Home / Judge Finds Cop Not Guilty of Assault after Refusing to Watch Video of Assault

Judge Finds Cop Not Guilty of Assault after Refusing to Watch Video of Assault

 

A St. Louis cop is caught on video, slamming his forearm across the face of a handcuffed teenage suspect.

Rory Bruce not only gets fired for the incident that took place last year, but ended up charged with assault – something you rarely see happen.

However, when Bruce stepped in front of the judge to be tried this week, the judge refused to watch the video that came from a surveillance camera from the back of a police transport vehicle.

As a result, Judge Theresa Counts Burke found him not guilty.

Judge burke

Judge Burke refused to tell KMOV-TV why she did not want to watch the strongest piece of evidence in the case against the former cop.

But the head of the police union, Jeff Roorda, who is also a Missouri state representative, fully agreed with her decision not to view the video because he believes videos should only be used to protect police, not hold them accountable.

Roorda is now going to help Bruce get his job back.

According to KMOV-TV:

In an emailed statement, Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce said the office was disappointed that the judge didn’t see this video—adding that the video clearly shows Bruce beating a handcuffed teen.

Judge Teresa Counts Burke didn’t return calls for comment.

Roorda says the judge did right—he told News 4, police videos like these should be used to protect police.

Now, it’s become a “gotcha-head hunter” tool that we’ve seen internal affairs go over-board with.

Roorda says—with his name clear in the courts—Bruce should get his job back. We’ll stay on it to see if he does.

About Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller is founder and publisher of Photography is Not a Crime, which began as a one-man blog in 2007 to document his trial after he was arrested for photographing police during a journalistic assignment. He is also the author of The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which can be purchased through Amazon.
  • Jude I⚡caяiot

    Jeff Roorda is a fucking idiot. I hope he gets genital herpes.

  • rick

    What’s worse than ignorance? Willful ignorance.

    • Contrarymary

      Ouch!

  • Proud GrandPa

    The video caption says it all: UNION THUGS!
    .
    I support freedom of expression. That’s why I vote Republican. Only Democrats support big gov’t labor unions. Conservatives, Libertarians, and Tea Party activists don’t.

    • Constitutionalist

      Libertarians are the ONLY people on your little list that support freedom of expression. You, sir, are a fool and a sheep.

      • Bob

        Judges are human beings and are as susceptible to corruption as any other. Judge Theresa Counts Burke should be investigated by the FBI.

        • $910553

          Any bets on whether THAT is gonna happen?

        • Herbert Napp

          Same FBI that hasn’t done sht in the IRS investigation?

        • Contrarymary

          Uh whatever happened to the citizens saving the citizens? Why are people just insistant on handing over their duties, to government?

          • James M Morriss

            Leagalpanther, ECLS: Thank you for your insight into the fog of war. We have so many laws, metered with so many rules, mired by so many definitions and varieties, it is a wonder that the courts function at all. I believe it is getting to a critical point of failure. You should not need a lawyer to defend your self from a simple charge, but we do.

            You offer opinions that are hard to hear. The proper response should be made at the polls. We, all as responsible members (satisfied sovereigns?) of this society, need to pay more attention to the local judges and their decisions. Then we need to vote accordingly.

            Though I may disagree and argue, know that I do respect both your efforts and your opinions.

            LP: Is NC one of the states your are familiar with?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I can look it up, why?

          • legalpanther

            No. For future reference the states I am licensed in are OH, MO, AR.

    • Bob

      Public sector unions should be abolished. They mainly serve to protect the incompetent and corrupt. They also create an adversarial relationship between the employees and the people they serve, namely, US!

      • Proud GrandPa

        Exactly, Bob. Good observation. I strongly agree, because of the corruption of big labor unions. They no longer serve the little guy, the taxpayer, or even the average worker.

        .

        What is the wisest way to oppose these corrupt, big gov’t labor unions? The governor of Wisconsin and the Republican legislature successfully rolled back the big gov’t teachers union sweetheart deals. We need to elect people like them everywhere.

        .

        I also praise Ronald Reagan for standing against the excesses of the corrupt air traffic controllers union when it broke the law and ordered an illegal strike. Kudos for the party that did that.

        .

    • Jon Quimbly

      What a tool you are, and a partisan. That’s anybody who blindly accepts whatever their party does – people like you put criminals like Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes into office.

      • Difdi

        Better Bush than Obama. Obama has not only broken every promise he made to reverse Bush’s wrongdoings, he’s usually taken it further than Bush did.

        Extra-judicial imprisonment under Bush? Obama asserts the authority to go a step further and have extra-judicial executions. Bush got permission from Congress to fight his war, Obama tried to establish the precedent that drone strikes are not waging war (which I have no doubt will bite us in the collective asses).

        Remove the telephone pole from your own eye before you complain of the dust in the eyes of others.

        • Proud GrandPa

          True, Difdi. The democrat party officially supports these bad policies including big gov’t labor unions. The republican and other parties do not. For me the choice is obvious.
          .
          Some republicans are big gov’t RINOs… Republican In Name Only. That explains the bad results from a coalition of RINOs and DemoLiberals. Only one way to restore America– vote the bums out.

    • Contrarymary

      The whole election thing is a big ole farce, and you are still falling for it?

      • Proud GrandPa

        Mary,

        I too have heard about rigged elections. That may be or may not be so, or may be so sometimes and others not. I have worked in one party and judged several elections locally. It would be easy to fool us average people with rigged electronic voting.
        .
        Still I believe that our elections are mostly honest. You could be correct though.
        .

  • Herbert Napp

    I wonder how many gun control freaks think it’s such a good idea now. Yes, indeed people! Only the POLICE and MILITARY should have “ASSAULT WEAPONS”. They NEVER do anything wrong. Want to change someones mind on 2a? Link them to policestateUSA and this site.

    • Joseph Murray

      What are you even talking about?! America is already the most heavily-armed country in the developed world; what good has it done? How many corrupt cops have been dealt with by armed citzens? Give me one case.

      • $58984987

        Christopher Dorner?

        • Jazz OZ Hamilton

          This alleged “judge” AND the crony union boss should be stripped naked and horsewhipped in the town square by the proper citizenry.

          • Contrarymary

            I’m curious, whom exactly would be “the proper citizenry?” The family members of the abused teen?

        • Al

          There have been a few others – they just haven’t been recognized as such.

        • Guy Fawkes

          Dorner was a weird dude. He was a bigtime supporter of gun control, here is a quote from his manifesto – “Mia Farrow said it best. “Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.”
          Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB.”

          The full version can be read here: http://www.policymic.com/articles/26194/chris-dorner-manifesto-full-text-read-the-full-christopher-dorner-manifesto
          Just saying I don’t see this guy as the poster child for gun rights, other than to debate his idiotic proposition that gun control would have stopped him. He was involved in targeted assassination, any gun would work for that.

          • harry balzanys

            The best way to move forward is to contact the editorial department of the local paper in the state reps district and get him out of office.

          • Ed

            If this were my child….you know the rest. Of course, most of us who care about our children realize that preemptive is the way to go.

          • $58984987

            This issue at hand was specific to armed citizens taking it to corrupt cops.

            Not about their’s or anyone’s weirdness or stance on gun control.

        • Joseph Murray

          Funny, I had the same thought as I typed the qyestion, but didn’t want to seem unnecessarily provocative.

      • Herbert Napp

        If you do not believe in a tipping point or the poster that got to you before me, you’re really stupid.

      • Difdi

        The fact that it might not have happened yet does not mean it can’t happen.

        • Joseph Murray

          Weak, dude.

          • Difdi

            At least my response was stronger than yours.

  • http://callmegav.com/ G Seim – callmegav.com

    Where can we contact this scumbag judge?

  • SlimJim

    http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=230

    She can and should be removed. Flood with complaints.

    • Contrarymary

      And fill this out with full explanation, links, etc. and mail it in. http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=234

      • DesertSun59

        Take this case to the SCOTUS. There, you will find out whether we are a police state or not.

      • AlexScott

        Thanks. I will call the department to find out if I can complete this form since I live in a different state.

  • Gene Lattanzi

    Pigs. All of ‘em.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    The judge couldn’t admit the videotape without proper foundation. State v. Minner, 256 S.W.3d 92 (Mo. 2008) (en banc). The defendant officer did not testify. The victim refused to testify. The defendant’s partner testified, but said he did not think the tape accurately represented what happened. Had the judge admitted the tape, she would have been overturned on appeal.

    If there was a way of prosecuting the partner, it should be looked at, but I doubt you could win. Too many ways for him to get out of a perjury charge on this.

    It’s BS, but under the law, there is no way for the prosecution to get the tape in.

    • Clark

      .”…he did not think the tape accurately represented what happened.” WTF is that supposed to mean??? Is the partner claiming the tape was altered?

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        It means he probably lied. He didn’t want to testify in the first place, took the Fifth, and had to be ordered to testify by a grant of immunity.

        Based on the union president’s statement, the code of silence there is apparently greater than normal, and the partner was probably afraid of ending up like Serpico in NYC years ago.

        • SteveDK

          Thanks for the explanations.

          • Kriegar

            Somehow, someway, it’s got to stop. It’s past being insane.

          • Difdi

            By that standard, judges shouldn’t watch videos of anyone committing a crime, since videos should be used only to acquit people, never convict them. /sigh

        • Difdi

          So if someone who is not a police officer were to testify in court, under identical circumstances that a video is not accurate, what happens then?

          You and I both know what should happen, but what will likely happen?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            The same thing happens. I’ve seen it multiple times, and have never seen a judge let an unauthenticated photo or video in. It is a real quick way to get reversed on appeal.

          • Darksideblues42

            Since I am not a lawyer, or an expert on the law, I have a question on something here.

            If the officer depicted as striking the suspect made statements in his official report as to the event in question, and these statements are made “To the best of his knowledge and recollection” (Or whatever language accompanies a police report in that jurisdiction) AND that report is used as evidence in the trial, why can’t the video be used to refute the version of events contained in the report?

            Also, would the witness testifying to the video authenticity have to be one of the people present? In the traffic-cam scenario, those events are often reviewed first by the company monitoring the camera, then sent to an officer for validation, neither of which can accurately testify to the specific events at the time the picture is taken if they are not there.

          • Contrarymary

            Good questions.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            A report is inadmissible as hearsay.

            Authentication doesn’t have to be to the specific events alone, but to the location also.

            Also, most traffic cams are not criminal actions, but administrative ones heard by a hearing officer, not a judge (although some of the hearing officers are called administrative law judges, they are not actual judges).

          • Darksideblues42

            ECLS,

            I understand, however, could the officer now be charged with false official statements since his official report (his statement of facts regarding the incident) is not accurate given the video evidence.

            Also, Could the prosecutor have had a video expert testify that the video in question showed a true and impartial record of the events it recorded and was not tampered with or altered? Especially if the partner, after being compelled to testify, seemed to make a reference to the video as not being accurate?

            I guess I am just having a very hard time understanding how a video tape, which, provided it is not edited or altered, or just a short clip out of context, can possibly not be evidence in a court of law, when you clearly know that it was in the best interest of the officer not to validate the video. It seems like a conflict of interest.

            Also, if I lie to a police officer during an investigation, it is obstruction, or making a false statement. Since this officer must had made a statement during this investigation, could he be charged with obstruction?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I would have to see a transcript of the testimony or the statements made to form an opinion on that.

            Those are typically very difficult to prove, you almost need a smoking gun in the guy’s hands.

            I would support it if they have the evidence.

          • Contrarymary

            The power they have, to just ignore crimes within their own community, whilst naming everything we do in ours, as criminal activities. We can be arrested just on an officers word, but they cannot be arrested even with visual proof. Wake up America, before you back yourself into the web of no return.

    • bj

      Where does justice reside amongst all this procedure? The court should more creative in seeking justice; if it favours anything else more, then it is not serving its primary purpose.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        Should they be creative just when it is something you don’t like, or for everyone?

    • Contrarymary

      And who made up those rules, laws and regulations? Exactly!

    • legalpanther

      Here is the exact language used by the case cited by ECLS.

      “As his next point on appeal, Minner claims that the trial court erred by admitting the videotapes of the drug sale transaction, because the State failed to lay the proper foundation. HN8Whether a sufficient foundation has been established for an exhibit is a decision within the broad discretion of the trial court. State v. Copeland, 928 S.W.2d 828, 846 (Mo. banc 1996). “The party offering a videotape in evidence must show that it is an accurate and faithful representation of what it purports to show.” Phiropoulos v. Bi-State Development Agency, 908 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Mo. App. 1995). The foundation may be established through the testimony of any witness who is familiar with the subject matter of the tape and competent to testify from personal observation. State v. Powers, 148 S.W.3d 830, 832 (Mo. App. 2004).

