Re: law enforcement for profit

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Sat May 06 2000 - 01:31:29 MDT

Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
> >
> >Zero Powers wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
> > > >
> > > >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.

Which merely requires an alibi, or not even that, merely the ability to
demonstrate that others had access to the vehicle during the
aforementioned time period... If I left the keys in my unlocked car, and
there are witnesses, then thats obviously proof enough, at least around
here. Maybe not in Kalifornia or one of the other people's republics..

> >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.

And as I said, hearsay evidence can only be admitted if it corroborates
existing material and eyewitness testimony, and even then it is only
admissibly under certain circumstances (deathbed confessions, for
instance). As I saidk, without such evidence, hearsay cannot support an
indictment. If you think different, show me a legal citation that says

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:34 MDT