forensic expert can't testify to what happened that day between Christian and Amy Cooper, so the DA won't be able to admit the video through the expert.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 52506
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:24 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
jodeke wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
jodeke wrote:
I applaud your research. As I said the video is all that's needed.

1) The video has sound
2) Christian and Amy can be identified.
3) Christian recorded the video. He doesn't have to be in court to verify that. His voice is on the video.
4) He did it with his Iphone. It's probably in the cloud.
5) The video can be corroborated with the 911 call for time and date.
6) The DA will view the video before going into court.
7) The scene can be easily identified. It's stable.
8) It's a live video it depicts the scene as it was.
9) A video forensic expert can confirm the videos authenticity.

Again, a first year law student can win this one.


Not if the video can not be submitted as evidence because it's source can't be corroborated in court, which is LBP's point.

Why can't it be corroborated? Can't Iphone communications be verified through the carrier? Though Christian doesn't want to cooperate in a court case can't his phone be subpoenaed? LG lawyers.


An attorney can't just introduce a video into evidence (because he's not a witness in the case). It has to be attached to a witness and that witness will have to testify to its authenticity. Any video that is admitted into evidence has to have a witness authenticating it. Can't get around this.

Christian Cooper is the only witness that can authenticate it. The 911 operator can't. Amy Cooper can't.

Without Christian Cooper, the DA can't get that video admitted into evidence.


Do you have case law to validate your claim? I'm not a lawyer so I ask anyone with law expertise to chime in.

It's my understanding if your phone has evidence needed in a court case, law enforcement can subpoena your phone with a court order.

Also information from your phone may be stored in the cloud. LE may have authority to subpoena your carrier, also with a court order. I don't know, I'm surmising. Are you citing case law or your opinion?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.


Last edited by jodeke on Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:34 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:31 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:


Do you have case law to validate your claim? I'm not a lawyer so I ask anyone with law expertise to chime in.

It's my understanding if your phone has evidence needed in a court case, law enforcement can subpoena your phone with a court order.

Also information from your phone may be stored in the cloud. LE may have authority to subpoena your carrier. I don't know, I'm surmising. Are you citing case law or your opinion?


These are the basic rules of evidence. Now, rules of evidence do differ from state to state and from federal to state, but they generally are the same.

Quote:
Admissibility of Video Camera and Videotape Footage in Colorado Criminal Cases

As video recordings, such as body camera footage, cell phone footage, and surveillance camera footage, become more prevalent in today’s society, the use that footage in criminal cases becomes more prevalent as well. For example, as more and more police agencies employ the use of body cameras to monitor public interactions with police, often that footage can end up as evidence in a criminal trial if charges are brought against a defendant. This article discusses admissibility issues of video footage in Colorado criminal cases.



General Considerations for Admitting Video Footage into Evidence in Colorado Criminal Cases

As with any trial in a judicial court, including civil and criminal trials, any evidence that is submitted to the trier of fact must comply with applicable rules of evidence in order to be admissible. For criminal cases in Colorado state courts, the specific rules governing admission of evidence at trial are the Colorado Rules of Evidence (“C.R.E.”). Accordingly, any video footage that a party wishes to submit at trial in a Colorado criminal case must comply with the Colorado Rules of Evidence.

In general, there are two kinds of sensory evidence contained within video footage. Visual evidence; that is, what the video footage actually depicts. And audio evidence; that is, any verbal statements or sound that is contained within the video footage. This primary distinction gives rises to different evidentiary requirements that are applicable depending on what aspects of the video are being offered into evidence.

If just the visual aspects of a video are being offered into evidence; for example, if the video contains no audio; then the video must comport with traditional rules for photographic evidence. If audio is included with the video then additional evidentiary rules, such as those governing hearsay, are also applicable.



Admissibility of Visual Aspects of Video Footage in Colorado Criminal Cases

Where just visual aspects of a video are sought to be admitted into evidence, the Colorado Rules of Evidence treat those aspects similar to traditional still photographs. Accordingly, in order to be admissible, the video footage must comply with evidentiary requirements applicable to photographs. See People v. Avery, 736 P.2d 1233, 1238 (Colo. App. 1986) (indicating that the law and policy governing the admissibility of photographs applies to videotapes).