      At trial, officer Hensley testified that he set up two video cameras in the car to record any activities that occurred outside the driver’s side window. Officer Hensley observed the informant from a distance of approximately five hundred feet. After the sale had been accomplished, officer Hensley collected the drugs and the cameras and sealed them in evidence envelopes. Officer Hensley testified that the tapes were transferred from 8 mm tapes to VHS tapes but that no changes were made to them. Officer Hensley testified that he watched the videos after the sale was completed and that it was a fair and accurate representation of what he witnessed.

      Minner argues that the foundation is insufficient because, contrary to officer Hensley’s recollection that only one man approached the informant’s car, the videos showed two men walking up to the car. Sufficient foundation for admitting a videotape can be made by a person who is familiar with the subject matter of the tape and is competent to testify to the subject matter from personal knowledge. Phiropoulos, 908 S.W.2d at 714. Officer Hensley’s testimony established that he was familiar with the subject matter of the tape and how the tapes were recorded. The fact remains that Minner was recorded delivering drugs to the informant, and there was no indication that the tapes did not accurately reflect the transaction. That officer Hensley did not recall that two men initially approached the informant’s vehicle does not mean that the tapes themselves do not depict the transaction at issue. The court did not abuse its discretion by finding that officer Hensley established a proper foundation for the videotapes and admitting the tapes into evidence.”

  • jodi lover

    That’s DISGUSTING!!!!!

  • Randy

    Here’s roorda’s fb page – 584 likes? Surprised me…

    https://www.facebook.com/JeffRoordaForMissouriHouse

  • steveo

    This is actually what happens with most domestic violence cases. The victim doesn’t cooperate with the prosecutors and the SA drops the charges. If the victim doesn’t show up, then I’m not sure how they even have a case.

  • Molari

    Crooked biased judge colludes with police union.

    Video is a piece of evidence about the truth of what happened.

    The judge must of seen the video in privacy before the case…

    • Guest

      cops are thugs and killers,they will kill you,dogs,children &anything that has breath…be very careful when you are around any cop,you never know if he is good or bad or to scared to say anything to the other bad cop…always watch your back and never trust any…any,they will KILL YOU DEAD,BLACK,WHITE,BROWN AND IN BETWEEN.

  • Made in America.

    The Judge is in contemp of justice by not seeing all evidence. Just another case of coruption. This union rep that says that is proticall should have a bullet put in him before he defending a cop that kills your teen for being sasst.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      And you are in contempt of the English language.

      Geez, someone should ground you from the computer until you learn how to write.

  • Atanos Iskandar

    Drag them all out on their asses. They’re fired.

  • Ray Moorer

    This A#@hole Jeff Roorda is a Racist Republican Conservative that sits as Missouri State Rep.( Really) now we know why our government is so F@#ked up. Then did anyone notice what that Creepy ass Police officer said about how he uses correct English and how he was going to write the Police report up. Police Creative Writing 101.”How to make Lies Legal”. That Judge should be run out of America not just Missouri.

    • auntikrist

      This judge is an idiot and should be removed from her position on the bench immediately. Her refusal to LOOK at all evidence provided makes her an idiot and a pawn who is a disgrace to the bench.

      • James Morris

        This is because good cops in the past have looked the other way when bad cops do bad things. This has led to criminals with badges infiltrating all levels of police. Until the cops wake up and police themselves, they (the police) will be considered “the enemy” by most freedom loving Americans.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      Roorda is actually a Democrat, and running for office on that ticket.

  • James M Morriss

    So how does this get judicial review? This judge come up for reelection at some point. This Video and report needs to be re-posted
    at that time.
    .

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      Don’t you think that it is more important to defeat the union president? He’s running for the state legislature.

    • Anonymous

      What the deuce? Is that judge getting banged by the cop?

  • Guest

    I think the Judge is lonely and likes cops.

  • Doug Nusbaum

    I wonder if the cop lied in his written report. Now, every time that he testifies he can be shown to have a history of perjury. That could make for him being a problematic witness.

    And any defence attorney can have an argument for overturning any conviction in this judges court since she is obviously biased in favor of the prosecution.

  • dudeinaz

    I’m curious at what point the kid crouched down and prepared to lunge at the officer. The reporter should have called out the POS union rep on that.

  • http://radiomankc.blogspot.com/ Radioman KC

    Now there’s a state rep who has no business being in elected office. And a judge who should be disbarred.

  • Adrian
  • bob

    Civil suit is needed. All evidence would be required to be admitted, upto and including the police tape.

    • legalpanther

      The rules of evidence are the same in civil trials as they are in criminal trials.

  • Jason Johnson

    Fire that judge! What a bitch.

  • rick

    I’m truly surprised that Carlos hasn’t updated this story with the “why”. As in, why didn’t the judge view the video before ruling? Seems to be an important piece.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      She couldn’t view it before it was admitted. She was the trier of fact.

      • rick

        I understand. I’m asking why hasn’t Carlos updated the story to include this important fact?

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          Probably because it is covered in the comments.

          • rick

            For the regulars maybe. How about everyone else seeing what this site has to offer? Most readers search for the 5 W’s In the main text. I hope PINAC doesn’t go the way of “CopBlock” sensationalism by omitting important facts.

  • http://www.thinkyhead.com/ Thinkyhead

    The banality of evil.

  • tomsinla

    Can you say, “bribe”?

  • harry balzanya

    Ok flying monkies why dont you stop whining about law procedure and call CALEA the agency that acredits the police drpartment and ask how they can vouch for these thugs,http://www.calea.org/ demand that they stop acrediting a police force that rehires this thug.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      That’s not how Calea works.

      • harry balzanya

        So how do they work? They hire ex thugs and acrefit anyone who gives them cash?

        • harry balzanya

          Who insures this town? Do they know this thug is coming back

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I think St. Louis is self-insured, which means the taxpayers would be on the hook.

          • harry balzanya

            Its going to be how they work if they claim to acredit these thugs and put their logo and reputation out then we need to make this thier problem. I dont realy care about the details of what they do. The image they claim is that a calea endorsement is about professionalism. They need a metaphorical steaming bag of shit on their porch as well. I

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          CALEA reviews the departments policies mainly, to make sure that the policies meet their standards. It’s a big paperwork exercise, and doesn’t really do anything about how the department is actually run. I think it is useless myself, but insurance companies will give better rates and the PD will tell the public that it proves they are a professional department.

          For example Albuquerque PD is accredited and they have had a bunch of incidents. So is Miami-Dade, Omaha, Tuscon, Broward County, King County, Prince George’s County, California Highway Patrol, NJ State Police, and the Florida Highway Patrol just to name a few. All still have problems, but CALEA won’t care so long as they get paid.

      • ted

        What kind of kangaroo court system are they running? “We can beat you, lie about it, convict you and sentence you, but if you have evidence proving your innocence our courts will ignore it because WE are above the law!!!” Crooked cops like that will turn future cop killers into folk heros!

        • prariegirl

          One and all. Get ready for the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case. If Zimmerman walks, all hell will break lose. Prepare yourselves with knowledge before hand, know your rights and exersize them appropriately, peacefully and fairly. No violence! Violence is for the police who protect us. Don’t forget!

          • Stanhope’s Bitch

            These videos should be to protect police, and also protect US!! It keeps everyone honest, but when a dimwit judge is ‘paid off’ and refuses to see the video, then the judge should be fired, or step down, too!! This is a miscarriage of justice, and we live in AMERICA – not NORTH KOREA! If this violent cop is allowed back on duty; then the next time it could be a death. Then they will get their butts sued for hiring someone that they KNEW – and had video proof = was violent!! Shame on everyone involved!!

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Try reading the rest of the comments. They explain why the judge had to rule the way that she did.

          • Dan Matthews

            If and when the video evidence can be authenticated, would it be possible to bring the “witness” up on charges of lying under oath?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Perjury is extremely hard to prove, but yes, it is possible. It’s just not likely.

      • harry balzanya

        This is how activism works. This is how effective protest works.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          Go for it. Somehow I don’t think that you’ll have much impact.

  • Josh McNattin

    Absolute bullshit. This is the kind of thing that we can all rally around to stand up against injustice. If anyone wants to march, I’m there.

    • Richard

      That kid never “lunged” at him, and regardless was handcuffed.

    • mason

      Probably because she thinks she’s right like most women do.Just because she a judge doesn’t mean you can ignore a crime. Lets hope she gets whats coming to her some day when she is judged by God.

      • legalpanther

        But she still must follow the rules of evidence. If the prosecution failed to lay the proper foundation, the judge, as a matter of law, could not view the video tape. It is a rather simple concept.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Al.Nava.Progressive.Leader Alfredo ‘Al’ Nava

    Judge Burke is either an inept or corrupt judge, and should be removed for violating a code of ethics.

    • legalpanther

      She violated nothing. She followed the rules of evidence. She cannot rewrite the rules or choose to ignore them. What she did was proper, even if it lets a guilty man go free.

  • William Robert Guerra

    and the state rep, a demon-rat, agrees that tapes should only be used to help police not hold them accountable…WRONG!!….those tapes are supposed to be used to protect ALL PEOPLE EQUALLY…it is a method to keep cops in line and to keep them from abusing their power…

  • Shane Shaw

    That Judge needs to be removed for incompetence… Roorda is a typical Union crony.. don’t use video to hold police accountable? Then what shall we use to hold them accountable? Please..

    • legalpanther

      In what way was she incompetent? She followed the rules of evidence. The only place fingers can be pointing is the prosecutor for failing to lay the proper foundation for the tape and the partner for lying on the stand.

      • Shane Shaw

        the only clear and incontrovertible evidence in this case and the judge refuses to see it? That can only be incompetence or dereliction..

        • legalpanther

          Exactly how is the evidence clear and incontrovertible? Remember, in the course of a trial, only the facts that are presented at trial can be considered. How is the judge to know that this was a tape of the incident unless someone testifies that this was the tape of the incident? It cannot. Blame the prosecution, the judge is blameless.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          No, had she allowed it in would show incompetence or dereliction. She is sworn to follow the law, not to make decisions that would be overturned.

  • Shaun Allen

    May the good citizens of Missouri remember this action the next time this judge and state representative are up for reelection. May their political careers be destroyed and may all decent people shun them from this day forward, refusing to work with them in any way.

    • harry balzanya

      http://www.calea.org/ is the accreditation company that claims to be the gold standard in police professionalism. They endorse this department. Email and call them why and ask them how they put thier label on this.

  • The_Governments_koch

    ” police videos like these should be used to protect police.”

    It’s telling that one of the things he thinks they should be protected from is accountability.

  • Erik Brito

    Ok, someone elbow the piece of shit cop or the judge and see what happens. Accountability has been thrown out the window here. Cowards!

  • guest123

    That judge is a dumb fuck and is probably sleeping w the cop and they should both be job less.

  • Jeremy

    Ummm.. the Union rep or whatever he is has to be a joke. Video evidence being used as a “gotcha”… I kinda think that’s what video evidence is….

  • Wandering_Bard

    Yeah, Ex-Cop, you’re an idiot for constantly citing case law, and making reference to court procedures that lay-people don’t understand.

    Stupid-head.

  • wiita

    kill the cop i say .. too many open fire for nno reason . annnd sream wolf the police need to know who they workk for

  • rick

    Accountability, who needs it?!
    Please tell me a civil suit is in the works.

  • Nogods Buffalo

    Rory Bruce is a coward. Is that judge elected or appointed?

  • YourTaxDollarsAtWork

    How can that not be assault? There needs to be some way to punish this judge for this miscarriage of justice. She needs to be removed from the bench IMMEDIATELY.

  • Jefft90

    At first I feared this was another Judge with strong police
    ties, but unfortunately it appears to be because of the rules of evidence. Maybe ECLS can explain better.

    http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/04/but-for-video-former-cop-rory-bruce-acquitted-edition.aspx?ref%3Drss

  • steveo

    In Fl, we call this battery, assault is defined as fighting words directed at a person without any contact. But there are thousands of cases of battery that never get prosecuted because the victim refuses to testify, that’s the case here.

  • Difdi

    It’s not assault/battery because when you swear an oath to uphold the law you become physically incapable of breaking it. If evidence comes to light that you did break it, then reality must be wrong.

  • Juan

    Fucking disgusting

  • rick

    Res ipsa loquitur

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    To admit a photograph or video, you have to lay the proper foundation that it accurately represents the scene and the activities. You do this with a witness. There were three people present: the defendant, his partner, and the victim.

    The defendant did not testify, so you can’t use him to get the tape in.

    The victim asserted his Fifth Amendment rights to avoid incriminating himself (remember, he was under arrest, and if he testified, the defense could question him on what he did to get arrested).

