Currently, if someone says something in court that isn't allowed under law, the judge tells the jury to pretend they didn't hear that or he declares a mistrial and the whole trial must be done over at great expense.
My idea is to go thru the trial without the jury present, instead, record the whole thing and show the tape to the jury. Then anything inadmissable can be edited from the tape before the jury can be prejudiced by it. To make sure everything is fair, the edited tape must be approved by the prosecution, defense, and judge before it can be showed to the jury.
I think this will save the court system a lot of time and money. What do you think?
2007-02-12 16:25:29 · 5 answers · asked by juicy_wishun 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
In a more perfect world, this would be a perfect solution.
Unfortunately, the camera person and the film editor could do a lot to increase or decrease the appearance of guilt on the part of the accused.
And the prosecution, defense and judge would be unlikely to all sign off on the same version.
You obviously have a bright, creative mind that you put to good use. Please keep trying. Maybe you'll come up with the right answer yet.
2007-02-12 16:40:15 · answer #1 · answered by Sara Katrina 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you joking?? That would be a HUGE waste of resources ! A ten-day trial would turn into a 20 day trial.....issues with the juries wanting to pause the tape, rewind, etc....attys would have to be on hand for that (meaning 20 days worth of legal fees). And the editing process would be a nightmare....you obviously haven't seen too many cases leading up to trial.....motions for everything. Further, the attys and judge would have the hindsight of knowing what happened in the entire trial in making a determination/argument as to how it should be edited. NO,NO, NO.
(And if it makes you feel better, a mistrial is rarely granted during trial on the ground you stated)
2007-02-13 00:36:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
prosecution presents the case. as a defense attorney i would not waste anytime on cross. when the state rests i move for a dismissal as the prosecution did not make their case. if i lose the motion i inform the judge i will never approve the tape. game over. i collect a big check.. i could do ten trials a day. just stipulate to whatever the prosecution wants. unclog the courts and stop prison overcrowding. works for me how 'bout you?
2007-02-13 04:58:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are outdated and should be outlawed. People don't know the laws and trials turn into circuses.
2007-02-13 00:29:34 · answer #4 · answered by Chez 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way..that would give WHOMEVER the power to delete WHATEVER they wanted.
Good in theory...not in practice.
2007-02-13 00:28:57 · answer #5 · answered by Susan S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