The primary requirement for admitting visual evidence, such as photographs and videotapes, is that the evidence must be authenticated before it is admitted. That is, there must be sufficient evidence on the record to establish that the visual evidence is what it purports to be.

Most commonly this is done by having an individual with knowledge of the video testify at trial and lay foundation demonstrating that the video is an accurate representation of what occurred. Some examples of what a witness may testify to in order to authenticate the visual aspects of a video include:

– Describing how specifically the film or video was created;

– If applicable, testifying that the witness was the one who filmed or created the video;

– Describing the circumstances or environment that are depicted in the video;

– If the witness saw the events first-hand, testifying that the video depicts what actually occurred;

– Indicating that the equipment used to make the video was in good working order;

– Identifying the video being offered for admission into evidence as the correct video;

– Indicating that the video is a fair and accurate depiction of the activity reflected in the video.

See C.R.E. 901(b)(1); People v. Armijo, 179 P.3d 1234 (Colo. App. 2007) (upholding the admissibility of surveillance camera footage where the security director had described the surveillance system and testified that the footage was an accurate depiction of what occurred on the day of the robbery).

Notably, the authentication of visual aspects for videos does not necessarily require that the person who took the video testify as to its authenticity. Instead, authentication can be satisfied by a witness with first-hand knowledge of the event and who is able to testify the video accurately depicts what it purports to.

That is, authentication may be established either by testimony that demonstrates the video was recorded in an accurate manner, or by testimony which corroborates the video is an accurate depiction of what occurred. See People v. Baca, 378 P.3d 780 (Colo. App. 2015); United States v. McNair, 439 F.Supp. 103 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 1977).



Admissibility of Audio Aspects of Video Footage in Colorado Criminal Cases
In contrast to visual aspects of video footage, where admissibility is primarily focused on establishing the accuracy of what is depicted, when a video also contains audio aspects, rules applicable to audio statements apply as well. The most common evidentiary rules applied to audio contained within a video are hearsay rules.

That is, where a video contains audio statements, the video must not only be authenticated in conformance with the requirements discussed above but, also, any audio statements included in the video must also comply with hearsay rules in order to be admitted. Generally speaking, hearsay rules ban out of court statements that are made for the truth of the matter asserted.

In particular, Colorado Rules of Evidence 801 to 807 are the hearsay rules applicable in Colorado courts. While hearsay is generally defined to include any statements made out of court, there are many exceptions to the rule. The following are some of the most common exceptions:

– A statement previously made by a witness that is inconsistent with the witness’s testimony;

– A statement made by a party to the case and that is offered against that party at trial;

– A statement made contemporaneously with a startling event and relating to the startling event;

– A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition;

– Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment;

– Statements regarding a person’s character in the local community;

– A statement made by a witness that is unavailable for trial and the statement is adverse to that witness’s interest;

See C.R.E. 801; C.R.E. 803; C.R.E. 804. Notably, there are over 20 exceptions to the hearsay rule meaning that, frequently, out of court statements are admissible even though they may otherwise qualify as hearsay.

Overall, where a video contains statements and those statements fit within a hearsay exception, then the audio aspects of the video may be admitted along with the video aspects. However, if the audio aspects do not comport with hearsay rules, then those aspects of the video may have to be redacted or otherwise removed in order for the video to be admissible. In such circumstances, only the video aspects of the footage may be entered into evidence. See People v. Davis, 218 P.3d 718 (Colo. App 2008) (admitting one videotape that complied with hearsay requirements and excluding another videotape that did not).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 46309
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:42 am    Post subject:

It's like jodeke forgot everything he saw during the OJ trial . . .
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 52506
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:43 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
jodeke wrote:


Do you have case law to validate your claim? I'm not a lawyer so I ask anyone with law expertise to chime in.