    The partner said that the video did not match what he remembered. He had initially invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, but was granted immunity and ordered to answer.

    Without foundation, the tape cannot be entered into evidence.

  • Proud GrandPa

    From your link, Jefft90:

    And yet, union spokesman Roorda can’t help but gild the lily:

    “You’ve got a guy who has twice skated on serious charges all in the
    interest of prosecuting a police officer on a misdemeanor where the only
    evidence is video that exonerates him,” Roorda said in a prepared statement.
    “This is more than a case of prosecutorial indiscretion; it’s a case of
    prosecutorial vanity.”

    So this video exonerates him, Jeff? It may not have been admissible in a
    court of law, but it surely is in the court of public opinion, and it’s not
    likely that anyone watching the video will be giving him a good cop medal.
    Naturally, the union is asking that Bruce, who was fired as a probationary
    officer, be reinstated now that he’s been found not guilty. Hasn’t he suffered
    enough?

    Proud GrandPa respects the rules of evidence, but despises the union that calls for his reinstatement. The people of St Louis may not be able to convict, but they surely are able to deny…. giving him a badge and a gun. So much for the hollow cry for justice from corrupt labor unions. Remember this in November.

  • Jefft90

    Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence.

    1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an item is what
    it is claimed to be.
    Had the Judge ruled otherwise it would have been grounds fo reversal.

  • Owlisen

    WTF ???? So COPS wont be judged by the same law as us citizens ???…. you got to be kidding me ?!?!?
    If a COP assaults someone and there are video of it, isnt it the courts duty to look at the evidence ?????

  • Difdi

    The problem is that the inadmissible evidence is more solid than the testimony. People lie. The video shows what actually happened, but because a witness lied (and the video proves they lied) the video gets tossed out.

    That’s not a court of law, that’s a farce.

  • Peaceful Streets

    Cops are cowards. So is this judge.

  • Terry

    How about a trial for the judge and cop, followed by an appointment with the gallows?

  • Jag D. Panxer

    APPEAL! JUDICIAL ERROR! EVIDENTIARY CHALLENGE! JUDICIAL NOTICE! OVERTURN!

  • IceTrey

    How could the victim testify as to what he had done to get arrested? It is the cops who would have to testify to that.

  • Difdi

    That’s absurd. How can oral testimony from someone who (if not a cop) would possibly be an accomplice to the assault carry greater weight than a video recorded by a police vehicle’s camera system?

  • StreyDawg

    Sounds like an easy way to beat traffic cams.

  • stumbled here from elsewhere

    It is so very nice to see someone with knowledge give a proper (yet brief) explanation of the rules of evidence and trial procedure. Every one of your posts on this topic has been absolutely correct, and i commend you.

  • Terry

    Interesting judgment.

    So the judge would not have any problems with the friends or family of this victim popping her or that scumbag cop in the face?

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Because any defense attorney worth his salt will ask him questions about that and any other crimes. It goes to the witnesses credibility.

  • David Faulkner

    Whats red orange and looks good on police?

    FIRE

  • JustaVetSailorfromPennsylvania

    BADGED UNIFORMED FASCIST THUGS exactly what these two are

  • Butch Blankenship

    what bullshit, she could seriously be a judge in Oakland County, Michigan. They have done that shit for years.always catering to the cops and the prosecuters. all I can say is Karma will get em’ all!

  • Janna Schroeder

    This is becoming a “policed Country” and it WILL NOT STAND!, I AM NOT OWNED. BY ANYBODY, OR ANY GOVERNMENT! I AM NOT OWNED. I AM A FREE CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND MY GOVERNMENT WILL NOT SQUASH MY INALIENABLE RIGHTS! IF YOU ARE POLICE OFFICER CONDUCTING POLICE DUTIES IN THE PUBLIC ARENA YOU WILL BE RECORDED!! YOU NOW IN A VIRAL VIDEO MEDIA WORLD. I SUGGEST YOU GET USE TO IT. YOU WILL NOT TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS. AND if you were conducting your duties as a sensible humane human, you would need to be worried about people recording you!

  • jmcaul

    And these morons wonder why people are fast losing ALL respect for ‘law enforcement.’

  • Difdi

    An impeachment certainly, since the judge refused to carry out her sworn duty.

  • Florida_Native

    With a judge effectively in the pocket of the police union it’s too bad the Feds don’t initiate a civil rights case. It might knock her judicial extremism down a few notches.

  • Jefft90

    I never wrote nor implied that the tape or the verdict exonerates him. I merely pointed out how the ruling was based on the rules of evidence and provided a link.

    What I tried to do and what ECLS is trying to do,is reason with a mob. But you can’t, a mob feeds on emotion and shits stupidity.

  • miss higgi

    She the “judge” should be removed from the bench! How dare she. Not evaluate all relevant info. Damning to the cop or insightful about the cop? Shame on her for contributing to the problem instead of doing what’s right and resolving the problem of bad cops!

  • Antoinette

    PEOPLE WAKE UP!! PAY ATTENTION!! WHAT IF THAT HAD BEEN YOUR CHILD? At this point it really doesn’t matter what that “KID” did to get arrested. It does not justify any degree of malicious treatment against a human being like that!! Let alone a child. The police are suppose to PROTECT AND SERVE. It is not the duty nor responsibility of the police to be the judge, jury punisher, nor executioner. The REAL CRIME WAS THAT A HANDCUFFED “KID” WAS ASSAULTED BY AN ADULT.! PERIOD!!

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Appeal what? Legally, the judge was correct.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    On what grounds? She followed the law. Unless the video can be authenticated, it cannot be admitted into evidence. If you allow that in this case, you are opening the door to edited and falsified videos being admitted in trials of civilians.

  • jmcaul

    Are you kidding???? Did you see this video? What is not ‘authenticated’ about this?

  • Ernie Menard

    What more authentication is needed than the video was made by the police?

  • steveo

    actually the case should have been dismissed because the victim didn’t show up to testify.

  • Swagg

    Are you dumb?

  • sonicbphuct

    EDIT: Nevermind – saw you answered same question below.

    You are usually a font of good info, so I defer – however, if the video is made by the police, how can it *not* be authenticated? Must the victim be the authenticator?

  • Hank Hill

    Identify the actors and the locale, prove up the chain of custody, and it’s admissible. G+/F-, law student cop.

  • Robert Williams

    The video was from a police camera, inside of a police transport. What’s to authenticate?

  • Barking Dog

    It opens the door to not admitting any cop videos.

  • Antoinette

    The judge must be the mother, sister, niece, cousin, grandmother, wife, girlfriend, or lover to the police involved in this particular instance as well as to the police union state rep.

    If not viewing the tape was simply a matter of proper procedure, then why didn’t she say that? Probably because there’s something hinky downtown folks.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    And the state is required to prove that. They could not do so with the evidence they had which was admissible.

    Plus, not that it excuses the ex-officer’s conduct, the “kid” was a little felon. That’s part of what had the union outraged – the felony charges against the kid were dropped to prosecute the misdemeanor charge against the officer.

  • Antoinette

    My sentiments exactly!

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Under admiralty law as demonstrated by the common law UCC, the use of all caps indicates that you are willing to submit as a slave of the corporate de facto government.

    Either that or you’re shouting.

    Use your inside voice here.

  • Ed

    “Free citizen” is an oxymoron.
    You’ve been brainwashed in to thinking that you’re a citizen (the better to manipulate you with, my dear). Factually, all that’s possible for you is to be a human.

  • Contrarymary

    United States FOR and United States OF has two totally different meanings. Research both and then decide which one you are.

  • Antoinette

    If those police were the ones being assaulted I’ll bet the Da, Judge and police would want, demand even that the tapes be viewed.

  • Contrarymary

    Quit thinking rationally! My gosh, are you nuts or what? America has sure dug its own hellhole for sure.

  • Antoinette

    The REAL CRIME WAS THAT A HANDCUFFED “KID” WAS ASSAULTED BY AN ADULT.! PERIOD!!

  • Jag D. Panxer

    Lawyers are why there will be no justice in this. Put yourself in the kid’s shoes. Thank you sir, may I have another? And I suppose judicial discretion covers the judge from not accepting the tape (even with no facts or witnesses) into evidence and doesn’t meet the standard of the exclusionary rule, and if roles were reversed the judge would have been hot and ready to admit the tape as evidence against the kid. I wasn’t involved in this, and I’m damned sure that if I were, I’d made damned sure to have gone to a jury on this case. There is no justice in this world, at least non provided by this gang calling themselves a government. It’s a moot point. Good day sir.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    To authenticate a video, you have to show that it was an accurate representation of the location and what happened. Who made the video plays little to no role in that. I cited one Missouri case earlier, but this is very basic law, and is substantially the same across the nation.

    You can’t just show up and say here’s a video.

  • Contrarymary

    Oh my gosh! you are actually thinking Sir! How dare you!

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Yes, I saw the video, and the officer should now be behind bars. The problem is what I described above.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    No kidding? Did you figure that out all by yourself?

    I’ve already said that it is BS that the officer got off. I’m explaining why it happened.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    The exclusionary rule has nothing to do with this – it covers something entirely different.

    I can tell you that almost all judges don’t admit evidence against normal suspects either if it doesn’t meet the requirements of the law. I’ve been there when it happened, more than once.

    Also, the defendant ex-officer is the one that chose not to have a jury, and the state does not have a right to insist on a jury.

    I’ve already said that the defendant should have been convicted, but he’s not the problem here, it is much worse and much more a systemic problem.

    First, the officer’s partner apparently lied or had a “loss” of full memory of the event. He did not want to testify in the first place and had to be ordered to testify under a grant of immunity. This indicates that the “code of silence” in St. Louis is so pervasive that the officer was apparently scared of retribution if he testified truthfully. In NYC years ago there was the same attitude, and an officer that stood up for what was right was set up to be killed. He ended up having to leave the country. You have to break that culture.

    Second, you can’t just change the evidentiary rules to loosen them up. Once that happens, it never goes back, and those loosened rules are used against citizens.

    Finally, the state has to prove each and every element of the offense with evidence that is admissible, or the court has to find the defendant not guilty. You could have committed a murder and confessed to your wife in detail but that won’t matter if there isn’t any other evidence because your wife’s testimony is inadmissible. The state couldn’t prove it here because they couldn’t get the video admitted.

    If you want to blame someone, blame the partner.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    It’s not a legal requirement, but that not abnormal.

    There are exceptions. We used to prosecute domestic violence cases without the victim. We would take photos of the injuries, get a written statement, and note any res gestae statements or excited utterances (both are exceptions to hearsay).

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    She did say that. “No foundation.” That’s why the prosecution tried an end-run with the business records exception, except that exception doesn’t fit and the judge properly (procedurally) denied that also.

  • Difdi

    Depends on where you’re standing. There is no such crime as Battery in Washington state, just different degrees of Assault.

  • James Michael

    Funny, Blacks Law defines assault very plainly and if Florida is making up its own definitions for well known words there is a definite problem… Then again Florida is very well know for it’s traitorous and ignorant thugs with badges and guns. I should know I was born there and their false arrest of myself, was exactly what got me into the study of law 7 years ago.

  • Difdi

    The police have records of where their vehicles are and when. If the video came off of a police vehicle, then it is no different than a patrol car dash cam — Or are dash cams and police body cameras inadmissible too now?

  • Ernie Menard

    All the prosecution needed to authenticate the video was ANY police department employee in the chain of custody of that video to authenticate the video.

  • James Michael

    Watching the video does authenticate it moron…. You must be a crook with a badge and a gun or one of the criminal class known as liaryers.

  • Riderz

    Did you even read the story?
    “the video that came from a surveillance camera from the back of a police transport vehicle”.

  • tecumseh

    you are completely wrong. There is no evidentiary standard like the one you describe. Videos are prima facie evidence of what they show. No one needs to corroborate them.

    stop citing cases regarding PICTURES; that’s totally different.

  • Barking Dog

    “You can’t just show up and say here’s a video” taken from a sealed unit in a police van. Don’t see how it could not be entered automatically. What is the question on where it was from?

    Opens a whole lot of doors that need to be shut and this judge and the state guy arrested for conspiracy.

    Nonsense to say a police cam, in place for evidence is not real, according to an accomplice.

  • Difdi

    When someone sworn to uphold the law violates it in the course of investigating a crime and making an arrest, it tends to poison the well. Even when it probably didn’t, the system should err on the side of caution.

  • Contrarymary

    You talk about laws, rules and regulations, yet you bring in information that has little to do with the teen being abused. Whether or not he is a felon (innocent until proven guilty as Constituted) means nothing of whether or not the incident happened. As we all can see here, the cop slapped a handcuffed youth, enough said! Proof is in the pudding.

  • Difdi

    And yet it moves.

