Going to court. High Profile Case

[jisaac 0]

Back in September there was an event at one of our locations. These two girls came in and stole 12,000 dollars worth of jewelry and merchandise from a high end womans store. Well we got all this on video (some of you have seen it). And these girls were put on the news and identified and arrested 2 days later. Well turns out these girls have been in prison before and are trying to keep from getting sent back for a long time. They hired one of the best defense attorneys around here. He does not take a case for less than 20,000. And I am sure it is alot more than that to go to a jury trial. This guy has never lost a case. And I am sure is going to fight pretty hard to keep that record. Well if he loses this case it will be great for us because the prosecutor is pretty much going to use me and this video as the main part of her case. So if we get guilty the news will be all over this. They usually cover his court trials almost every time. In past court cases I usually just briefly explain the system and then get the heck out of there. This one I would like to invest my time in seeing as how the return could be good. Well what I would like to ask you guys is

What are some questions she should ask me about the whole system, process, and anything else that might help a guilty verdict?

Also any other suggestions on anything else would be appreciated.

 

Here is some quick specs on the system

32 Color Dome camera

2 16 channel Mpeg-4, DVR, 480 fps (capability)

(video was recorded at 15 frames per second

mace 16 channel rw

By the way appreciate the equipment kandcorp.

I believe that was the last sale before he left.

but then again I dont think it will be the last

 

Any thoughts or suggestions would be much appreciated. If you want I can send you the video. Just email or pm me.

[jisaac 0]

that system is this system

http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=4393&highlight=

[rapid 0]

Chain of evidence would be most questioned. Seeing where the DVR is located, you might be challenged on why the DVR is secured here. Who would/could have access to this DVR? Is it password protected?

 

I'm assuming you performed maintenance on this unit in last few weeks? months? Is the time and date correct? Anyone verify you went on-site to do this maintenance? If there was an alarm system on-site, can the alarm log be linked to the video....ie alarm back door (Cam 1) front (Cam 25)....

 

Don't know this DVR, but they might want it (whole unit) as this is an original. Provide them a copy and log everything....who made the copy....date and time.

 

These are some of the questions you may need to address (if you haven't already)

 

Haven't seen the video...could you PM me.

 

Cheers......Rapid

[Thomas 0]

Honestly, if the guy is that good then he's going to latch onto the fact you can't be 100% certain that the video hasn't been tampered with. He's going to ask about watermarking, and if he is smart then he's going to ask how you know the watermark itself hasn't been tampered with.

[Cooperman 0]

Couldn't agree more Thomas!!

 

If the case hinges on the video recorded evidence, then the defence attorneys key objective will undoubtedly be to get the recordings thrown out of court.

 

jisaacmagee, you have to provide sufficient assurance that the DVR's were functioning correctly at all times, that they were not accessible to unauthorised personnel, and that they could not have been tampered with by anyone, authorised or not.

 

Is there a log of recorder operations?; can you adequately describe the security features of the DVR's if challenged?, was there any motion triggered recording, in which case can you prove beyond doubt that the motion activation was working correctly at the time of the theft.

 

The defence may well bring in their own 'CCTV expert' to cast doubt on the integrity of the system.

 

They may ask how many of these DVR's you've used on other sites, to try and cast doubt on the equipments overall reliability in operation.

 

If this case were in the U.K., there would be a number of possible legal challenges, which fortunately you don't have to worry about in the States.... at least, not yet!

[Thomas 0]

If the guy is sharp, then his best bet is to try to get you to prove a negitive. He'll try to make you prove it was impossible for the video to ever have been tampered with. (BTW, this isn't a digital problem, the same trick was used for years with tape) You can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, because you weren't there with the CD at every step.

 

This isn't a video evidence problem, it's a problem with any kind of evidence when it's the primary source. And keep in mind, he doesn't have to disprove the girls did it, he just needs to prove that there is a reasonable doubt they didn't do it.