It's my understanding if your phone has evidence needed in a court case, law enforcement can subpoena your phone with a court order.

Also information from your phone may be stored in the cloud. LE may have authority to subpoena your carrier. I don't know, I'm surmising. Are you citing case law or your opinion?


These are the basic rules of evidence. Now, rules of evidence do differ from state to state and from federal to state, but they generally are the same.

Quote:
Admissibility of Video Camera and Videotape Footage in Colorado Criminal Cases

As video recordings, such as body camera footage, cell phone footage, and surveillance camera footage, become more prevalent in today’s society, the use that footage in criminal cases becomes more prevalent as well. For example, as more and more police agencies employ the use of body cameras to monitor public interactions with police, often that footage can end up as evidence in a criminal trial if charges are brought against a defendant. This article discusses admissibility issues of video footage in Colorado criminal cases.



General Considerations for Admitting Video Footage into Evidence in Colorado Criminal Cases

As with any trial in a judicial court, including civil and criminal trials, any evidence that is submitted to the trier of fact must comply with applicable rules of evidence in order to be admissible. For criminal cases in Colorado state courts, the specific rules governing admission of evidence at trial are the Colorado Rules of Evidence (“C.R.E.”). Accordingly, any video footage that a party wishes to submit at trial in a Colorado criminal case must comply with the Colorado Rules of Evidence.

In general, there are two kinds of sensory evidence contained within video footage. Visual evidence; that is, what the video footage actually depicts. And audio evidence; that is, any verbal statements or sound that is contained within the video footage. This primary distinction gives rises to different evidentiary requirements that are applicable depending on what aspects of the video are being offered into evidence.

If just the visual aspects of a video are being offered into evidence; for example, if the video contains no audio; then the video must comport with traditional rules for photographic evidence. If audio is included with the video then additional evidentiary rules, such as those governing hearsay, are also applicable.



Admissibility of Visual Aspects of Video Footage in Colorado Criminal Cases

Where just visual aspects of a video are sought to be admitted into evidence, the Colorado Rules of Evidence treat those aspects similar to traditional still photographs. Accordingly, in order to be admissible, the video footage must comply with evidentiary requirements applicable to photographs. See People v. Avery, 736 P.2d 1233, 1238 (Colo. App. 1986) (indicating that the law and policy governing the admissibility of photographs applies to videotapes).

The primary requirement for admitting visual evidence, such as photographs and videotapes, is that the evidence must be authenticated before it is admitted. That is, there must be sufficient evidence on the record to establish that the visual evidence is what it purports to be.

Most commonly this is done by having an individual with knowledge of the video testify at trial and lay foundation demonstrating that the video is an accurate representation of what occurred. Some examples of what a witness may testify to in order to authenticate the visual aspects of a video include:

– Describing how specifically the film or video was created;

– If applicable, testifying that the witness was the one who filmed or created the video;

– Describing the circumstances or environment that are depicted in the video;

– If the witness saw the events first-hand, testifying that the video depicts what actually occurred;

– Indicating that the equipment used to make the video was in good working order;

– Identifying the video being offered for admission into evidence as the correct video;

– Indicating that the video is a fair and accurate depiction of the activity reflected in the video.

See C.R.E. 901(b)(1); People v. Armijo, 179 P.3d 1234 (Colo. App. 2007) (upholding the admissibility of surveillance camera footage where the security director had described the surveillance system and testified that the footage was an accurate depiction of what occurred on the day of the robbery).

Notably, the authentication of visual aspects for videos does not necessarily require that the person who took the video testify as to its authenticity. Instead, authentication can be satisfied by a witness with first-hand knowledge of the event and who is able to testify the video accurately depicts what it purports to.

That is, authentication may be established either by testimony that demonstrates the video was recorded in an accurate manner, or by testimony which corroborates the video is an accurate depiction of what occurred. See People v. Baca, 378 P.3d 780 (Colo. App. 2015); United States v. McNair, 439 F.Supp. 103 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 1977).