    Unlike Galileo, the evidence actually exists.

  • http://freedomsphoenix.com FascistNation

    I posted too soon. Looks like a criminal defense attorney commented on this case:

    http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/04/but-for-video-former-cop-rory-bruce-acquitted-edition.aspx

  • Thomas

    ExCop – if you you look at this from a human point of view, do you think what this officer is doing is okay?

    As a future expat moving to the US, I am astonished that people actually defend behavior like this.

    Officers are employed to serve and protect. Not to serve and assault. I understand that looking at his from a legal point of view, you are most likely right in everything you write, I am not the one to argue againt you, but I feel worried that you spend so much time defending this man, when his own superiors actually fired him and charged him of the fellony that he without a doubt is exercise.

  • Difdi

    As long as the victim didn’t testify, the accused didn’t testify, and there was no notary seal on the videotape…she’d be a hypocrite if she did.

  • Michael Mayo

    Where is this judge. I’m going to send her a nasty email.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    So? How’s that get a witness to testify that it is an accurate representation?

  • Difdi

    The government has all the tools they need to break that culture. They just choose not to.

    Few individual officers would stay out of prison if they were treated the same way as private citizens are in terms of what makes you an accomplice or conspirator.

    Very few police departments would survive if subjected to the standards of what makes an organization corrupt under the RICO Act.

    I’m pretty sure the feds are well aware of how few officers would be left after the laws were applied equally to all. I’m damn near certain that’s why they refuse to even think about it.

  • Jag D. Panxer

    I guess if judges were so accountable and respectful of the rules of procedure, then the appeals courts would be empty…oh, wait. Again, lawyers are the reason this didn’t go anywhere. The one on the bench, then one on the defense, and the one prosecuting. You seem like a guy who requires the last word (and if there’s a response, it’ll prove my guess). You can have it if you like, my final word will be ‘ignore/delete’. I’m done with this. Another rotten cops gets away, haza. Wait til next week, there’ll be dozens more. I’m glad this system is so hard on its own when they go astray…oh…

  • legalpanther

    I would love to see the transcript of the partner’s questioning concerning the tape. I would want to know how it is different and whether he believes that the tape was doctored or edited in some manner.

    But the ruling from the judge is valid based upon the rules of evidence.

  • Difdi

    Careful, abusing a judge can result in a warrant and extradition.

  • http://freedomsphoenix.com FascistNation

    http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/03/02/not-trial-by-video.aspx
    Guess it is a trend: See No Evil, Speak No Evil.

  • James M Morriss

    What can’t we just agree and call a spade a spade; he knocked the shit out of that boy. Assault, battery, “a rose by any other name….”

    The fact the judge refused to look at the videos speaks volumes for her integrity. (ECLS: nothing was said about the “authenticity”. It’s not in evidence, you don’t get to claim it as a reason.)
    And I would assume she was elected to that bench? Vote her black robed ass out.
    I have on to look after here in Rowan Co. NC next election.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    They did. They always err on the defendant’s side. “Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned.”

  • Linda Candelaria

    she should be told to sit in a chair and made to watch it over & over until she realizes that We need protection from dirty freekin abusive pigs!!!

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    ROTFL.

    The judge did her duty to the letter of the law.

    Y’all are mad at the wrong person. The partner is the one that kept the video from getting in with his testimony.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    It has to be authenticated. Period. No exceptions.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Ah, but those do get authenticated. The witness has been at the scene before or after and testifies that it is an accurate representation of the location.

  • Heyna_or_no

    The judge is an embarrassment to her profession! And the head of the police union is no better!! People like them make me sick! And I have family in law enforcement!

  • Difdi

    What I don’t understand is how physical evidence of a crime can be negated by what is arguably an accomplice of the criminal saying “nah, it didn’t happen the way the video shows it” and that makes the physical evidence go away…

  • Ernie Menard

    The witness, in this case the police officer that plead the fifth, didn’t have to testify that the video was an accurate representation of the incident. The police officer would have had to testify in what manner the video differed from his recollection of the incident.
    Seems pretty simple to me. The prosecutor failed to get the video authenticated by any person in the chain of custody of that video.
    Furthermore, it also seems to me that the judge had the discretion to inquire of the prosecutor why the prosecutor failed to have the video authenticated. The prosecutor brought the case, it was his or her duty, on our dime, to do a thorough job.

  • Difdi

    The rules of evidence were created in a time when if someone did not witness it, there was no evidence.

    The problem is that in the hundreds of years since then, people have invented machines that can see and record an indelible record of what they have seen.

    A video camera is a more reliable witness than a human being in most cases, but the rules of evidence consider it to not exist until a human witnesses it.

    This is utter madness.

  • Barking Dog

    Not a witness but an accomplice to an assault under color of authority

  • Jason

    You are piece of shit. If the teen had hit the cop this same video would have been used to send him to jail for 20 years. You are making excuses for the cops because you used to be one. Do you plan on becoming a DA so you can protect the other dirty cops (like you probably were) by not filing charges against them when they break the law.

  • jeanine4truth

    Then following that logic–no videos of any defendants can be used without authentication–or does the ‘law’ only apply to the rest of us poor slobs. What is the point of filming if authentication is required? In any case–justice did not happen.

  • StreyDawg

    So a “witness” shows at a challenge to a camera ticket…alrighty.

  • nrgins

    She’s obviously married or connected to someone close to this cop. Sickening. I hope she gets disbenched (or whatever they call it for judges). I’m sure if that was her or her kid that got beat she’d be singing a totally different tune. Sick.,

  • malcolmkyle

    According to Paul Craig Roberts, a former editor of the Wall Street Journal and former assistant secretary to the treasury under Ronald Reagan, “Police in the US now rival criminals, and exceed terrorists as the greatest threat to the American public.”

  • Difdi

    I think he has proven quite well that he is not dumb. The problem is getting him to shut up, not the other way around! =P

    Nor is he stupid, though he does seem to be willfully ignorant of reality at times. He’s a zealot in favor of The System, who refuses to believe that The System is corrupt, or ever could be. He has a vested interest that it not be, since he benefits from it — but all this does is give him a nasty case of confirmation bias.

    It has been said that legal training sharpens the mind, but also narrows it. I have yet to meet a lawyer that didn’t have at least a small problem with common word usages and literal interpretation.

  • Shadow_58

    Clearly the Judge in this case has her head buried so deep up her as* she can’t see the sunlight. This COP should have been arrested and charged with assault and battery, his badge and weapon should have been stripped and he sentenced to 5 to 10 years in prison. COPS wonder why the general public no longer trust them.

  • io-io

    Given the video, if the cop did once, he has done in previously, and will do it again.

    I certainly understand the trial circumstances, however a trial depends on everyone coming to court with the best intentions. In this case, everyone had something to personally hide. None of the principals testified.

    All of this said, then it is back to the police union / department in getting the “gentleman’s” job back (which hopefully will not happen, but probably will occur). For the good of public safety and the reputation of the department, he should not get the job back. Given, the “thin blue line”, he probably will, and that is the problem. Good officers will not tolerate this, however rotten thugs depend on this. This is essentially a test of the department in terms of being able to clean itself up. It will probably fail the community, since they place themselves above the mere citizens (the scum in their view).

  • Elizabeth Conley

    This seems like serious judicial malfeasance to me. She REFUSED to view the evidence? That’s really overboard. How did she get her position? Is there any oversight? Can she be removed?
    I’m shocked. Something has to be done.

  • harry balzanya

    I believe the proseutor could have chosen to call a number of witnesses to enter the tape as evidence but chose not too. Its a cup and ball trick pretend then the press gets fed, the judge gets the blame the cop goes free.

  • Contrarymary

    Hmmmm….I wonder if they have a personal relationship?

  • Contrarymary

    Shocked really? Well better late than never I say!

  • Proud GrandPa

    Sorry, Jeff90. The Jeff referred to above was the union representative. He is also named Jeff.

    .

    The government labor union wants this bad cop reinstated! I did not mean to imply that you were he. Thanks for the chance to correct this. Again sorry for any confusion.

  • https://www.facebook.com/groups/316619855247/ TMills

    So if you have a badge on you are above the law~ Allowing this type of behavior is why GOOD COPS get bad names! This Judge needs to be removed from her chair and the OFFICERS charged!

  • Jefft90

    No worries GrandPa.

  • James Michael

    I keep telling people these so called honorable judges are criminals…..
    Simple fact…. Protecting their extortionate flying monkeys with badges and guns…..
    That is their real job.. Need to start shooting these traitor criminals and this crap will stop!! I did not serve 17 years for these traitors to get away with these lies and fraud… This is the definition of TREASON!!!

  • Gene Conway

    Teresa Counts Burke discredits her robe, has a twisted notion of right and wrong, and should probably be removed. Seeing her approval as encouragement, this stupid flatfoot will just increase his prideful contempt. Bullies come from idolizing this kind of behavior.

  • legalpanther

    Sorry Jason, you are wrong. The tape needs to be authenticated pursuant to the rules of evidence. The difference in your scenario is that if the teenager struck the police officer, both police officers would have testified that the tape accurately reflected the events, thereby authenticating the tape. If the teenager had testified, he could have authenticated the tape by stating that it accurately reflected the events as they transpired. The problem with this case is the partner most likely committed perjury.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Well, we now know that you cannot read.

    Thanks for proving you’re an idiot.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    I have repeatedly said that what the officer did is wrong and that he should be behind bars. In not one place will you find me defending what he did.

    Unfortunately most people at this site don’t read well and allow their own biases to color their responses.

    Had you actually read what I have written on this, you would understand that I: 1) was explaining why the judge did not admit the evidence, 2) pointing out that the partner is the one to blame for the evidence not getting admitted, 3) explained the code of silence culture in St. Louis and the pressure that was likely applied, 4) that to correct this culture the citizens needed to press for significant changes in the department, and 5) that the ex-officer deserves to be in jail.

    BTW, the officer wasn’t charged with a felony, the assault was a misdemeanor.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Nope, it’s not admissible until it is authenticated.

    “The essential factor whether a photograph is admissible depends upon whether the photograph represents the observation of the witness. The accuracy of the photograph may be proved by anyone who knows the facts. Photographs are admissible when the witness shows that they are a reasonably accurate representation of the place or thing in question in order to aid the jury in understanding the testimony of the witness.” State v. Rogers, 523 S.W.2d 344, 347 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975).

    “They are admissible in evidence when shown to be reasonably accurate representations of the place or thing in question, to help the jury in understanding the testimony of the witnesses.” State v. McGee, 336 Mo. 1082, 1096-97, 83 S.W.2d 98, 107 (1935).

    “[H]is testimony that they fairly and accurately portrayed the objects shown therein was a sufficient identification and they were properly admitted in evidence….” State v. Sanders, 365 S.W.2d 480, 482 (Mo. 1963).

    “A sufficient foundation was laid for their admission. The officer who participated in taking the photographs testified that he recognized what was portrayed in the exhibits as close-ups of the rear door of the victim’s house showing pry marks in the area of the outer door facing, apparently made by a sharp-pointed or tapered instrument, indicating that the door had been forcibly opened. This was sufficient supporting evidence to justify the introduction of the photographs as fairly and accurately portraying the objects shown in them, within the requirement of State v. Sanders, Mo.Sup., 365 S.W.2d 480(3), and as truly reflecting the conditions at the scene, within the doctrine of State v. Brown, Mo.Sup., 312 S.W.2d 818(3). See State v. McCollum, Mo.Sup.,377 S.W.2d 379(6), where the identification of photographs was similar and this appropriate language was used, 377 S.W.2d l.c. 383: ‘The photograph tended to aid the jury in understanding the testimony with respect to the condition of the rear of the Toliver residence on the same day and shortly after the alleged burglary and stealing had occurred.’” State v. Robinson, 484 S.W.2d 186, 188-89 (Mo. 1972).

    Gee, nothing there says anything close to what you claimed. I wonder why that is?

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Look at the cases that I cited elsewhere on this thread.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    The victim is usually an easy way to get it authenticated, but it can be authenticated by anyone who can show that it is an accurate representation of the location and incident.

    This should have been a slam dunk conviction, but for the testimony of the partner.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Well, if the defendant wasn’t committing felonies that he had to clam up on, you can get the defendant to authenticate it.

  • tecumseh

    it cant. Ex cop doesnt know what he is talking about.

  • Contrarymary

    ‘Murica justice at its best!

  • Contrarymary

    Same as they tell us, if you don’t want a “gotcha situation” then don’t commit the crimes! Works both ways for me.

  • Contrarymary

    Surely you jest? Seriously, it is just mind boggling that our justice system has gone so far down the sewer. I’m learning something new everyday now.

  • lazerhaze

    Assassinate crooked cops and Judges!! Christopher Dorner was a HERO!

