• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Hat baseball cap "SPY" camera needed

ps1mhd

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
261
Location
sparta ky
I have a hard time filming and talking with LEOs at the same time.
I am looking for a good hat-cap camera that has good sound at a good price.
The reviews on youtube of the ones on ebay are not good.
I have a pen cam it sucks. Hard to use a hand-held when your hand cuffed :banana:
Been there-done that-got the vid.

Mike
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Always something to consider: anything you record could be used against you in court ...

I know people want to "tell their story" ... but really, why make it easier to establish facts. I have won many summary judgments and motions to acquit simply due to sloppy testimony being extracted from state lawyers (they are busy too & make mistakes at trial) regarding getting the required elements of a crime, infraction, or other offense on the record.

If you get arrested THEY will have this evidence readily available, not you. And they may say that they are not going to use the evidence at trial, so you cannot get it.

I can see the usefulness of these devices in limited circumstances.

Just a word of warning .. from experience.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Always something to consider: anything you record could be used against you in court ...

I know people want to "tell their story" ... but really, why make it easier to establish facts. I have won many summary judgments and motions to acquit simply due to sloppy testimony being extracted from state lawyers (they are busy too & make mistakes at trial) regarding getting the required elements of a crime, infraction, or other offense on the record.

If you get arrested THEY will have this evidence readily available, not you. And they may say that they are not going to use the evidence at trial, so you cannot get it.

I can see the usefulness of these devices in limited circumstances.

Just a word of warning .. from experience.
Are you saying that because the prosecution decides not to use some bit of evidence (a recording) to prosecute the defense is barred from using that same bit of evidence to defend?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
States may vary, and I could be wrong, but is not a requirement that the state must provide all the evidence they have including exculpatory evidence? I mean, the state is the one doing the investigating and the collecting of "facts," even the facts that could torpedo their start witness' credibility, a thug cop.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Are you saying that because the prosecution decides not to use some bit of evidence (a recording) to prosecute the defense is barred from using that same bit of evidence to defend?

It very well could be. Odd that a person who feels he may be arrested (rightly or wrongly) would be nice enough to collect evidence for the opposing side.

Who would have this evidence in their control? When arrested...not the person who collected it. Not a good position to be in....

I record face to face conversations occasionally (and you can in my state w/o the others' permission, even in private) when I know that the contact would never result in an immediate arrest. Then I have the record and decide to enter it into evidence if I want to.

And there is, of course, the old "recording was lost/damaged" possibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJVewWbeBiY

High Hopes ^^

Remember: every movie has critics who say a movie was great and others, seeing the same movie, says it sucked.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Originally Posted by Bikenut

Are you saying that because the prosecution decides not to use some bit of evidence (a recording) to prosecute the defense is barred from using that same bit of evidence to defend?

It very well could be. Odd that a person who feels he may be arrested (rightly or wrongly) would be nice enough to collect evidence for the opposing side.

Who would have this evidence in their control? When arrested...not the person who collected it. Not a good position to be in....

I record face to face conversations occasionally (and you can in my state w/o the others' permission, even in private) when I know that the contact would never result in an immediate arrest. Then I have the record and decide to enter it into evidence if I want to.

And there is, of course, the old "recording was lost/damaged" possibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJVewWbeBiY

High Hopes ^^

Remember: every movie has critics who say a movie was great and others, seeing the same movie, says it sucked.
Please provide cites and/or links to law or case law to support the part of your reply I put in bold

Please understand I'm not trying to be a jerk ... I would just like to see where it is legally possible for the prosecution to decide what evidence the defense is not allowed to present in defense of the accused.

Especially, as you said below, based upon the premise that because the prosecution doesn't want to use it then the defense can't either.

Originally Posted by davidmcbeth


-snip-
If you get arrested THEY will have this evidence readily available, not you. And they may say that they are not going to use the evidence at trial, so you cannot get it.
-snip-
 
Last edited by a moderator:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Please provide cites and/or links to law or case law to support the part of your reply I put in bold

Please understand I'm not trying to be a jerk ... I would just like to see where it is legally possible for the prosecution to decide what evidence the defense is not allowed to present in defense of the accused.

Especially, as you said below, based upon the premise that because the prosecution doesn't want to use it then the defense can't either.

Rules of evidence is too broad and case specific to answer your query unfortunately.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Rules of evidence is too broad and case specific to answer your query unfortunately.
Ummm..... don't both defense and prosecution have the opportunity to challenge any evidence presented in discovery and it is the judge who decides what will be allowed in and what won't?

I would be astonished if the prosecution gets to decide what evidence the defense is not allowed to present to substantiate the client's innocence!
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Ummm..... don't both defense and prosecution have the opportunity to challenge any evidence presented in discovery and it is the judge who decides what will be allowed in and what won't?