Admissibility of Audio Aspects of Video Footage in Colorado Criminal Cases
In contrast to visual aspects of video footage, where admissibility is primarily focused on establishing the accuracy of what is depicted, when a video also contains audio aspects, rules applicable to audio statements apply as well. The most common evidentiary rules applied to audio contained within a video are hearsay rules.

That is, where a video contains audio statements, the video must not only be authenticated in conformance with the requirements discussed above but, also, any audio statements included in the video must also comply with hearsay rules in order to be admitted. Generally speaking, hearsay rules ban out of court statements that are made for the truth of the matter asserted.

In particular, Colorado Rules of Evidence 801 to 807 are the hearsay rules applicable in Colorado courts. While hearsay is generally defined to include any statements made out of court, there are many exceptions to the rule. The following are some of the most common exceptions:

– A statement previously made by a witness that is inconsistent with the witness’s testimony;

– A statement made by a party to the case and that is offered against that party at trial;

– A statement made contemporaneously with a startling event and relating to the startling event;

– A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition;

– Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment;

– Statements regarding a person’s character in the local community;

– A statement made by a witness that is unavailable for trial and the statement is adverse to that witness’s interest;

See C.R.E. 801; C.R.E. 803; C.R.E. 804. Notably, there are over 20 exceptions to the hearsay rule meaning that, frequently, out of court statements are admissible even though they may otherwise qualify as hearsay.

Overall, where a video contains statements and those statements fit within a hearsay exception, then the audio aspects of the video may be admitted along with the video aspects. However, if the audio aspects do not comport with hearsay rules, then those aspects of the video may have to be redacted or otherwise removed in order for the video to be admissible. In such circumstances, only the video aspects of the footage may be entered into evidence. See People v. Davis, 218 P.3d 718 (Colo. App 2008) (admitting one videotape that complied with hearsay requirements and excluding another videotape that did not).

You've posted Colorado law. This incident occurred in NY.

Here's another link concerning what LE can do to get evidence from someone who doesn't want to cooperate. LINK

It's lengthy. To save page space I posted the link. A excerpt
Quote:
Law enforcement wants access to third-party data on your phone. What can it get?

Short answer: Whatever it wants (with the right court order).

Does the DA need the video to prove the charge? She's charged with filing a false police report.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.


Last edited by jodeke on Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:58 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:50 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:

You've posted Colorado law. This incident occurred in NY.

Here's another link concerning what LE can do to get evidence from someone who doesn't want to cooperate. LINK

It's lengthy. To save page space I posted the link. A excerpt
Quote:
Law enforcement wants access to third-party data on your phone. What can it get?

Short answer: Whatever it wants (with the right court order).


Like I said, rules of evidence are very similar from state to state.

Rules of evidence concerning having to have a witness authenticate a video before it can be admitted into evidence does not change from NY to Colorado to CA.

Getting video into evidence is no small feat. We've seen how Robert Kraft's team was able to successfully suppress the video in his case:

Quote:
Robert Kraft's Alleged Spa Sex Act Tape Suppressed by Judge in Solicitation Case

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2836071-robert-krafts-alleged-spa-sex-act-tape-suppressed-by-judge-in-solicitation-case


But, if you're still that adamant that the DA can get the video admitted without Christian Cooper's cooperation, then I'll defer to you.


Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 46309
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:57 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
It's lengthy. To save page space I posted the link. A excerpt
Quote:
Law enforcement wants access to third-party data on your phone. What can it get?

Short answer: Whatever it wants (with the right court order).


And a judge who will uphold it.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 52506
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:02 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
jodeke wrote:

You've posted Colorado law. This incident occurred in NY.

Here's another link concerning what LE can do to get evidence from someone who doesn't want to cooperate. LINK

It's lengthy. To save page space I posted the link. A excerpt
Quote:
Law enforcement wants access to third-party data on your phone. What can it get?

Short answer: Whatever it wants (with the right court order).


Like I said, rules of evidence are very similar from state to state.

Rules of evidence concerning having to have a witness authenticate a video before it can be admitted into evidence does not change from NY to Colorado to CA.