  • Contrarymary

    I don’t think they really care what we think.

  • WynstonSmith

    Get ready for a lot more of this!

  • Barking Dog

    Go after him and appeal the case.

  • Contrarymary

    Makes me wonder if she and one of the cops, possibly the abuser, are in a personal relationship together. Or heck, nowadays maybe all three?

  • Contrarymary

    Most will only become indignant when it happens to them or a loved one. That’s what is wrong with this country, so divided and blindsided.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    My point is that the prosecutor had to have someone that could authenticate the video. The chain of custody is not relevant to authentication. Yes, another officer might have been able to authenticate the video, although I would have to really drill down in the research to be sure.

    This was a misdemeanor bench trial, meaning it was probably a 1/2 day or a full day. If the prosecutor did not anticipate that the partner would “lose his memory” after a grant of immunity, she may not have had another witness available who could authenticate the video. And based on the apparent code of silence in St. Louis, it may have been pointless to try.

  • Contrarymary

    Most do not even know the definitions of Traitorous and Treason.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Oh god, another sovereign whackjob claiming treason.

    Treason is defined in the Constitution, and this isn’t it.

  • Contrarymary

    As usual a cop (whether ex or not) belittling a citizen. Way to go there sport. What Antoinette brings up is spot on!

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Well, JM clearly doesn’t.

  • Guest

    Definition of traitor

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traitor

    1 : one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty

    Part of every police officer’s oath of office: “I will support and uphold the Constitution of the United States.”

    Police officers, like the one in this video, that violate their sworn oath, their obligation, their duty, are, by definition, traitors.

  • James Michael

    That is true Mary, but you actually study the documents you swore to support and defend when you are in the service for 17 years, unless you are a moron.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Makes me wonder if you are in some sort of personal relationship with her.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Ditto, but I’m not going to pay to get it. :)

  • Contrarymary

    Better he an idiot, then a fool such as you. However, I don’t see Jason as an idiot, he only speaks the truth.

  • John R Lipscomb Jr

    and your a useless Nazi bastard you fucking pig

  • Contrarymary

    Yet every year the SPLC helps 100’s of innocent people get out of prison. Figure that one out!

  • Contrarymary

    Same as they stained justice by ignoring the facts here, cops love to use DNA testing when it is to their advantage, but you let an innocent person try to use it to prove their innocence, and they got a fight on their hands. Hypocrites!

  • Contrarymary

    No! you know what is wrong? We are fed up with abusive cops!

  • Daniel Ellcey

    Be the Judge??? Are you serious. There is no doubt the cop crossed the line. The judge is an incompetent piece of crap.

  • atthewall

    She needs to be sued and disbarred for tampering with evidence. She had no right to suppress it and should be ‘forced’ to watch it, then render her racist decision in the full light of the community. The police officer is an obvious racist. “You deeed, what are you talking about?” “You are going to spend the rest of your life in jail” “I am college educated and I am “conditioned [?] in the english langua an I am going to write this report so …long.” If they reinstate this asshole, they are pathetic and evil.

  • legalpanther

    It certainly does not authenticate it. What ExCop-LawStudent has been stating throughout this thread is 100% accurate. Pursuant to the rules of evidence it needed to be authenticated by a person testifying that it was a true and accurate representation of the events. Everyone is bound by the rules that exist at the time of trial. The prosecution was just on the wrong end of this rule.

    I have heard discussion of amending the rules for police dashboard cameras or those cameras that are on the police officer’s person to have some form of self-authenticating properties (i.e. tape runs continuously without officer being able to stop/start, remote storage — content is stored outside of officer’s control, and follow the proper chain of custody). However, a self-authentication rule for video or photographs does not currently exist.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    See guys?

    This is why you don’t listen to the sovereign citizen whackjobs for legal advice.

    They have no idea what they are talking about.

  • Robert Williams

    This was posted out of frustration, and kind of rhetorical, as you’ve thoroughly explained elsewhere, don’t answer.

  • Rebecca Ratliff

    This case definitely upsets me, but it upsets me just as much when you call the officer’s union representative a “union thug” for doing his job, which is to represent his union brothers and sisters. Let’s keep the focus where it belongs, on this do-nothing judge and on the attitude that is growing in this country that law enforcement should be allowed to operate outside the law.

  • jeanine4truth

    Perhaps, but they DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF EQUAL JUSTICE BEFORE THE LAW–SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TAUGHT IN LAW SCHOOL. STOP HIDING BEHIND TECHNICALITIES AND FIGHT FOR JUSTICE. PS: I SUSPECT THAT YOU ARE ANOTHER PIG COP.

  • jeanine4truth

    So, anyone who isn’t an attorney or a cop–but DARES to demand their rights–is a ‘whack job?’ My, they teach you such objectivity is law school—don’t they?! (extreme sarcasm here). Keep in mind this is the same legal education that supports laws claiming corporations are people and money is speech. My ‘ExCop-LawStudent–your mother must be soooo proud! (Very extreme sarcasm here–wouldn’t want any misinterpretation).

  • James Michael

    No we just don’t believe your extortionate lies that’s all …. if those are the rules, they are ridiculous…. The victim says this was filmed… I want that film…. THE cops bring the video…. that lines up with the car, date, locations, etc… that is authentication if the victim and the claimed criminals are in it…. Your claims are pure logical fallacies…. No amount of spin or bullcrap can change the truth. Nor stupid rules, to hide the facts and evidence. Why do you think everyone hates the cops and liaryers. You guys and your so called honorable judges, are all shiesters. A sweet little criminal extortion club, all working together to screw people for as much as you can without people shooting you. And I’ve studied your law for 7 years, you can’t bs me…. your circular logic is pure stupidity.

  • Harry Balzanya

    So a video tape of a bank robber breaking into a atm machine without a witness on the seen is not admissible in court. Thats ridiculous the prosecutor could have easily called a number of video experts even the guy who placed the tape in the machine to authenticate it. He chose not to in my opinion.

  • not a lawyer

    Missouri rules of evidence state video can be admitted if it supplements a witnesses’ testimony. It doesnt have to be corroborated by it, and the court has wide latitude. All that’s required is that a witness speaks to the same events as the video – which was the case in this case.

    The judge COULD have admitted but had wide latitude. She may be legally within her rights, but she is ethically and morally way off.

  • Barking Dog

    ???

    His partner in crime was able to hide the evidence by not saying it was not evidence?

  • Harry Balzanua

    so video tape of unoccupied stores are not admissible because no human was present to witness that is ridiculous.

  • tecumseh

    sorry, but this is nonsense. A video isnt authenticated or contradicted by
    someone int he video saying “that’s what happened’ or refusing to. A video is authenticated by people with first hand knowledge explaining how the video was taken, and – yes, chain of custody being documented.

    Furthermore, courts have repeatedly ruled that a video is IN ITSELF evidence of what it shows, absent some evidence that the video is fake. In other words, they dont need to be authenticated, they need to be challenged, or they are assumed to be real.

    All police vehicle would be considered evidence prima facie.

    http://www.witness.org/sites/default/files/downloads/videoforchange_videoasevidence_titled.pdf

    find a new law school.

  • Barking Dog

    Or done on purpose. The prosecutor defends the cops, they are the same.

  • jeanine4truth

    THE FACT THAT SUCH A ‘SELF-AUTHENTICATION RULE’ DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST–IS DUE TO THE EQUAL AND CONCURRENT FACT THAT THE SYSTEM DOESN’T WANT SUCH ELECTRONIC WITNESSING OF THE POLICE DEPT.S MANY CRIMES. LEGALPANTHER YOU ARE WAY TOO COMFORTABLE WITH THE STATUS QUO–HMM–METHINKS i SMELL A RAT–COMING FROM THE POLICE DEPT. Folks, the problem with this situation is the lack of LAW AUTHORIZING SELF-AUTHENTICATION OF POLICE VIDEOS. DO YOU SEE THE POLICE OR THE COURTS ADVOCATING FOR A MOVE TOWARDS THIS–SOMETHING WHICH WOULD HOLD COPS ACCOUNTABLE? NO. LEGALPANTHER AND EXCOPLAW STUDENT METHINKS MIGHT BE TROLLS. HMMM. MAYBE THE ‘Fat-Boys-Institute’ (follow the caps). THE LAW PROTECTS THE 1% SCUM SLAVERS, AND MUST BE CHANGED. JUST BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW–DOESN’T MAKE IT THE SAME AS TRUE JUSTICE. THE ‘LAW’ USED TO PROTECT SLAVERY AS WELL–IT CERTAINLY WASN’T JUSTICE. FURTHERMORE, ATTORNEYS SHOULD ADVOCATE FOR JUSTICE AND NOT MERELY RECITE UNJUST ‘LAW.’ LEGAL PANTHER AND HIS BUDDY ARE VILE PIGS–AND LITTLE MORE.

  • tecumseh

    wrong wrong wrong.

    courts have ruled time and again that videos are prima facie evidence of what they show. No one has to authenticate them.

  • James Michael

    The man or woman that was assaulted can certify it, they were there in fact and they were the one criminally assaulted… DUH. Unless of course someone wants to swear on the record they are a liar and put themselves up for slander or libel also….. Nothing makes a cop, nor a lawyer, any better than anyone else…. Are you a lawyer also. The woman or man submitting it to the court is certifying their evidence is complete and accurate to the best of their knowledge, are you really that dense. That is exactly what a filed and sworn claim is …. The video is the evidence it came out of the cops car is time and date stamped which will line up with the victims statement pretty closely, are you saying the police will fake their own video to help her, it’s not only ludicrous, it’s pure sophistry….

  • Wonko Sane

    Welcome to the police state sheeple.

  • legalpanther

    WOW! There are certainly some holes in your logic. How you equate telling those less informed on what the rule of law is currently to actually advocating for such a position I do not know. Let me clarify a few things.

    I am an attorney who specializes in litigation. I have 13 years experience, am licensed in three states and authorized to practice in a number of federal courts. I have never been a police officer and have no relatives that are police officers. I have never worked as a prosecutor and have no relatives that work for any prosecutor’s office. I have been in private practice my entire life. So, am I a troll or a plant by the police — no — it would be news to them, as I am very critical of police and their procedures.

    Now, why aren’t police videos already self-authenticating? The only answer I have for you is that the rules of evidence move rather slowly. They do not keep up with the times very well, especially if current technologies seem to fit well into existing rules. In most video circumstances, there will be a witness who can authenticate it. This maybe one of the cases which can be used as an example to help change the existing rules.

    Also, I have heard talk, among us attorneys, about changing the rules to allow police videos to be self-authenticating in certain limited functions. Where this will go, I have no idea.

    Was justice done? That depends on the definition of the word “justice.” If “justice” means that all people who committed a crime get convicted and punished, then , no, justice was not served here. If “justice” means that the court abides by the rules of law and evidence as they are clearly written or have been defined and explained by superior courts, then, justice was served here.

    What it comes down to is that the rule of law and evidence were followed by the court. Could the prosecution done a better job, possibly, but it is not the court’s job to save the prosecutor’s backside. The court is tasked with deciding the issues that are presented with the least amount of bias possible.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    TLDR, plus no need to shout unless you’re becoming emotionally unstable.

  • Bane_Ful

    my questions… as i can’t hear the video properly on my craputer….
    what was the kid saying, and what was he arrested for?

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    OK. I’ll explain it in simple words, of as few syllables as I can.

    So-called sovereign citizens think that by filing a few documents they can exempt themselves from obeying the law. They can’t. They also claim that they follow common law, but repeatedly refer to the UCC, which is statutory law passed by the governments that they don’t recognize. They don’t understand the common law, which is basically judicial opinions (from a judiciary that they don’t recognize). The sovereign citizen movement got its start from Posse Commitatus, a white supremacist movement who divided citizens into two classes, state citizens and 14th Amendment citizens (blacks). State citizens had all the “rights” while 14A citizens were “slaves” to the corporations. Their legal analysis sucks and they have views that are rejected by most intelligent people. In other words, they’re whackjobs.

    As far as corporations? Treating a corporation as a person is a legal fiction that is necessary. Unless they are that fictional person, you can not sue them in court. Another example: in common law and UPA jurisdictions, you can’t sue a partnership in court, you have to sue each individual partner, and if you can’t find out who they are, you lose your case for suing the wrong party. So you want corporations to be a “person” so you can sue the right party when you get run over by a Wal-Mart truck.

    As far as I’m concerned, the money is speech argument is BS.