[jisaac 0]

ya I know he is going to try to get this video thrown out of court. Nothing I can do about that. I can answer any questions about the system without a problem. about the motion detection. Actually when we first set this system up for the first couple of months all cameras were recording all the time. So there was no motion detection in this case. I actually think he wont take it to court. Because I just found out that he has not even seen or known about the video until today sometime. So he has taken this case thinking that all this was people saying they stole it without video. I am pretty sure once they see the video that they will change their plea. Especially the attorney will re think it because he wont want to loose his first case. We will see. I would love to get a guilty verdict and get great publicity because of it. But in a normal situation I would care less and would charge my client to actually show up. So either way it will be an interesting case. And will definitly keep you guys informed.

[Scruit 0]

Sorry for the threadbump... But what was the outcome of this case? I'm researching real-world admissibility challenges to DVR footage.

 

Is the video posted anywhere for us to see?

[coolie11 0]

I just taught this may be of some use to someone.

 

Good to know stuff.

 

http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/2008/08/articles/case-summaries/supermarkets-failure-to-retain-video-surveillance-footage-of-periods-preceding-and-following-slip-and-fall-incident-shocks-the-conscience-of-the-court-and-warrants-adverse-inference-instruction/

[ispy4u2 0]

We often go to court as a SME (subject matter expert) for several DA's (district attorney's) in Central/North Florida.

 

Most often challenged is the frame rate used and whether or not the video evidence maintained the watermark(s) and chain of custody. Who received the back-up copy and how was it stored since the court date.

 

Using a DVR that is realtime in NON-REALTIME mode can cast doubt on the reliablity of the system. As with older motion jpeg DVR's, you can lose lot of action in the video, one second they are at the door, the other at the counter ; but missed what happens in between.

 

So the Mace RW system you spoke of , is a real time system, hopefully you recorded in real time and prevent that challenge.

 

I don't recall whether the MACE RW recorded in D1 mode or not, and whether you opted for that mode, but D1 is non real time at 7FPS and though we have been challenged on D1 at 7FPS, we have never had our clients video evidence thrown out of court.

[Scruit 0]

I run my CPCam CPD507HC at D1, 1fps non-motion and max framerate where there's motion (7.5-10fps, depending on which camera it is.)

 

I could run it at realtime/CIF but that would result in lower qualilty images that would make it harder to identify people in shot.

 

The watermark in my CPCam system is in the CD Export utility. But the CD Export utility won't export audio! This is a bug that I hope CPCam are working on! To get the audio out I have to play back the video and record it to my computer's TV capture card.

 

 

If the video was ever needed for a prosecution for an event that I wasn't at home to personally witness (and therefore cannot testify that the video is a accurate representation of the events that happened) I'd need some way of demonstrating an unbroken chain of custody. In at least one minor case I was involved in that went to an arbitration I only had to testify about the steps I took to get the video onto the DVD and that it was a true copy of the video that was taken from the DVR.

 

If I had to use my CCTV for a high profile court hearing where the defense was intent on suggesting that I could have manipulated the video, then how can I prove the chain of custody?

 

1) Have a notary sitting next to me as I transpose the video, writing down the steps I took, and have them accompany me to the police station to turn in the video. The notary could testify that the chain of custody was unbroken and that the steps I took were as I had stated.

 

2) Have a friend videotape the steps I took to transpose the video to a DVD and film me taking the the DVD to the police station.

 

3) Hire an independent CCTV company to come to the house and download the video to DVD and have them certify the chain of custody

 

 

The process I take to get a DVD from my home CCTV is twofold:

 

1) Use the onboard CD burner to export the files in .787 format with player. When this is run in a computer the player will show the video (no audio) and it has a watermark feature that the manufacturer states (in the manual) will cause the video player to turn red when you click the watermark verify button if the watermark is not present.

 

2) To get the "director's cut" I play the video back from the CCTV into my computer using a TV capture card. This gets me audio and video and allows me to cut from camera to camera as the action moves around. I take the AVI file that was generated byt his and concert it to an MPEG file that my DVD burner will accept. Then I use the DVD burner software to build a menu and add the MPEG file to the disk. Once the DVD is burned (two copies, one for me and one for the police) I take the police copy to the local station and get a receipt for it.

 

 

The director's cut is easier for the court to use as evidence because they can play it in any computer or DVD player. The built-in CD backup feature requires them to install software on the courthouse computer to run (or I can bring my own computer in, but that could give rise to more challenges).

 

 

 

I'm actually leaning towards the option of paying an independent CCTV company to transpose the video for me. They can certify the copy is accurate.

[bigbuilding 0]

Review the video thoroughly to refresh your memory of the events before court, you may be asked to narrate the video.

 

Did you exlude any video or only place a small portion of video on CD (BTW should be CDR not CDRW). I was accused of "destroying video" on a slip and fall by a cleaning company because I did not save video of 2 hours before fall when cleaning company was working in area (which had nothing to do with slip and fall). Also one camera happened to be out of service at time of fall and again accused of destroying video until I produced logs and vendor service slips of camera outage.

 

Let us know how it turns out, intersting to find out what questions the lawyer asks

[kensplace 0]

I just taught this may be of some use to someone.

 

Good to know stuff.

 

http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/2008/08/articles/case-summaries/supermarkets-failure-to-retain-video-surveillance-footage-of-periods-preceding-and-following-slip-and-fall-incident-shocks-the-conscience-of-the-court-and-warrants-adverse-inference-instruction/

 

I dont get this,

 

The supermarket’s manager testified that he examined the footage of plaintiff’s fall immediately after being notified of her fall, and the video failed to show anything visible on the floor at the time of the fall.

 

Would love to see the video in question, if it clearly shows there is nothing visible on the floor (when the woman claimed she slipped on a thick pink liquid, then if its not present - its not present.

 

Why would you need footage before the fall or after the fall, if it clearly shows that the liquid is not there at the time of the fall?

 

Unless the footage was unclear, and the other footage would have shed more light.

 

But the court seemed more interested in before / after footage even though, according to the article the footage they did have clearly showed the fact that the offending liquid was not present.

 

Perhaps if the liquid had been present and the store had claimed the woman had put it there herself, then the before footage would have been relavent to the case, but the liquid was not present at the time of the fall, so obviously it would not have been present before or after the fall either surely?

 

There has to be more to this, the video footage must be unclear or something, I just cant see why any sane judge would require any extra footage if the footage they have clearly showed that the woman lied about falling on a pink liquid....

[Scruit 0]

There has to be more to this, the video footage must be unclear or something, I just cant see why any sane judge would require any extra footage if the footage they have clearly showed that the woman lied about falling on a pink liquid....

 

Could have been another camera angle that would have showed the floor, or that the portion of the video they kept only showed a time period when something else (possibly the plaintiff) was blocking the pink liquid from the camera's view. We'd have to see the video to understand why the judge got all bent of out shape.

 

 

Think of the dashcam in my car. If I get into an accident where the other guy claims I was speeding prior to the accident - then I show up to court with video of only the accident and not enough pre-accident footage to prove or disprove speeding... Then say I deleted the pre-accident footage... Well, then I have prejudiced the other guy's case by actively deleting evidence that the court would need to see to be able to evaluate his version of events. By deleting a portion of the video that is central to on party's claim the judge will have to ask himself if I would really delete video that proved me right, or if I deleted it because it proved me wrong?

 

It's not up to either party to choose what evidence the judge gets to see. All evidence needs to be kept - better to keep too much than too little.

 

In my road rager case I kept video of the entire car journey from leaving my house, through the road rage incident and then all the way to the police stations and then back home. I was mainly trying to prove that my car was undamaged before the indicent by showing my journey from my house to the incident location had been uneventful, and I had footage from my home CCTV showing the car in pristine condition as I left the house. I also didn't want him to claim the incident was a continuation of some made-up prior incident or anything.