But, if you are that adamant that the DA can get the video admitted without Christian Cooper's cooperation, then I'll defer to you.


OK.

As posted. Does the DA nee the video to prove the charge? She's charged with filing a false police report.

Remember we're debating winning a case. You said it would be difficult without Christians cooperation.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 52506
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:03 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
jodeke wrote:
It's lengthy. To save page space I posted the link. A excerpt
Quote:
Law enforcement wants access to third-party data on your phone. What can it get?

Short answer: Whatever it wants (with the right court order).


And a judge who will uphold it.


DA's don't usually have problems finding judges to side with them.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 52506
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:08 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
It's like jodeke forgot everything he saw during the OJ trial . . .


Oh man, OJ? C'mon DMR!!!! Let it go.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:09 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
OK.

As posted. Does the DA nee the video to prove the charge? She's charged with filing a false police report.

Remember we're debating winning a case. You said it would be difficult without Christians cooperation.


jodeke wrote:
The video is a slam dunk. Amy will be found guilty. A first year law student could get a conviction on this one.


If you have no Christian Cooper, no video, no other witnesses, how do you prove Amy Cooper was lying?

Wasn't one of the comments in the original story was that Christian Cooper was lucky to have it on video or else it'd be a he said vs. she said case and no one would believe him?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 52506
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:16 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
jodeke wrote:
OK.

As posted. Does the DA nee the video to prove the charge? She's charged with filing a false police report.

Remember we're debating winning a case. You said it would be difficult without Christians cooperation.


jodeke wrote:
The video is a slam dunk. Amy will be found guilty. A first year law student could get a conviction on this one.

Is the video needed to win the case? Again remember what we're debating. Amy's charged with filing a false police report.
Quote:
If the DA goes ahead and tries and prosecutes her w/o Christian Coopers help, then he might lose the case. If she's able to be acquitted of all charges, then that sets a bad precedent that people can do this stuff and get away with it.

_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 46309
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:29 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
It's like jodeke forgot everything he saw during the OJ trial . . .


Oh man, OJ? C'mon DMR!!!! Let it go.


Jerez dude. Once again context goes flying right over your head.

My comment has nothing to with “letting the OJ case go”.

The point is, that case played out for months on live TV and was a perfect education in how evidence works and how just because a DA has pertinent evidence they want use doesn’t mean they get to.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 52506
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:32 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
jodeke wrote:
OK.

As posted. Does the DA nee the video to prove the charge? She's charged with filing a false police report.

Remember we're debating winning a case. You said it would be difficult without Christians cooperation.


jodeke wrote:
The video is a slam dunk. Amy will be found guilty. A first year law student could get a conviction on this one.


If you have no Christian Cooper, no video, no other witnesses, how do you prove Amy Cooper was lying?

Wasn't one of the comments in the original story was that Christian Cooper was lucky to have it on video or else it'd be a he said vs. she said case and no one would believe him?


The video went viral. Video forensics will prove it's validity. Again the DA doesn't need it to prove his case. Amy's charged with filing a false police report.

What Christian Cooper’s Lack of Cooperation with DA’s Office May Mean for Criminal Case Against Amy Cooper


LINK

Quote:
Criminal defense attorney and former New York City homicide prosecutor Julie Rendelman told Law&Crime that the DA “may not actually need Mr. Cooper’s testimony in order to effectively prosecute Amy Cooper.”

“After all, they have the 911 call that contains the alleged false reporting, and they have video that was taken contemporaneously with the actual incident that led to the charges,” Rendelman said. “The prosecutor can subpoena Mr. Cooper for a potential trial if they believe they need Mr. Cooper to authenticate the video and give background to the incident, but they would probably be able to work around that.”

_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.


Last edited by jodeke on Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:45 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:39 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
jodeke wrote:
OK.

As posted. Does the DA nee the video to prove the charge? She's charged with filing a false police report.