  • Ernie Menard

    It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether potentially prejudicial or inflammatory evidence should be admitted, and relevance is the principal criterion. State v. Johnson,539 S.W.2d 493 (Mo.App.1976), cert. den. 430 U.S. 934, 97 S.Ct. 1558, 51 L.Ed.2d 779. Relevant evidence is not inadmissible because it is prejudicial. Nor is it a valid objection that a witness has described matters depicted in the photographs if it is otherwise relevant. State v. Jackson,499 S.W.2d 467 (Mo.1973). Photographs of a crime scene are admissible if they depict the condition and circumstances surrounding the crime and aid the jury on a material issue. State v. Rogers,523 S.W.2d 344 (Mo.App.1975). State v. Cole, 588 S.W.2d 94

  • tecumseh

    um. Photograph and video are different. Obviously.

    you must be kidding

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Makes me wonder if you’re in some type of relationship with him.

  • tecumseh

    all you cited regarded PHOTOGRAPHS.

    standards for videos are different. obviously

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Can you not read very well?

    Do you think that the union cares that the kid is innocent until proven guilty?

    Of course it doesn’t mean a thing as far as the ex-officer’s charges. The POS threw a forearm into a handcuffed prisoner. It doesn’t matter if the prisoner was the worst serial killer in the nation, if you abuse a prisoner, you should go to jail. Period.

    I’ve said that all along.

    If you can’t comprehend the explanation of the legal process that I’ve explained, fine. Just say so, and I’ll use simpler words.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    And yet you still have to authenticate the video to get it admitted into evidence.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Really?

    I would have never guessed.

  • tecumseh

    This guy is just making stuff up. There has never been a court case in HISTORY where video evidence was dismissed because no one corroborated it.

    http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/video_evidence.pdf

    you are going to be one crappy lawyer

  • legalpanther

    That is correct. All videos must be authenticated. Remember, authentication is not limited to just video, but you must authenticate audio, text messages, emails, other documents (there are some limited self-authenticating documents), etc.

    Authentication of videos is not usually that difficult. This was just an odd case where the prosecution seemed to be surprised by the partner’s “lack of memory.”

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    I agree that this was not justice.

    All I am pointing out is the requirements to get the video entered into evidence.

  • Easy_Rider

    EXcop, you are exactly what we have become to accept as our police force. A clueless, shameless fucking robot. There’s a special place in hell for people like you.

  • Ernie Menard

    “The photographs that were admitted into evidence corroborate, explain and clarify the testimony of the various witnesses. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs.” State v. Ward 622 S.W.2d 354 (1981) cit. State v. Barnhart,587 S.W.2d 308, 311 (Mo. App.1979); State v. Sempsrott,587 S.W.2d 630, 634 (Mo.App.1979).
    The point is the video would have been admissible to corroborate testimony that the police officer was there, even if he doesn’t remember what happened. The video would have been admissible to corroborate that the defendant was there. The video would have been admissible to corroborate that the victim was there, I suppose unless both police officers deny that the victim was there.
    I think that you should have used the word corroborate rather than authenticate.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Exactly. Both Rogers and Cole describe the authentication requirement.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Ex-cop. I’ve done my 20 years. It was time for me to do something else.

    Before you make erroneous assumptions, you should look at my blog and see how much I defend officers who are in the wrong.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    I didn’t say that.

  • legalpanther

    A quote from your linked article under the category of authentication.

    “Video evidence is most likely to be admitted as accurate, meaning
    that it depicts what actually happened, if it is introduced through
    the testimony of (1) the camera operator; (2) another person present
    at the shooting of the footage: or (3) an expert.”

    This is all that ECLS was stating. There was no foundation to allow for the video to be submitted pursuant to the rules of evidence.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Try reading what the link actually says.

    “Different jurisdictions have specific rules regarding what evidence can be admitted, and when such evidence should be provided to the other side. An advocate may find that the procedural rules are dense or vague. A non-lawyer should contact lawyers involved in proceedings before the relevant body for advice.”

    It’s on p. 212 of the attachment in your link.

  • legalpanther

    They are not different. All video, audio, photographs, and documents (save and except for those limited documents that are self-authenticating) must be authenticated by way of testimony.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    No, the standards are the same.

    Thanks for playing.

  • legalpanther

    Please refer to an earlier post of mine. You could not be more wrong. For the video to be submitted into evidence, it must be authenticated by some testimony. Take it from a litigator with 13 years of experience.

  • beadstallcup

    Vicious policemen and corrupt judges, such as these, are running up a huge bill of offenses against the people. With little doubt, mean-spirited public officials, such as these, will foolishly continue to commit wrongs, ever greater wrongs and cruel acts of injustice against the people, making for themselves many enemies, everywhere in the land, intractable enemies! At some point there will be just too many offenses, too many painful injuries — then the people will cease to overlook even the slightest wrong and they will no longer forgive — then God help the hateful, mean-hearted bureaucrat — because the wrath and fury of good people will swell up and become like the fire of Hell. Then, a terrible but rightful justice will come…

  • The Skunk

    Missouri is in danger of becoming the next Texas…..And I’m a KC native too. It makes me sad.

  • Clem_the_Great

    I think what this officer Roorda is telling us is that film should only be used to “protect” cops, never used to expose bully cops and their abusive acts. In fact, that is exactly what the punk is saying. ANYONE seeing this footage can see that the bully cop is in no way in danger and there is no need for him to defend his widdu self from harm. It doesn’t matter how much of a low-life the perp may be, this is clearly a case of abusive cop behavior, then lying about it. The boy should have a lawyer and sue. It would appear to be a cream puff open-and-shut case for a lawyer, with excellent video evidence. The bully officer should also be prosecuted, and this corrupt judge should be removed. This is supposed to be America, not North Korea or Israel.

  • Daniel Aquilina

    They’re all tough when they have you in cuffs and their buddies with guns backing them up.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Legal definition of treason

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
    against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
    Comfort.” U.S. Const., art. III, sec. 3.

    Every police officer’s oath of office requires them to use the Constitutional definition.

  • steveo

    Hey, what about all the libertarians (I’m one) who chant: “NO victim, NO crime”

  • Guest

    That’s interesting, and certainly true. However, my reply to Contrarymary was concerning the definition of “traitor.” And I didn’t specify “legal” definition.

  • Clark

    Violating the rights of the people under threat of violence, is levying war, and adhering to our enemies.

  • James Michael

    What is beating a man without cause butthole…. it is levying war against his sovereign… We the People. He had been convicted by no one…. and was abused by a monkey with a gun and a badge that should not even have a potato gun. Destroying and abusing the Supreme Law of the Land is the perfect definition of Treason. You lose and your sophistry is out the window like all idiotic arguments.

  • legalpanther

    They still need to be authenticated. No one needs to testify what is exactly on the tape. But they still need to testify that the tape is authentic.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    You may want to go back and read the links that you posted on your other comments.

    It points out the same things that I’ve been saying.

    I do appreciate you providing more information in support of my explanation.

  • Clem_the_Great

    AND the law backing them up. He’s likely a wife/child abuser also.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    They are not different as far as getting them admitted into court. If I have time later, I’ll find cases that state that video is admitted under the same requirements as photographs.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Again, did you even read what you linked to?

    “Once an audio/visual recording is admitted as evidence in a court of law, the test for admissibility becomes whether an officer can authenticate the audio/video recording as a true and accurate depiction of what transpired during the incident.”

    It’s on p. 36.

  • legalpanther

    Also from this link:

    “Because of other potential legal challenges to the use of in-car video systems, police departments must also take steps to ensure that the system used has physical integrity so that evidence presented in court has not been compromised and can be demonstrated to be an authentic and factual depiction of the incident. Specifically, the system must be secure so that one cannot intentionally or inadvertently record over already recorded evidence. In order for the audio/visual recording to be admitted, the recording must display a date and time stamp. Officers and supervisors must periodically check the equipment to ensure the date and time stamps are correct. In order to prove that the recording has not been tampered with or altered, the officer must be able to establish a strict chain of custody for the item of evidence being submitted. Unless the officer has been trained and is recognized
    as a video forensic examiner, the officer should avoid testifying to the mechanics or nomenclature of the equipment. This is a trap often presented by defense attorneys to disprove statements by the arresting officer. The officer should only testify that the recording is a true and accurate depiction of events. If a suspect can reasonably contend that the videotape equipment used by the officer allows him to record over or otherwise alter the evidence, the evidence may be suppressed.”

    pgs 49-50.

  • Difdi

    Remember: if someone perjures themself, it can negate physical evidence.

    Makes me want to wear my Mad Hatter hat the ne t time I’m summoned for jury duty.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    “It appears the trial court either ruled the videotape inadmissible because there was no authentication, or implicitly ruled that admission of the entire videotape raised the prospect that the jury would hear improper impeachment as to collateral matters, or irrelevant evidence, or inadmissible hearsay, or all of the foregoing.” State v. Shifkowski, 57 S.W.3d 309, 315 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

    There’s one case, out of the jurisdiction in question. There are plenty more out of other jurisdictions.

    Thanks for playing.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Victimless crimes are still crimes. They are just malum prohibitum instead of malum in se.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    True.

    I based my response on the entire thread, and did not mean that your definition was incorrect.

  • Ernie Menard

    Which is exactly why anyone in the chain of custody can testify that the video is the video that came from that police unit, that is authentication.
    This is one fun thread, or forum, or whatever you call it.

  • legalpanther

    Phiropoulos v. Bi-State Dev. Agency, 908 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995).

    Specifically:

    “The same principles which govern the foundation for the admission of photographs apply to the admission of videotapes. McPherson Redevelopment Corp. v. Watkins, 782 S.W.2d 690, 691[1] (Mo.App.S.D. 1993).”

    pg 714.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Legalpanther, you’re wasting your time. Once the mob decides you are not going to join in lynching whoever they are mad at, you become a “troll” or an apologist for the cops. I’ve been here awhile and have gotten used to it, although I will admit that I get kind of snarky with some of them.

    I do like your comments and hope that you stick around.

  • Ricky Dickinson

    Just have to say that what ECLS has been saying, alongside of your backing, about CCTV not standing up in court without a full corroboration from a witness at the scene makes what Harry Balzanua said completely true. If a person robs a store that is unoccupied and the CCTV evidence is the only evidence, there is nobody to testify that the recording is accurate evidence of what happened at the scene in the video then it can not be held accountable as evidence/proof with which to prosecute and imprison the “suspect”. Yet there ECLS is saying that’s not true, when those are the very rules he stated himself.

  • legalpanther

    But did not happen in the case. the only testimony was of the partner that had conveniently developed selective amnesia.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    No, corroboration is a different principle than authentication. If you can’t lay the foundation to get the video admitted, in other words authenticated, you can’t use it to corroborate the officer’s testimony (or to refute the testimony).

  • Jah Red

    I will never spend my money in St. Louis !

  • Susan Ruffaner Gahagan

    That is really effed up.

  • legalpanther

    James Michael, I am an attorney with 13 years of litigation experience. I know the concept may be hard to understand, but evidence is just not submitted. It needs to follow certain rules in order to be submitted. In this case, there was absolutely no foundation to permit the video tape into evidence.

    As you stated, the victim could have authenticated the tape. However, the victim refused to testify. Thus, the prosecution needed someone else’s testimony to authenticate the tape. This left two people who would be in the best position to authenticate the tape to testify: (1) the defendant and (2) his partner. Since the Defendant cannot be compelled to testify, this left the partner. The partner testified that his memory differed from the tape. Without more, there is no foundation. It seems that the prosecution was surprised by the partner’s answer, because it left them dangling in the wind. If the prosecution knew that this was going to be his testimony, they would have tried to get the tape in by stating that the tape came from a police transport surveillance camera, that this was the chain of custody and that nothing was done to it. However, this was no guaranty. As I read Missouri case law, chain of custody authentication has never been accepted. But, if that was all the prosecution had, that is what they should have tried to use.

    But just because a tape comes out of a particular machine, does not mean it is authentic for evidentiary purposes.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Well, I can see why it is taking you so long in your study of law.

    You can’t read very well.

    Don’t worry, I’ll help.

    The victim refused to testify. If you don’t testify, you can’t authenticate the video.

    See? It’s really simple.

    Thanks for playing.

  • James Michael

    I apologize I didn’t realize the victim wouldn’t testify to the facts…. then again if the victim made no sworn claim how was there even an issue? With the legality of what happened? I saw that guy smash them in the head or throat or whatever… still is bullshit if it was in fact the people involved, unless they had been in all kinds of their carry wagons lately.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    They tried to use the business records exception, but the judge denied it. My thought was that they believed the chain of custody authentication wouldn’t fly based on their case law.

  • Dan Matthews

    This sickens me.
    Is there a way for the victim to file a civil lawsuit?

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    What? A sovereign whackjob got arrested? Say it ain’t so!

    BTW, each state has the ability to establish their own laws, including definitions. They are not required to follow the definition in Black’s. That would be the tail wagging the dog, since Black’s gets its definitions from court decisions in the various states. Black’s originally cited the cases that the term came from.

