That is irrelevant and the prosecutor will likely object to you wasting the courts time.
That is irrelevant and the prosecutor will likely object to you wasting the courts time.
The intention would be to show that not everyone drives around with all of their receipts on their person and the arresting officer and the DA really appear to not know that serial numbers and upc's are different and I'm afraid if I can't find a way to introduce that fact into evidence some how, they will be able to convince a jury of that also.
On cross examination you ask the prosecution witnesses if the UPC represents a specific item from a specific store? If they answer truthfully, or, that they do not know, you ask additional questions designed to capitalize on this lack of knowledge or emphasize the point that the UPC does not identify a specific item.
Subpoenaing the thrift store clerk seems pointless to me.
Look, if you want to avoid jail time you may need to break down and pay for an attorney if you have too much money or income to qualify for a court-appointed one. You could lose not because you are guilty, but that you are not capable of mounting a decent enough defense to cast even reasonable doubt on the state's case. It could be that paying a retainer for an attorney will be enough for the state to back off. If they know it's YOU they have to meet in court, they may not be too concerned.
I appreciate your comments. I have a co-defendant I was in their vehicle when this occured. They have a court appointed attorney and I was hoping to ride their coat tails at the trial. What they aren't able to get done, I'm hoping I will be able to do. Thanks.
- - - Updated - - -
So I guess you are saying that it is up to the prosecutor to prove a case, even with circumstantial evidence, and my best bet is to dis-credit his lack of direct evidence? Due to the fact that I will not really be able to call any witnesses that are not directly connected to the case. The burden is on the State to prove it's case hopefully. I'm nervous about the people in this small mountain town being gullable to their DA.
all criminal cases require the prosecution to prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt (note; not "all" doubt and what is considered reasonable is usually different than many people understand it to be)
are the two of you being tried together?
and one does not discredit a lack of direct evidence. One gives reason to doubt the evidence entered is adequate to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you are guilty. How to do that varies with the specific facts of the trial.
Yes, we were in front of the general seesions judge for the preliminary and are scheduled for the same date and time for the grand jury readout, so I assume that we will be tried together in criminal court. Without any direct evidence(video, eye-witnesses, or serial numbers), can enough circumstantial evidence amount to a conviction and might it be better to waive a jury trial and have a judge hear it? Is a judge more likely to know what reasonable doubt should be? Thanks for your comments.
- - - Updated - - -
They are saying that items similar to what was found in vehicle were stolen. Similar but not exact. Are they trying to show a pattern and is a pattern enough to prove that said items in vehicle that do not exactly match in description, are stolen?
I wouldnt count on a common trial based on your statements. All that means is the prosecution does not have to present the same evidence twice but change the names involved.
preliminary; same thing.
yep.can enough circumstantial evidence amount to a conviction
things such as that are explained to juries. I was referring to the typical person on the street. determining which would be better is not something easy to decide and surely not something I could answer for you.might it be better to waive a jury trial and have a judge hear it? Is a judge more likely to know what reasonable doubt should be?
- - - Updated - - -
similar like in they are missing shirts and you had shirts or they are missing some particular brand and style of shirt without a specific color and you have shirts that fit that description?
Can I ask you your opinion on this: Are records of a business(retail merchant), admissable in court, in a theft of property case, without the author of said report being in court as a witness? Without videotape or an eyewitness to a theft, can a report just all of a sudden pops up long after the alleged incident, be used as evidence(the report also does not state that their is video tape or an eyewitness, just a report of an incident). Thanks for your comments.
they may be admissible. If the defense does not properly object to their admission (if there is valid cause to object), it is likely they will be admitted if the prosecution submits them for admission.
what value they provide is likely limited by proper objections by the defense.
sure.Without videotape or an eyewitness to a theft, can a report just all of a sudden pops up long after the alleged incident, be used as evidence
consider this:
you are discovered with this merchandise. They somehow determine the merchant involved. They inquire with the merchant if they are missing the items in question from their inventory. They store investigates and it is discovered they are missing the merchandise you just happen to have. they report this to the police.
as the report of " an incident"
what sort of incident are they referring to?