Remember we're debating winning a case. You said it would be difficult without Christians cooperation.


jodeke wrote:
The video is a slam dunk. Amy will be found guilty. A first year law student could get a conviction on this one.


If you have no Christian Cooper, no video, no other witnesses, how do you prove Amy Cooper was lying?

Wasn't one of the comments in the original story was that Christian Cooper was lucky to have it on video or else it'd be a he said vs. she said case and no one would believe him?


The video went viral. Video forensics will prove it's validity. Again the DA doesn't need it to prove his case. Amy's charged with filing a false police report.


Like I said, if you feel that adamant about this, I'll defer to your expertise. You seem extremely confident in your legal expertise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 46309
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:40 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:

Is the video needed to win the case? Again remember what we're debating. Amy's charged with filing a false police report.


The false report charge is based on the claim she made on the phone call. Without the video, the false report becomes far more difficult to prove. Which is why the DA is having a hard time proceeding without Cristian Coopers cooperation, as has been pointed out repeatedly.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 52506
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:47 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
jodeke wrote:

Is the video needed to win the case? Again remember what we're debating. Amy's charged with filing a false police report.


The false report charge is based on the claim she made on the phone call. Without the video, the false report becomes far more difficult to prove. Which is why the DA is having a hard time proceeding without Cristian Coopers cooperation, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

Read my edit. The source is an attorney. If those repeatedly pointing it out are not attorneys how does it stack up against Criminal defense attorney and former New York City homicide prosecutor Julie Rendelman?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.


Last edited by jodeke on Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:55 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:55 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
jodeke wrote:
OK.

As posted. Does the DA nee the video to prove the charge? She's charged with filing a false police report.

Remember we're debating winning a case. You said it would be difficult without Christians cooperation.


jodeke wrote:
The video is a slam dunk. Amy will be found guilty. A first year law student could get a conviction on this one.


If you have no Christian Cooper, no video, no other witnesses, how do you prove Amy Cooper was lying?

Wasn't one of the comments in the original story was that Christian Cooper was lucky to have it on video or else it'd be a he said vs. she said case and no one would believe him?


The video went viral. Video forensics will prove it's validity. Again the DA doesn't need it to prove his case. Amy's charged with filing a false police report.

What Christian Cooper’s Lack of Cooperation with DA’s Office May Mean for Criminal Case Against Amy Cooper


LINK

Quote:
Criminal defense attorney and former New York City homicide prosecutor Julie Rendelman told Law&Crime that the DA “may not actually need Mr. Cooper’s testimony in order to effectively prosecute Amy Cooper.”

“After all, they have the 911 call that contains the alleged false reporting, and they have video that was taken contemporaneously with the actual incident that led to the charges,” Rendelman said. “The prosecutor can subpoena Mr. Cooper for a potential trial if they believe they need Mr. Cooper to authenticate the video and give background to the incident, but they would probably be able to work around that.”


Yup, your initial argument was that they would be able to admit the evidence even w/o Christian Cooper's cooperation.

Then you said Colorado law and NY law are different.

Then you posted a quote of an attorney saying that they'd be able to subpoena Mr. Cooper in order to authenticate the video.

Now the argument is, they'd probably be able to work around that, even w/o the video.

But again, like I said, I'll defer to your legal expertise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSanity
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 32638
Location: Long Beach, California

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:55 am    Post subject:

LBP - Christian Cooper does not have to willingly cooperate. A DA can force his cooperation and force him to testify.

Jodeke - LBP is right if Cooper does not testify and Amy/Karen doesn't admit guilt. Otherwise, (1) it is difficult (impossible) to get the video admitted into evidence and (2) reasonable doubt exists that something happened before the video which explains its context that wasn't in the video. For example, what if Cooper had threatened her life before he pressed the record on his phone? She could literally make anything up that she wanted to and say that the video doesn't reflect the entire scene. Heck, she can do that anyway, but much less effective if Cooper testifies.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:57 am    Post subject:

LakerSanity wrote:
LBP - Christian Cooper does not have to willingly cooperate. A DA can force his cooperation and force him to testify.



agreed.

