From: Zero Powers (zero_powers@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri May 05 2000 - 21:40:34 MDT
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
>
>Zero Powers wrote:
> >
> > >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> > >
> > >Any means of gathering evidence not under immediate human supervision
> > >and control is mere hearsay evidence, no matter how accurate or well
> > >time stamped it is.
> >
> > Perhaps. But "mere hearsay" is not the same as inadmissible, or not
> > convincing. There are many exceptions to the so-called "hearsay
>evidence
> > rule". And hearsay evidence is admitted into evidence all the time.
>Film
> > of you running a red light would pretty much nail you, unless you came
>up
> > with a very convincing excuse. If automated evidence were useless,
> > convenience stores across the country would not be wasting so much money
>on
> > surveillance cameras.
>
>As previously stated by Lee, unless that film clearly shows YOU driving
>the car, then there can be no citation...
Wrong. Film showing your car running a red light raises what's called a
"rebuttable presumption" that *you* committed the infraction. The burden
then shifts to you to rebut that presumption by admissible evidence. If you
cannot meet that burden, you lose.
>Hearsay evidence must be corroborated by eyewitness testimony or other
>material evidence. Charges based solely on hearsay are not even
>indictable charges.
That is simply false. The only burden hearsay evidence faces is being
admitted into evidence in the first place. Once it clears that hurdle, if
it can, it is given the same weight as any other admissible evidence and it
absolutely *can* be the basis of an indictment.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:26 MST