Dear Anonymous, In general, texts are admissible in court as long as two things happen. As stated in the original article, the texts must be certified and a foundation created in order to have them approved. Your best approach is to keep your own lawyer who has experience with local court rules. Expecting you to be able to answer that you cannot afford legal representation, given the factors you have summarized, you really cannot afford NOT to have legal representation. Try a local bar association or legal aid services. I really wish you all the best. Relevance presupposes that photographic and video evidence tends to make the existence of a fact at issue in this case more likely or less likely than the absence of the evidence would be. However, relevant evidence may also be excluded if its probative value is significantly outweighed by the risk of unfair disadvantage or other factors. I recently attended an application hearing and the prosecution brought photos of footprints to the crime scene. They took my shoes as evidence on the day of the crime. The timestamp on the photos shows a date 2 days after the day of the crime.
The officer states that he never checked the timestamp of his camera. I feel like they could have staged the footprints since they had my shoes. And I think if the police collect evidence, more attention would be paid to avoiding this situation, and no excuse for not checking the time stamp of the cameras. What are my options, if any? Kern County Criminal Applications Hearing in California? Thanks to me, I had just been arrested and the officers had towed my Subaru four-wheel drive with a fake tow truck and damaged my car and I videotaped the interaction while they explained what had happened to me. My father was there as a witness. They admitted that they had used the «Wrecker» tow truck, and this can be heard in the recording. Will it be acceptable to use it as evidence? Yes, you can object to photos. As the blog points out, the proponent of evidence must lay the groundwork and authenticate the evidence before «presenting» the subject as evidence. Any evidence can be challenged. Times, dates, and locations are indicators of reliability, but the general qualification for photos is whether they accurately and accurately represent the scene they depict. I strongly recommend that you hire a lawyer in your jurisdiction to strengthen your objections in accordance with the court rules in your jurisdiction. My office is licensed in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
There are many levels of the factual model you have posted, so I suggest you contact a workers` compensation lawyer in your jurisdiction immediately. First, it is imperative that you work fully with the employer and their insurance company to file a workers` compensation claim. Second, using a photo of another violation is a scam. Third, lawyers and courts have been using social media posts as evidence for years, and therefore, your lawyer should decide how to treat the photo based on the context of the post. Hard to say without seeing it and the contribution in its entirety. Good luck. For the evidence to be certified, it must accurately represent its purpose in relation to the legal claim. For example, a photograph or video used as evidence in an accident must accurately represent the condition of the road at the time and date of the accident.
When digital imaging is considered for law enforcement, concerns are often raised about the admissibility of digital photographic evidence in court. The fact that digital photographs can be modified more easily than film photographs is generally cited. Some even believe that digital photos are not admissible in court. The rules are different when the evidence is actually presented as evidence in court, which is the subject of the blog post, as opposed to extrajudicial use by a probation officer. The article focuses on my experience as a civil litigation and assault lawyer and it seems that the underlying issues should be discussed with a criminal defence lawyer in your jurisdiction. However, for the introduction of the photo before a formal court, the rules of authentication and incorporation are still relevant, and the absence of a date stamp is only a decisive factor or not. I wish you well. For example, Section 1500.6(a) of the California Evidence Code (Admissibility of Printed Representation of Images Stored on Video or Digital Media to Prove the Existence and Content of the Image) states that a printed representation of an image stored on a video or digital medium is permitted to prove the existence and content of the image stored on the video or digital medium. Images stored on video or digital media or copies of images stored on video or digital media shall not be rendered inadmissible on the basis of the principle of evidence.
The printed representation of images stored on video or digital media is assumed to be an accurate representation of the images they are intended to represent. As you can see on my website, I am a civil procedure lawyer. In the civil law context, courts almost always want these evidentiary issues to be resolved before trial and outside the presence of the jury. Make a motion to Limine outlining your problems, discuss them with opposing lawyers, and request a hearing on the matter. As a personal injury lawyer, it`s rare that a court doesn`t want photos or videos to come back to the actual crime scene as long as they`re relevant and the court is confident that the evidence hasn`t been tampered with. Photographic and video evidence can be extremely effective in court proceedings. Potential evidence is readily available everywhere and with the proliferation of surveillance cameras and smartphones in everyone`s pockets. With this availability, any legal claim seems to include photos or videos. But is photographic and video evidence still admissible in court? What are the pitfalls to be aware of when using such evidence? Taking a picture of the boss could cause problems and backfire if you take pictures in an area where the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, if the behavior you mention is outdoors, especially in an area that the public has access to, you should be okay with taking a photo. Everything in between and you should consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. How do you prove it? Testimony is what court cases are, and it`s best to talk to others who make the same observations.
Yes, I know they will hesitate to testify against the boss. But testimony is the answer to your question about how to prove things in court.