    Also, if you can’t get through your law school in 3 years or so, maybe you should look for another one.

  • http://www.mikechurch.com/ pete838

    In Florida you are charged with armed assault for threatening to use a weapon on someone. No joke.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    The victim didn’t say anything. He refused to testify.

    I don’t have to BS you. Most law schools would have flunked you out by now.

  • legalpanther

    I do not know how the prosecution came by the complaint in which to prosecute the former officer. Assuming that it was a statement by the victim, that statement could not be used in court to prosecute the case. It would be considered hearsay. So the prosecution was stuck in this case. They were especially stuck when the partner stated that what was shown on the video was not what he remembered (how, I have no idea), because this prevented the proper foundation to be established before the tape could be submitted.

  • legalpanther

    I really wish some of us were there to actually watch the case. My thought was that they were surprised by the partner’s testimony and used the business records exception to try to save the evidence. But who knows, as the case law certainly indicates that one may have to be present when it is being filmed.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    LP, James is a sovereign citizen. He doesn’t believe in statutory law, nor the authority of the courts (or government). Some sovereigns believe that they can avoid prosecution if there is not a sworn claim by an individual person, and refuse to accept that either an information or an indictment is sufficient.

    That belief, and others, like the gold fringe on the flag indicates martial law by the court, that there are two classes of citizens (state and 14th Amendment citizens, i.e., former slaves), that they don’t have to pay taxes because they have not consented to that contract, U.S. currency is not valid (they call it FRNs), they are not subject to statutes and ordinances, etc.

    They tend to speak of “TREASON”, “SWORN CLAIM”, and “REGISTERED FACTS”, along with filing bogus liens on government officials that they don’t like.

    Prominent sovereign citizens include Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh (OKC bombing), the Kanes (West Memphis police officer murders), the Browns (tax protesters in the NE) and many others.

    That’s the reason I pretty much dismiss them as whackjobs.

  • James Michael

    I appreciate your reasonable answers and discussion panther the other guy is a capricious prick…. EXACTLY the ignorant idiots they love to hire on the police force these days…. If the rules of evidence really are that way… Then no unmanned CCTV could ever be used for evidence that makes absolutely no sense.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    I agree.

  • Difdi

    Yes, you did.

  • Difdi

    That’s so convenient for you. Denounce anyone who ponts out that the emperor has no clothes as a mob (perhaps a very small one) and then you don’t need to get him a bath robe.

  • Difdi

    Then perhaps we need to fix the problem created by the fact that our rules of evidence predate the invention of pinhole cameras, let alone video cameras and have not been significantly updated since then?

  • Difdi

    You don’t need to be a sovereign citizen to know common sense when you see it.

    The fact that you have resorted to ad hominem attacks however, would seem to indicate that you ARE able to see common sense despite not being a sovereign citizen, but are desperate to refute it.

  • James Michael

    Sovereign Citizen is an oxymoron, you show your true ignorance…. Try knowing the definitions of the labels to try in to apply to people. I’m a man and an American and live on the Republic and not in your fraud of a corporate Democracy. My status is corrected and I pay all lawfully owed taxes, income tax just isn’t one that is applicable. OKC was a false flag and anyone whom has investigated knows it. You are just a traitor shill. You have some nerve accusing me of a dam thing you belong to the courts of criminals and were an extortionate thug with a badge and gun not me. lmao… That’s ok, because people are waking up quick with Obama getting desperate and so many of you morons with badges and guns doing crap exactly like in this video murdering, brutalizing, raping, beating and extorting the people who pay for you and your families to survive. The retort is coming pal, and very soon from what I’m seeing… Go ahead fascist, gloat and demean something you can’t understand, because of you thorough indoctrination and boot licking…. Karma has a way of evening up everything… Useless idiots like you are what they love… Everyone you might as well forget talking coomon sense to that guy… He works for the bad guys. All he cares about is himself and like his brothers in the same field is one of the real useless eaters… They produce nothing but evil and suck off our lives to feed their greed. Don’t expect honesty from anyone like him… I’m out Peace All America will be free from these courts full of criminal and terrorist traitor cops soon. they will push it over the edge and they will run out of morons long before We the People do… Peace to all of you who really understand what this country is SUPPOSED to stand for… OUT.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    No, I didn’t.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Difdi, even though we disagree about a number of things, we can talk logically about those differences, and discuss points of law, fact, etc.

    The sovereigns don’t understand and cannot discuss those issues because of their skewed worldview. After trying to reason with them and putting up with their attacks, I finally decided to just address them as they are.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Actually, there’s case law on that, and it’s not.

  • Difdi

    Oh, he does know what he’s talking abuout, he just has two cognitive blind spots.

    First, he assumes that what the law says should and must happen is actually what will happen or does happen. No one ever gets convicted wrongly in the world he lives in. If reality disagrees with him, reality must be wrong.

    Second, he sees the law as a thing of beauty, not the organized system of brute force it truly is. There are times when the law is wrong, but he’s like those super-patriots — his country, right or wrong.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    LOL, boy are you wrong.

    There are plenty of people that have been wrongfully convicted. That’s apparent.

    Second, while the law is a thing of beauty, there are plenty of problems with the law, and plenty of rulings that I disagree with. There is much that needs to be changed.

    But even the decisions that I disagree with are, in fact, the law until they can be changed.

  • Ricky Dickinson

    as·sault
    /əˈsôlt/

    Verb
    Make a physical attack on.Noun
    A physical attack: “his imprisonment for an assault on the film director”; “sexual assaults”.

    There you go ExCop, THE literal definition of assault. Don’t you think that a word should mean what it means? What’s the point in words having definitions if different states are going to claim it means something else entirely?

    Also, i don’t recall James saying that he had not passed law school, he only said that it was what had caused him to take it up in the first place. Would you please try reading correctly and drop the asshole attitude?

  • James Michael

    Why the hell would I want to goto a school to join an extortion club of criminals? I’m an honest man…. It’s called reading books. Oh and I’ve destroyed 3 of you procedurally trained attorneys with my whack job sovereignty ideas. So whatever there, buddy. Thank you Ricky you read and understood the words… They are trained to be obtuse and to think in circles… Who would want that…. I’ve only seen two lawyer I have any respect for Gerry Spence and Lysander Spooner. Oh and Mr learning law….

    “It has been justly thought a matter of importance to determine from what source the United States derives its authority… The question here proposed is whether our bond of union is a compact entered into by the states, or whether the constitution is an organic law, established by the people? To this we answer: ” We the People… ordain and establish this constitution”… The government of the state had only delegated power (from the people) and even if they had an inclination, they had no authority to transfer the authority of the sovereign people. The people [individually] in their capacity as Sovereigns made and adopted the Constitution and it binds the state governments without the states consent, The United States as a whole, therefore,emanates from the people and not from the states, and the Constitution and the laws of the states, whether made before or since, the adoption of that Constitution of the United States, are subordinate to the United States Constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it.”

    Bouviers 14th Edition citing Wheat 402

    Well golly gee willikers, who does that say are the sovereigns…..?
    Not the STATE, Not the FEDS, I have about 20 more quotes that say the same exact thing. The difference between me and you is, I’m not still mentally enslaved to the system like you. I have had no license or registration since 2007 and have no nexus with the state and am not a citizen of YOUR corporate UNITED STATES. There are 3 in law in case you didn’t know, I also carry a .50 DE on my hip everywhere and it has no registration, nor permit because I know exactly what a firearm is and I’m left alone. It’s called correcting your status, and knowing the law you might look into it sometime. Instead of licking masters boot and being a soulless robot. Good luck with that by the way. Oh,and I know the Sheriff very well also hes an honorable man unlike some folks… Enjoy your servitude…..

  • Ricky Dickinson

    No, what happened in this case is a corrupt judge choosing to abuse a loophole in that piece of shit law, which in my opinion clearly needs re-writing, by letting the cop go and declaring him not guilty. I wonder whether she was paid off, or whether she just gets pleasure knowing there’re assholes running around freely disguised as police so they can get away with beating people, speeding, parking illegally and getting easy access to guns among other things.. without a care in the world. Thanks for that Judge.. great job there you pathetic bitch :L Incredibly glad I don’t live in a place like that ~

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    That definition means absolutely nothing in a court case for assault. Statute and case law defines what is assault. In states following the old common law definition, it is basically a threat that causes fear of unlawful imminent harm to the victim. In states that follow the model penal code, it means battery, the actual unlawful contact which causes harm to the victim.

    As far as taking it easy on James, or any other sovereign whackjob who is spreading their BS on the law?

    No.

  • James Michael

    They actually make a living perverting words from their real meanings and screwing people because they don’t know it…. Using peoples ignorance against them in fraud, is exactly what people like him do for a living. Never trust one…. they are unworthy of any….

  • Fotaugrafee

    He was a cop, smugness is part of the game. He’ll never be a REAL attorney, only a prosecutor-type that is hell-bent on defending other cops & actions like this.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Again, so?

    Webster’s definition doesn’t matter if the legislature has defined the term otherwise.

  • ted

    If that was a legal definition it would make the charge of “assault AND battery” kind of redundent wouldn’t it?

  • John R Lipscomb Jr

    its a Nazi country any more and that so called cop is a PIG like most of them are Im surprised that pig did not shoot him like they all love and do every day any more

  • Ricky Dickinson

    How is it not authenticated? It was filmed directly from the back of the police van itself. Do they not trust their own recording devices to tell them the truth of an event? If so why have them in the first place. If they aren’t going to be used as evidence without someone saying “hey that really happened, let’s use that as evidence!” then it’s a completely moronic thing to even have. Oh wait.. my bad. If the roles were reversed then obviously it would have been viewed whether or not the cop said it happened. That’s why it’s there, according to Roorda, to incriminate civilians. Not officers of the law. Nevermind, my mistake. ;)

  • Not so Anonymous

    Even though you have a point, so does Ricky Dickinson. The video was recorded with the cameras in the police car used by the very cop being tried. I’m pretty sure the source of the video could’ve been easily proven by logs, just like any other video presented and admitted in court should and can easily hold by itself without a need for witnesses (what’s the use of video evidence if it needs witnesses otherwise?). What should make this video even easier to authenticate is the fact that it was recorded by cops, and therefore handled by the P.D. The authenticity of this video shouldn’t have been questioned in the first place, with or without witnesses; the Judge negligently didn’t do her job.

    To make things worse, this Jeff Roorda dude thinks police recordings should ONLY be used to protect the cops, not to hold them accountable. Simply put, the guy thinks that if a cop gets caught doing an unlawful act on his own car’s camera, he shouldn’t be held accountable by it, but if he gets injured by someone right after having committed this unlawful act, that same video can and should ONLY be used to protect the cop. How the hell can someone think a completely unbiased piece of evidence should be used ONLY in a biased way?

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    OK, so next time you or one of your friends is in trouble, it would be OK to ignore those laws that protect the defendant so they can find you guilty?

    BTW, it’s not a loophole, it is one of the fundamental procedures for introducing evidence. Had she not ruled the way she did, she would have been overturned on appeal.

  • Jefft90

    ECLS – Sisyphean of the Year

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/IAmDeepSpace Deep Space

    This Traitorous, Oath-Breaking judge needs to be Arrested, Tried & EXECUTED immediately.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/IAmDeepSpace Deep Space

    Along with the Traitorous, Oath-Breaking PIG.

  • Clark

    Case law can’t violate the Constitution either. A “judge” that allows it, can no longer be considered a legitimate Judge.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Gee, I guess Chief Justice Marshall will be disappointed to hear that, not that I think he would care.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Oh goody. I’m always happy to see a moron lose it and resort to the Nazi remarks. Especially since it means that he has no further logical arguments to present.

    Thanks for playing.

    BTW, did your dad tell your mom his name on their one night? Or did she just pick one for you out of the phone book?

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    No one said the witness had to be present at the scene.

    The prosecution didn’t have any other witnesses.

  • legalpanther

    Please stop using the word corroboration. Neither ECLS nor myself have ever stated that the tape needed to be corroborated, but authenticated. When we attorneys use the word authenticated, we are just stating that the evidence meets a minimum threshold to be submitted into evidence. After it is submitted, the trier of fact (either the jury or the judge) will analyze the evidence.

    The way Missouri case law currently reads, “[t]he foundation may be established through the testimony of any witness who is familiar with the subject matter of the tape and competent to testify from personal observation.”

    I have not come across any cases, in Missouri, where there was an unoccupied store where the CCTV footage was challenged. If I was a prosecutor in such a case, I would have a few people testify: (1) the owner of the store in regards to that is his store on the tape, that the identifying marks (time, date) is what his system places on the tape, etc.; (2) the employee that closed the night of the robbery as to the condition of the store when he closed the place (this should be on the tape); and (3) the employee who opened the store and discovered the burglary happened, which will be shown on the tape. I believe this may be enough, but you never know. It would be better if you had a night security guard that watched it happen through a live video feed.