I would be astonished if the prosecution gets to decide what evidence the defense is not allowed to present to substantiate the client's innocence!

Discovery documents/records obtained are not "evidence". Evidence is that which is introduced and accepted by a court at trial.

You can be astonished but its the way it is in many places. Judges do not like discovery issues & in state court, many times you will not get what you should get.

And in discovery, you can generally only get things that are or lead to possible evidence; if the video will not be introduced by the state many courts have said its not discoverable.

The judge does not get to decide what is discoverable or not in many cases. The prosecution does ... and if the video in his possession helps your case you can be sure he will not willingly give it to the defendant ~ they are measured by their victories, not on their ethics.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Discovery documents/records obtained are not "evidence". Evidence is that which is introduced and accepted by a court at trial.

You can be astonished but its the way it is in many places. Judges do not like discovery issues & in state court, many times you will not get what you should get.

And in discovery, you can generally only get things that are or lead to possible evidence; if the video will not be introduced by the state many courts have said its not discoverable.

The judge does not get to decide what is discoverable or not in many cases. The prosecution does ... and if the video in his possession helps your case you can be sure he will not willingly give it to the defendant ~ they are measured by their victories, not on their ethics.
So you are saying that the prosecution can exclude evidence that would prove the defendant's innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt just so the prosecution can "win" the case?

Oh... and how would the prosecution be in possession of the recording anyway? If they seize it as "evidence" then wouldn't the defense also have access to it?

Please understand I am asking in a sincere effort to understand how the prosecution could simply withhold evidence that would bolster the defense's case or even prove the defendant innocent. Because if what you are saying is true the prosecution gets to write it's own version of the truth by withholding the actual truth and no one has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being acquitted.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Last edited by a moderator:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by ps1mhd

TITLE Hat baseball cap "SPY" camera needed
Can we stay on subject?

Mike
Without being a jerk for such is not my intention....from a quick search on bing...

http://www.bing.com/search?q=baseball+cap+spy+camera&pc=MOZI&form=MOZSBR

And what would be the point of having such a hidden camera if the prosecution can just withhold the recording? Wouldn't the side discussion be of interest to anyone contemplating using such an item?
Indeed would seem so, that is why we left it.

Insofar as the cap spy camera, there are a quantity of them out there within easy reach - examples were given.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
According to an attorney I asked on a different forum.... and please bear in mind the question was asked in a Michigan specific forum so the presumption is the attorney is addressing how things are in Michigan.... not how things are in any other State.

Go to post #9 for the actual wording of his reply...

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/sh...n-for-the-Legal-Beagles&p=2434437#post2434437

in which he explained that because of the rules of ethics a prosecutor has a duty to turn over any exculpatory evidence even if they are not asked for it. Not turning over such evidence would be misconduct.

I'm guessing (I'm not an attorney) that proven misconduct on the part of a prosecutor would be/could be grounds for a mistrial or even overturning a conviction?

And I am grateful for those attorneys who offer their advice over the internet.... for free. Especially since knowing the law, and getting paid for that knowledge, is their livelihood.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Always something to consider: anything you record could be used against you in court ...

I know people want to "tell their story" ... but really, why make it easier to establish facts. I have won many summary judgments and motions to acquit simply due to sloppy testimony being extracted from state lawyers (they are busy too & make mistakes at trial) regarding getting the required elements of a crime, infraction, or other offense on the record.

If you get arrested THEY will have this evidence readily available, not you. And they may say that they are not going to use the evidence at trial, so you cannot get it.

I can see the usefulness of these devices in limited circumstances.

Just a word of warning .. from experience.

So the rules of discovery just do not exist? Or the federal court rulings that have come down from cases where the prosecution has intentionally withheld evidence - especially evidence that might have been exculpatory?

davidmcbeth - please cite what ground the prosecution would stand on to be able to do what you suggest.

stay safe.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
So the rules of discovery just do not exist? Or the federal court rulings that have come down from cases where the prosecution has intentionally withheld evidence - especially evidence that might have been exculpatory?

davidmcbeth - please cite what ground the prosecution would stand on to be able to do what you suggest.

stay safe.

Rules on discovery in state v. fed courts are different; but you are correct, the feds are more broad and a federal judge will not play the discovery game like state court judges will.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Here is but one example where the prosecutor withheld evidence in a state court.

A Henrico Circuit Court judge threw out the convictions in a high-profile rape case Wednesday, ordering a new trial because of evidence withheld from the defense.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/26038857/driton

If one or the other had a spy camera hat, the result might have been different :)
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
It's called Brady material. The term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process.

Now, back to regular programing.
 
Top