I asked earlier about the prosecution of a shoplifter, who was arrested outside an nationwide retail store; the loss prevention men stated they remembered the accused from 5 or 6 months ago, and also stayed there was a videotape which may or may not have been shown to the arresting officers.
Suppose it's 4 months later, 3 months ago discovery was given to the defense, sans video.
The final step of preliminary hearing is in another 6 weeks. (3 court
dates have occurred after the arraignment).
You advised that the defense ought to make motion for exclusion of tape, sanctions against prosecution, and (or??) motion to have charges dropped.
If you heard the defense has done nothing, would this worry you? Could putting off doing anything be a strategy? What if the defense was paid a flat fee for everything up to the pre-lim, and would ask for more at that point in time, as it was "going to trial
", the point many attorneys re-assess the payment structure.
Does procedure let an attorney bring the motions you suggested at the first preliminary hearing? Or is the timing not important, or is it proper to bring them at the second prelim?
As a layperson I'm looking at the court dates (twice) which were simply requests for more time, and I'm wondering why a piece of discovery could be withheld for so long and be legal, especially since this mega chain has it on a computer
, and could attach it to an email in 15 seconds. The most portable and most easily duplicated item is intentionally being withheld; there's a blog online by a former loss prevention "chief" who states "the defense will be lucky to get the video at all, if they do get it, it will be right before trial is to begin". Who is dropping the ball here, in your opinion?
And, can the police arrest someone if the Loss prev employees only have their word and their memory to attest to the guilt of the accused? Would the police be wise to arrest the suspected shoplifter, whose crime supposedly was committed 6 months earlier? Now add in that the person is on parole or has a spotty record. Why on earth would they withhold proof of guilt?
Lastly, the blogging ex-store detective states videos alone aren't used to arrest or prosecute, because if it were the only evidence then.. THE TAKING, HIDING, AND ENTIRE TIME THE SUSPECT IS IN THE STORE UP UNTIL HE EXITS WITH ITEM , MUST BE SHOWN UNINTERRUPTED AND UNOBSTRUCTED BY ANY PERSON OR ANYTHING... Which this LP expert says is almost impossible to have that quality of video; the LP blogger also says eye witness testimony is also not enough by itself for the exact same reason. Unobstructed and uninterrupted view, is rare. Is this legally true? Does the shoplifter have to be viewed so thoroughly, if he/she is not arrested after leaving with an item, but much later?