DanM
Regular Member
The trial of Sean Combs demonstrated that wearing recording devices, and using them, may make a big difference in a case.
In Sean's case, he did not wear a recorder. The prosecutor and the police witnesses tried to sway the jury by saying Sean was "loud" and "boisterous". Sean did not have audio or video to rebut that. The only rebuttal was defense witness testimony.
During closing arguments, the prosecutor really tried hard to hammer on Sean being "loud" and "boisterous", possibly to sway the jury in finding him guilty of at least disturbing the peace.
If Sean had at least his own audio recording of the encounter, that would have been 100% rebuttal to one of the key points the prosecutor was trying to use.
The Combs case is proof, yet again, that recording devices will never be a tool that you can presume you don't need.
In Sean's case, he did not wear a recorder. The prosecutor and the police witnesses tried to sway the jury by saying Sean was "loud" and "boisterous". Sean did not have audio or video to rebut that. The only rebuttal was defense witness testimony.
During closing arguments, the prosecutor really tried hard to hammer on Sean being "loud" and "boisterous", possibly to sway the jury in finding him guilty of at least disturbing the peace.
If Sean had at least his own audio recording of the encounter, that would have been 100% rebuttal to one of the key points the prosecutor was trying to use.
The Combs case is proof, yet again, that recording devices will never be a tool that you can presume you don't need.