My only point was they need him to authenticate the video, willingly or coerced.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 52506
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:07 pm    Post subject:

LakerSanity wrote:
LBP - Christian Cooper does not have to willingly cooperate. A DA can force his cooperation and force him to testify.

Jodeke - LBP is right if Cooper does not testify and Amy/Karen doesn't admit guilt. Otherwise, (1) it is difficult (impossible) to get the video admitted into evidence and (2) reasonable doubt exists that something happened before the video which explains its context that wasn't in the video. For example, what if Cooper had threatened her life before he pressed the record on his phone? She could literally make anything up that she wanted to and say that the video doesn't reflect the entire scene. Heck, she can do that anyway, but much less effective if Cooper testifies.


Thank you LS. You've validated my assumption the DA can subpoena Christian.

With points 1 & 2 I agree. On point 2 the defense would have a great defense. What happened before the record button was pressed.

On the bold green. I don't think any attorney wants to lose. If you were the DA would you force Christian to testify?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:16 pm    Post subject:

One thought I just had. If Christian Cooper doesn't testify and Amy Cooper doesn't take the stand, how would the DA actually present its case?

How would they tell the story of what happened? There's only 2 people that were actually there: Christian and Amy Cooper.

I just don't know how they present their case at that point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:21 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
LBP - Christian Cooper does not have to willingly cooperate. A DA can force his cooperation and force him to testify.

Jodeke - LBP is right if Cooper does not testify and Amy/Karen doesn't admit guilt. Otherwise, (1) it is difficult (impossible) to get the video admitted into evidence and (2) reasonable doubt exists that something happened before the video which explains its context that wasn't in the video. For example, what if Cooper had threatened her life before he pressed the record on his phone? She could literally make anything up that she wanted to and say that the video doesn't reflect the entire scene. Heck, she can do that anyway, but much less effective if Cooper testifies.


Thank you LS. You've validated my assumption the DA can subpoena Christian.



It's also mentioned by the attorney that you quoted:

Quote:
Criminal defense attorney and former New York City homicide prosecutor Julie Rendelman told Law&Crime that the DA “may not actually need Mr. Cooper’s testimony in order to effectively prosecute Amy Cooper.”

“After all, they have the 911 call that contains the alleged false reporting, and they have video that was taken contemporaneously with the actual incident that led to the charges,”

Rendelman said. “The prosecutor can subpoena Mr. Cooper for a potential trial if they believe they need Mr. Cooper to authenticate the video and give background to the incident, but they would probably be able to work around that.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 52506
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:21 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
One thought I just had. If Christian Cooper doesn't testify and Amy Cooper doesn't take the stand, how would the DA actually present its case?

How would they tell the story of what happened? There's only 2 people that were actually there: Christian and Amy Cooper.

I just don't know how they present their case at that point.


As I said I'm not an attorney. So I'm saying what i'd do if I were. If I were the DA I'd force Christian to cooperate. I'd subpoena him.

Quote:
Criminal defense attorney and former New York City homicide prosecutor Julie Rendelman told Law&Crime that the DA “may not actually need Mr. Cooper’s testimony in order to effectively prosecute Amy Cooper.”

_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:33 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
One thought I just had. If Christian Cooper doesn't testify and Amy Cooper doesn't take the stand, how would the DA actually present its case?

How would they tell the story of what happened? There's only 2 people that were actually there: Christian and Amy Cooper.

I just don't know how they present their case at that point.


As I said I'm not an attorney. So I'm saying what i'd do if I were. If I were the DA I'd force Christian to cooperate. I'd subpoena him.



Which goes back to my original point. If I were Christian Cooper, I'd think again about refusing to testify.

It'd be beneficial for the black community and it'd be hard for the DA to win the case w/o his cooperation.

Your original point was you support Christian Cooper not testifying. You feel it's a slam dunk case with just the video and they didn't need Christian's testimony. Now you are saying if you were the DA, you'd subpoena him and force him to testify. You're kinda all over the place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 8 of 9
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB