To what extent can you be cross examined for &quot;showing,&quot; rather than &quot;telling&quot; about a crime? My question was inspired by this question. Suppose I see some &quot;suspicious&quot; activity on a New York City subway. I film this activity and report it to the police. The police decide on the basis of the film that someone was committing a robbery. They identify and arrest a suspect, identify and present a victim, etc. I am introduced in court as the person who took the film. I take the stand and testify that I did so. I then disclaim knowledge of any actual crime, and claim only that the activity looked &quot;suspicious,&quot; and I took it and handed the film to the police. I would expect the defense to cross examine me about the film. &quot;Where did you take this film? When did you take this film? At what angles/lighting, etc. did you take this film? How long have you had the camera? How much experience have you had operating this or similar cameras? How did you operate this camera?&quot; etc. But suppose the defense goes into other areas: &quot;Do you feel that a crime has been committed? Why did you go to the police? Do you know if the defendant is the same person as in the film? How about the victim? (I did not introduce any of these topics on direct examination.&quot;) What then happens if I say, &quot;I don't know whether a crime has been committed? or &quot;I don't know whether the defendant is the same person as in the film?.&quot; etc. and, &quot;all I can say is that I took this film and the film speaks for itself.&quot; and &quot;After receiving the film, the police acted independently of me, because I told them nothing else.&quot; Is the defense allowed to question me on those grounds? Will my answers stand up if they are true?
The situation you describe is extremely unlikely First, you will have been required to give a statement to the police who would have asked you most or all of the questions that you suggest before anyone gets anywhere near a courtroom and likely before any arrest has been made. That statement will be part of your evidence in chief. As in &quot;Is this your statement?&quot; &quot;Yes&quot;. &quot;Is this your video recording?&quot; &quot;Yes&quot;. After that, your evidence in chief is pretty much done. A witness of fact (rules for expert witnesses are different) can only testify as to what they personally sensed and what their state of mind was. So questions about what you saw, heard, tasted etc. are all perfectly legitimate as are questions about what you thought or felt. You are required to answer these questions honestly - if that means &quot;I don't know&quot; then say &quot;I don't know&quot;. All of the hypothetical questions look fine but as I said, they will all have answers in your police statement. The only one that's off-limits is &quot;&quot;Do you feel that a crime has been committed?&quot; - nobody knows if a crime has been committed; that's why we're having a trial.
This is normal. It only seems imbalanced because only the prosecutor has been able to call witnesses so far. Under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 611: Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. At this point, only the prosecution has put on its witnesses, so it hasn't had an opportunity cross examine anyone, and the defense has been able to lead because it has only been able to cross examine. Were the prosecutor to call the defendant's wife or mother or something like that, he would probably be permitted to use leading questions. And when the defense puts on its case, the roles will reverse: the defense attorneys will have to use open-ended questioning for any witness he calls, and the prosecutor will be able to use leading questions.
There is a big difference between knowing something and proving it. A lawyer who knows a client is guilty can take steps to prevent the state from proving guilt. (E.g., motion to exclude evidence, cross examining witnesses.) The belief that a client has committed a crime does not necessarily mean one knows what specific crime was committed. Is a killing Murder 1, Murder 2, or manslaughter? There are defenses even when an act may be a crime. E.g., self defense, insanity, justifiable. Lawyers are not permitted to assist in perjury. E.g., allow the client to testify to something he knows is false.
The broader question is a bit tricky and has many dimensions. It is probably easiest to go over some of the ground rules. There are probably other particular issues that could come up, but those are the only ones that occurred to me at the moment. Caveats and Disclaimers Also, it is worth noting that the considerations that apply are different in criminal v. non-criminal trials, in the U.S. v. other countries, U.S. state courts v. federal courts, in jury trials v. bench trials, and in the civilian v. military justice systems ("A Few Good Men" is a quasi-criminal U.S. court-martial case under the military justice system without a true jury.) At least to start with, I will limit my answer to civilian criminal jury trials in the United Sates. At least in practice and interpretation, the United States has lower expectations of lawyers at trial than in many other common law countries. Prosecutors have higher duties to not be deceptive than criminal defense lawyers. There is a greater duty for defendants to disclose information that could be harmful to their case in civil cases (especially in state courts) than in criminal cases. The ethical duties of lawyers regarding candor in bench trials are more complicated because there are some facts that in a jury trial, a judge is allowed to know and consider when making rulings in the case, but a jury is not allowed to know. Military justice is its own thing with far less formal rules of procedure and deeply different basic assumptions than in trials in civilian courts. For example, in a military trial, the prosecutor, the defense lawyer, the defendants and the judges are all soldiers who owe heightened duties to the same government and the military mission, relative to participants in a trial in a civilian court, that can take priority over the duties a lawyer owes to his client, or duties of judges to respect due process. A prosecutor is not permitted to advance frivolous and groundless positions for any reason. Some Notable Rules Opening Arguments and Offers Of Proof You are not allowed in an opening argument to a jury in a civilian criminal trial, or in an offer of proof to a judge in support of the validity of questions you would like to ask, to state that you will present evidence later in the case that you do not believe in good faith that you will introduce. You are not required, however, to identify all evidence that you plan to introduce in your opening statement. But, if you say you will offer up evidence later in the case believing that you will introduce it, and then decide later on that you don't need to and want to offer up that evidence after all, you aren't required to do so. For example, in a case that I tried not so long ago, both sides had expert witnesses. The other side's expert witness testified first and we got him to say everything that we wanted our expert witness to say in cross-examination. We were also worried that our expert witness might say something that would hurt our case because he understood some complicated facts in the case better than the other side's expert witness who didn't realize that those facts were an issue. So, when it was my turn to present the expert witness (who was supposed to have bee the last witness in the case) that we'd said in opening arguments would testify for several hours, we told the court, "we planned on calling Mr. So and So as an expert witness, but have concluded that his testimony would be cumulative so we conclude our case now," after which the Court immediately moved on to closing arguments which we knew that we'd have to present right away, but the other side expected to have several more hours to think about while our last expert witness testified consistently with his previously disclosed expert witness report for a couple of hours. What the lawyer did in "A Few Good Men" (which was in substance an "offer of proof" to provide authority for him to ask certain questions) came close to the line of what is permissible in terms of saying that you will introduce evidence when you don't actually plan to do so, but probably didn't cross the line because he didn't say what they would testify to if called. This would be bad form, and it might undermine the lawyer's credibility with the judge not just in this case, but in the long run, but a lawyer could decide as this one did, that this downside was worth it. Statements About Lying Witnesses Neither the prosecution lawyer nor the defense lawyer is allowed to say that they know that a particular witness was lying. This is because this turns the lawyer into a witness and puts the lawyer's credibility at issue. This is also because a statement like that can be used to signal to the jury that the lawyer knows something based upon evidence that the jury didn't hear (perhaps because they weren't allowed to hear it) that they should consider when weighing credibility. Numerous felony convictions are overturned every year because a prosecutor told a jury that a witness was lying. These statements are prohibited without regard to whether they are true, false or debatable. Of course, a lawyer can say, "as you evaluate the credibility of the first witness you heard you should consider the fact that he will avoid a life in prison term and receive a $1,000,000 life insurance policy payout and that the first witness is blind and yet told you the exact color and texture of the sweater that the defendant was wearing even though the first witness doesn't claim to have ever touched that sweater." The lawyer simply isn't allowed to connect the dots and conclude for the jury that therefore, the first witness is lying. Arguments Based Upon False Inferences As a general rule, in a civilian criminal jury trial, a defense lawyer is allowed to ask questions in cross-examination and make arguments in closing arguments that are based upon inferences from the evidence that was presented that the defense attorney knows to be false, so long as the factual testimony presented is not known to be false. For example, the defense lawyer could argue in closing arguments, "the prosecution did not rule out the possibility that Fred Heinz was present at the murder scene, so they haven't ruled out the possibility that Fred Heinz rather than my client committed the murder," even if the defense lawyer happens to know that Fred Heinz was actually on vacation in another country at the time of the murder. Similarly, a defense lawyer could ask a witness on cross-examination, "Isn't it true that you hide the murder weapon at the requests of your boyfriend and didn't see my client at all that evening?", even if the defense lawyer knows that his client's girlfriend asked the witness to hide the murder weapon and not the witness's boyfriend. The witness of course, would simply answer "no, that isn't true.", but the defense lawyer's question would put the possibility into the heads of the jurors, possibly leading them astray. (The second example is a little more complicated than that, because the defense lawyer's question is only allowed if there is some foundation established in earlier evidence to show that the boyfriend asked the witness to hide the murder weapon. If not, the prosecutor could object to the question and the judge wouldn't allow the witness to answer it. Whether a defense lawyer can ethically ask a question knowing that it violates the rules of evidence hoping that the prosecution won't object to it and knowing that even if the question is overruled by the judge that it will give the jurors a hint about a possibility that is actually known by the defense lawyer to be false, is somewhat of a gray area.) Also, a lawyer is absolutely allowed to ask cross-examination questions not knowing what the answer will be, even though that is risky and usually considered to be bad trial practice, and a lawyer is allowed to ask questions that limit a witness to telling an incomplete story that sounds bad, even though the whole story, if told, would not sound so bad, and even if the lawyer knows that the other side won't get an opportunity to tell the whole story for some reason later on. For example, suppose that the lawyer asks a witness, "you just told the jury that you saw this fight happen?" to which he responds, "yes." "And, you just have normal vision don't you?" "Yes." "But, isn't it true that you were three miles away from the scene of the fight when it happened." "Yes. Now that sounds like it really discredits that witnesses testimony, even if the lawyer asking the question and the witness and the prosecutor and the judge all know that the witness saw the fight occur though binoculars from the top of the Empire State Building. Normally, this could get corrected with rebuttal testimony. But, suppose that the defense lawyer offering this cross-examination asked the questions in a dull voice like it was a tedious detail and noticed that the prosecutor had been distracted looking at texts on his phone while the defendant was cross-examining the witness and so didn't notice this line of questioning, and therefore was likely to say, "no further questions, your honor" when the judge asked him if he had any rebuttal testimony he'd like to offer from this witness. In that situation, the defense lawyer hasn't acted improperly in causing the jury to make a misleading inference from the testimony, and the defense lawyer is allowed in closing arguments to heavily emphasize that the key prosecution witness who says he saw the fight admits that he was three miles away when it happened, knowing that this argument is disingenuous. Ultimately, a defense lawyer's job is to get the best result possible for their client without violating any relevant ethical rules which are specifically and intentionally relaxed for them relative to other lawyers in some respects regarding advancing frivolous and groundless positions. A prosecutor, in contrast, has a duty to advance only claims that the prosecutor believes to be supported by probable cause, to not hide exculpatory evidence, and to seek justice rather than having a duty to try to convict and get a maximum sentence without regard to guilt or innocence (in principle even if not all prosecutors act this way). Testimony And Evidence Know To Be Intentionally False A lawyer is not permitted to let a witness or his client provide testimony to the court that he knows to be perjured. If his witness starts to commit perjury on the stand, the lawyer has to immediately stop the examination of that witness and discuss the problem with the judge. In many circumstances, the lawyer must correct a knowingly false statement that his witness has provided to the court even if he only learns that the statement was knowingly false after that witness is off the stand if the lawyer learns of this before the jury renders its verdict (or for that matter within the time allowed for post-trial motions). Gray areas come in when the lawyer doesn't know that the testimony is true or false, and knows that someone is under oath, but also knows that they aren't a very credible person and that the person sometimes lies in important situations, and indeed avoids knowing the truth. Similarly, gray areas come into play when the lawyer knows that the witness is likely to be mistaken in the testimony that is offered, but knows that the witness is sincerely doing his best to tell the truth on the stand as he understands it to be. Likewise, a lawyer is not allowed to introduce evidence that he knows to be doctored or forged (i.e. claiming that it is authentic), unless the lawyer explains in the course of introducing the evidence that it is a doctored or forged document and is offering it to show that somebody doctored or forged the document. And, if the lawyer later discovers that the document was doctored or forged before the jury renders its verdict (or within the time allowed for post-trial motions), the lawyer has to tell the court that this happened. Pre-Trial Disclosures While the prosecution has a duty to disclose all exculpatory evidence in its possession prior to a trial in a civilian criminal case (something called Brady disclosures), the defense's duty to disclose what evidence it will offer, or what evidence it knows exists, is extremely narrow. There are a couple of kinds of defense strategies (like an alibi defense or a self-defense defense or certain disputes regarding expert testimony) which the defense must disclose that it plans to use at trial, prior to the trial. But, the defense has much more latitude to call surprise witnesses and to introduce surprise evidence at trial than the prosecution does.
In addition to compelling a store to produce evidence such as video footage, via a search warrant as described by bdb484, police can request access to information in the possession of such information. The store may voluntarily comply with the request, or not. Especially in the case of online transactions, there may be a privacy guarantee that information about a customer's transaction will not be revealed to a third party unless required by law (ergo, a warrant), but security camera recordings are not protected by such guarantees.
It's really the other way around: film crews can legally travel with the police. This is very similar or identical to what you saw on YouTube. From http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2014/04/cops-and-suspects-rights-whatcha-gonna-do-when-they-record-you.html (dated 4/18/2014) "Cops" will soon begin a 10-week filming stretch in San Jose, California, for the first time in the show's 26-year history, reports the San Jose Mercury News. The "Cops" crew will hit the streets alongside San Jose's finest to provide a window into what these men and women do in America's 10th largest city. More from that link: When the officers on "Cops" arrest most of their suspects, the circumstances leading up to the arrest are out in public. However, in order to avoid unlawfully appropriating the images of those caught on "Cops'" cameras, the crew asks the arrestees to sign a release form. The "news crew" are producers who have permission from the police to follow along. As above, they ask each suspect to sign a release after the arrest. These arrests take place in public, on public streets and right-aways, where filming of the public is legal. If the arrestee does not sign the release, their face is blurred in the resulting footage that is made public. This does not mean the producers or videographers are automatically allowed into a private residence. They need a release to go onto private property (unlike the police involved in an investigation) and as such, the resident can actually forbid the cameramen from entering the house even while the police have entered. The footage from the body cams of the police are a different story; they are public employees of the local government and are bound by the laws of the locality. A search of Google News shows that in San Fransisco, the issues of the use of body cams by police and public access to that video is an ongoing issue; some laws have been finalized, others are bound to change. Around the US, some localities at this point in time allow public access to the footage from police cams; others only after department or local governmental review; still others only on in as need basis for prosecutions. ...the cop is the only one in this situation who can command the filmers to stop. Even if the "news crew" is not a news crew and just someone from the general public, it is generally legal for the public to film the police, as long as they are not causing issues with the police and stay out of the way (re: all of the recent news regarding police shootings and the footage available on YouTube and in news sources). There is case law pertaining to that, but IANAL, so I'll let someone else outline that. But https://photographyisnotacrime.com/ is a good resource. In the US, you pretty much have no expectation of privacy while in public.
A fact cannot by itself constitute reasonable suspicion; the word &quot;reasonable&quot; describes not only the relationship between the fact and the possible existence of a crime, but also the officer's knowledge about the fact. The officer must not only sincerely believe the truth of the facts constituting reasonable suspicion, but must also reasonably believe it. I do not know whether a hallucinatory experience may be found reasonable for this purpose; I suspect that it would be a matter of dispute at trial. The first example is perhaps more straightforward, as there are probably a few possible explanations for the officer's failure to notice the turn signal. Still, are they reasonable? If the officer could not see the turn signals because something blocked the line of sight, it would not be reasonable for the officer to conclude that the driver had failed to use the signal. Rather, the officer has no evidence one way or the other, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The question deals in hypotheticals, where we can assume that the officer is sincere. But in a trial, the jury (or judge in a bench trial) cannot do that. They will look at the evidence, including the officer's testimony, and assess the officer's credibility. They will form an opinion about whether the belief was sincere and reasonable before they look at whether the facts, as the officer believed them to be, reasonably indicated that a crime was being committed or was imminent.
Are defendants legally obliged to provide all culpatory evidence to prosecution? The question here is whether or not all evidence requested by prosecution must be provided by the defense? If the defense plans on only using the evidence of the prosecution, does the prosecution get to demand evidence the defense would rather not release? No. Usually only specific kinds of evidence related to specific kinds of claims such as alibi evidence, an insanity claim, or expert testimony must be disclosed prior to trial by a defendant in a criminal case. A defendant in a criminal case does not have to disclose evidence harmful to the defendant's case prior to trial as a general rule. Sometimes there is a requirement to disclose witnesses anticipated to be called, or exhibits to be possibly used very shortly prior to trial, but that is more the exception than the rule. Does the answer depend on the whether or not the case is criminal or civil? Yes. A plaintiff in a civil case can compel disclosure prior to trial of all evidence in the custody, control, or possession of the defendant that is relevant or is reasonably calculated to be relevant to a disputed issue identified in the complaint, answer, and other pleadings (e.g. counterclaims, replies to counterclaims, third-party complaints, cross-claims, etc.). The scope of discovery is slightly different in jurisdictions that don't follow the federal model. This can include pre-trial depositions of the parties, although a defendant can claim the 5th Amendment at the risk of being exposed to an adverse inference communicated to the jury at trial if the defendant does so. Furthermore, most jurisdictions require the pre-trial disclosure of expert testimony that will be used at trial, of exhibits that will or may be used at trial, of witnesses who will or may be called a trial, of all documents that are relevant to a disputed issue identified in the complaint, answer, and other pleadings, of all insurance coverage that could cover the claim, of all persons with knowledge of the disputed facts, and of an expected damages calculation. In the federal system, however, one need pro-actively disclose only witnesses and documents that support your case without being asked. Is there consistency on this or is it at the discretion of the judge? The rules of procedure applicable to a case govern the scope of discovery, but judges have considerable discretion to determine that requests are excessive relative to what is at stake in the case, are irrelevant, or unduly burden some other legitimate interest of the person subject to discovery. Is there punishment for non-compliance? Yes. First of all, a failure to disclose when there is a duty to do so is a ground to exclude presentation of that evidence at trial. Secondly, in civil cases, attorney fees incurred to obtain the discovery can be awarded, facts that might have been disclosed can be declared to be true as a matter of judicial sanction where there is not disclosure, claims can be dismissed, etc. The main relevant federal rule in civil cases is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. It is an unlawful request that must nonetheless be followed with only a hypothetical remedy left to the defendant as is the case in most of these united states to comply with an obviously unlawful arrest that doesn't present an immediate threat to life? I don't understand this long and convoluted sentence. The part about an unlawful arrest seems divorced from the issues in the rest of the the question. It isn't clear what kind of unlawful request is involved either.