Quote:
Originally Posted by 90FormulaWS6
how much more evidence would you need to convict someone, if they are identifiable by the tape?
let me put it very simply... criminal is caught on tape breaking the law, they ID the criminal from the video tape and they follow through with the charges
|
THey would have to be able to prove who is in the tape, that the speedo was accurate, that it was on a public road, and that the tape wasn't altered. More importantly, the prosecutor has the burden to show all of these things beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a pretty high standard. It means that if there is any question about any of these, they couldn't convict. With as easy as it is to edit digital video, I think it would be pretty difficult for the prosecutor to affirmatively prove, without doubt, that the video wasn't tampered with. The offender can just sit there, without even testifying, and have his attorney raise the possibility of tampering. The prosecutor would have to prove otherwise or no conviction. No easy task, I'd say.