    As I have said earlier, there could be the chain of custody argument — this video was captured on this system and went through a chain of custody whereby it could be tampered with. Would it work in Missouri? I do not know, but I would argue this if I had to. I would specifically focus on the word “may” in my above quote as that seems to be only providing one manner of authentication out of numerous ones, but it is not a sure thing.

  • James M Morriss

    There is a witness that can verify the vid… the suspect. But that nasty ol 5th thing get in the way.

  • rockynites

    This is wrong in so many different ways. The thug cop, the thug apologist, the cupidic judge. I hope and pray that this handcuffed teen sues everyone involved til they beg for mercy.

  • Difdi

    When a court is required to ignore reality because someone lied and said that reality is wrong, that’s just crazy. We’re not talking about an invasion of privacy, an illegal search or anything like that.

    Video evidence is more reliable than human testimony. It doesn’t usually perjure itself, for one thing. When the more reliable evidence can be overridden to the point that the judge isn’t allowed to think about it by less reliable evidence, something is badly broken.

  • Barking Dog

    I think that should happen anyway. Sets a dangerous precedent in the NSA era. They can film us but we can’t film them.

    And when they do film us, we are told it isn’t real. What do they have that camera for anyway? Only to catch us hitting them?

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    I would not get him a bathrobe anyway.

    That could make me an accessory. :p

  • Difdi

    The problem is that your world view is also skewed — in a different direction and perhaps not as far off kilter, but still skewed.

    You declared your opponents to be something, then made fun of that thing. Argue the argument, not the person, or you weaken your argument.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Then why did you get it wrong?

    And why only 17 years – just 3 years short of retirement? The only guys I know that got out at 17 years were either passed over for promotion (twice), were medically retired, or were discharged under disciplinary action.

  • Difdi

    Did too. =P

  • James Michael

    I did retire ASSHOLE…. I did 17 actual years and did time in Antarctica for double time…. I actually retired at 34 prick…. your a just a lying loser like all lawyers…. and like all lawyers you presume way too much…. with just your arbitrary opinion to back your ignorance.

  • James Michael

    Agree with that completely…..

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    JM, if you are going to cite to a case, it is better to go to the original case, rather than to a secondary source. A secondary source is only persuasive authority while the primary source (in this case) would be binding authority. The actual case is M’Culloch v. State, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316, 402 (1819). While the Bouviers quote may be accurate, it is at most paraphrased from M’Culloch, as the Bouviers material does not appear in M’Culloch as cited, and certainly not at p. 402.

    M’Culloch at 402 actually discuss the enactment of the Bank of the United States and Maryland’s argument that the U.S. derives its powers from the sovereignty of the States. It does not discuss the sovereignty of the people at all. The quote you cite appears in numerous documents online, mostly involved in the sovereign citizen movement, such as affidavits purporting to free themselves from the state’s jurisdiction. Almost every one of these affidavits mis-cite M’Culloch.

    The actual quote that would support your position is:

    “The government proceeds directly from the people; is ‘ordained and established,’ in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, ‘in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.’ The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied, in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final.” M’Culloch v. State, 17 U.S. 316, 403-04, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819).

    None of that means that a person can declare themselves outside of the jurisdiction of either a state or the federal government. It speaks of the people as a body, not as individuals.

  • legalpanther

    No. The rules of evidence do not permit it to be submitted until the tape is authenticated. This goes for all physical pieces of evidence.

  • James M Morriss

    SEE: Schrodinger’s cat

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Gee, that’s funny. None of the regs mention anything about getting double time for Antarctica. Nor is there a statute authorizing it, unless I missed it in Westlaw.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    The witnesses aren’t to vouch for what is on the video, or the veracity of it, they are only needed to verify that it is an accurate depiction of the location and events. It is a procedural matter.

    To get the logs admitted, you would have to have a witness authenticate that they are accurate.

    No one is saying (except Roorda) that the video doesn’t prove that the ex-officer abused the kid. No one is saying (except Roorda) that the video should not be used to prove the officer committed a crime.

    The problem was that the prosecutor didn’t have a witness to authenticate the tape.

  • legalpanther

    I concur on you comments about Jeff Roorda. There is no defense to what that police officer had done. There is no logical reason why you should be able to use video against one side but not the other. That is the definition of unfairness.

    However, the Missouri courts have ruled how video tapes are authenticated. The scenario you provided does not fit within that ruling very clearly. The judge does not have the ability to make rulings on what she thought is right, she must make her rulings on what is right with the law. Let me give you an example from my earlier days of practice.

    In a certain midwest state, cognovit notes were legal and enforceable if certain requirements were met, specifically that it was a business transaction. A cognovit note is a promissory note which allows the holder, under defined circumstances, to hire an attorney on the borrower’s behalf to confess judgment. So what happens is the holder of the note’s attorney drafts a complaint and an answer which fully confesses judgment to be signed by an attorney of the note holder’s attorney’s choosing. All the requisite documents are taken to the court, the court makes sure it is all in order and judgment is obtained immediately. In one day, on two separate, but related cases, received $500,000 in judgments in less than an hour. The statute allows the debtor to request a hearing. A hearing was had and after the judge took it under advisement, took the bench and began to state how she hated cognovit notes, about how unfair and heavy handed the cognovit notes are and how she believed it went against the notion of fair play and justice. At that point I thought she was going to vacate the judgment, but she did not. She then stated the legislature passed the law, it has been upheld by superior courts to her and that she is obligated to follow a valid law no matter how much she disagreed with the same.

    Courts are bound by the rule of law, they do not have unlimited powers, nor should they.

  • Difdi

    And your point is…?

    You obviously disagree with what I said, but utterly failed to address anything in my post.

  • legalpanther

    What I was saying no to was your statement that the rules of evidence do not recognize a video tape unless a human witnessed it. This is an incorrect statement. All evidence must have a basic foundation or authentication for it to be submitted. It is a very minimal threshold that, unfortunately, the prosecution could not meet.

  • Boffin

    So, how would a (and I don’t know if they have them in MO) traffic camera picture be used as evidence. All you would need to do is show up and say “this isn’t an accurate depiction of the location and events”. Without a police officer to authenticate the picture, it would never be entered as evidence.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    In most jurisdictions, the red light cameras tickets are not held in a real trial. They normally go to an administrative hearing where the procedures are more lax.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    I lost a post that may still show up. The long and short, ECLS and legalpanther are right. These rules may be outdated, but they’re there to protect, especially against the mob that wants the outcome they want. For that mob, the rules of evidence should change by their whim.

    Calling them the epithets they’ve been called just shows further why these rules are in place.

  • Jim Tuck

    Camera ‘tickets’ are usually treated as civil infractions of a municipal code so the city can keep the money instead of having to share with the state, etc. There are different standards of evidence in such hearings (generally, whatever the magistrate says goes.)

    Additionally, many municipalities that use automated ticketing make it nearly impossible to appeal at all, or charge the full face value of the citation to do so.

  • Ernie Menard

    You’ve still got the difference between authentication and corroboration wrong, as initially did the attorney that is also posting on this issue on this forum.
    Go back to Greenfields blog and tell him that in order for evidence to be authenticated only the parties involved can authenticate the evidence. He’ll laugh at you, just like I am.

  • g_mantwo

    How does the head of the police union also get to be an elected official. Isn’t there a direct conflict of interest there?

  • WWGD

    But didn’t the judge not look at the video evidence? How is this court ruling to be considered relevant if the facts of the case weren’t considered relevant? America is a disgracefully corrupt country: E.g When powerful groups get profiled and/or abused by the IRS because they claim they are promoting “social welfare”(when really they’re anything but) it’s a national headline, but when it’s the a black teenager in handcuff being elbowed in the head that’s ok because its the status quo.

  • Fotaugrafee

    Wah-wah-wah…secondary this or that. Stick to the fucking basics, you retard. Goddamn.

  • Just Another Comment

    I can’t believe what I’m reading, you’re trying to lay down some knowledge and these people automatically hate you because your name is “Ex-Cop” even though you generally agree with them.

    I can’t believe I read this far.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Of course he would. I haven’t said that “only the parties involved” could authenticate the evidence. It is the most common way, and in the case here the three potential witnesses at the trial were all involved, but it is not the only way to get evidence authenticated. But if the prosecution does not have another way already set up, she’s not going to get one set up in the middle of trial.

    You need to look at what the difference is in authentication and corroboration, as you are mistaken. Authentication is “Broadly, the act of proving that something (as a document) is true or genuine, esp. so that it may be admitted as evidence; the condition of being so proved (authentication of the handwriting).” AUTHENTICATION, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). Corroboration is “Confirmation or support by additional evidence or authority (corroboration of the witness’s testimony).” CORROBORATION, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009).

    Two separate issues. Authentication is what was at issue here, not corroboration.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Did you attend LSU and Loyola Law?

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    She did not look at the evidence because it had not been authenticated. She could not, by law, look at it until that requirement had been met.

  • James M Morriss

    That might well be, but at that point the correct, and more importantly, right, procedure is to postpone the “trial” until it is “authenticated”. How a police video, taken by a police camera, from inside a police vehicle, in the constant possession of the police, is going to be more “authenticated”, I could only venture a few SWAGs at.

  • Fotaugrafee

    Soooo, what more authentication be necessary to ensure that a video tape FROM a police / emergency vehicle is THE REAL THING? Seriously?

    That’s an abuse of the law, plain & simple. And you’re an asswipe for defending it.

  • James M Morriss

    What is to “clam up” on? It is no admission of any guilt to say that he was there and what is seen is what happened. Why he is there, how long he was there and any other minutia that is asked is irrelevant.

    The police say he “lunged” at them. If that is true, then that cop has the fastest reflexes in the world.

    All this being said, no judge or court needed for the superiors to at least reprimand this guy for unprofessional conduct. I can see no reason for a forearm smash in the face of a handcuffed man, that you both outweigh and can outmaneuver, as being justifiable.

    Prudent self defense tactics dictate that you take the action(s) that most likely to stop the attack, disable your opponent, and pose the least risk of causing you harm. If he were truly “lunging” at the officer, especially exiting from the truck, the most expedient maneuver would have been simply to pull him in the direction of travel and trip him to the pavement. Thus using his momentum and lack of balance to force him to the ground while not risking a broken elbow or a court case. Though in hind site the court is not much of a risk.

  • legalpanther

    You have to be prepared for trial. Because you cannot, for whatever reason, lay the proper foundation at trial is no reason to continue it. Remember, this is a very minimum threshold. From what I surmise from the article, the prosecution was relying upon the partner to authenticate the video. He did not. Without more, there is no foundation, and thus, not admissible.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Authenticated is a legal term of art. It is about how you admit the tape into evidence, procedurally.

  • dave

    i don’t think he was using the legal definition, stop being obtuse, you’re better than that. you obviously love argument.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    No, but if he testifies to part, he has to answer the questions on cross, which would likely include what had you been arrested for, did you commit that crime, what other crimes had you committed, etc. If he doesn’t want to answer those questions, he has to take the Fifth. He cannot pick and choose what questions he wants to answer. If he does, his testimony is stricken from the record, and you lose your authentication.

  • dave

    so basically it was an error from the prosecution team to not properly authenticate the tape? Or were they screwed from the start since the victim wouldn’t testify and the partner is a piece of shit cop who follows the blue code of silence?

  • dave

    this isn’t true, man. If you read his comments, he’s basically just explaining the legal details of why the video was inadmissible. be mad at the prosecution team for not doing their job properly, the victim for not testifying, or the partner for lying on the stand; don’t be mad at the dude who is explaining the legal stuff he’s an expert on.

  • dave

    in fact, your aggressive willful-ignorance of the law itself actually empowers the corrupt cops and officials that you’re so upset with.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Since there is no hell, I’m not too worried.

  • Fotaugrafee

    And lawyers like Ex-Cop Law Douchebag will stand there & defend his scum brethren letting you know just that. All of them should die of ebola or some other painful, internal illness.

  • Difdi

    Exactly. A judge should be more concerned with discovering truth and applying justice than with their stats and metrics. So it will get reversed on appeal? It might not. Worrying about whether it will as a judge’s primary motivation is a conflict of interest at best, and looks an awful lot like corruption on the bench at worst.

    Ignoring physical evidence that offers the closest thing this world ever has to absolute proof of whether or not an alleged act took place because the accused’s accomplice testilies that it is somehow reality that is wrong, not his testimony is madness.

  • Difdi

    The point of law is justice. That’s why courtrooms have those statutes, sculptures and paintings of that blind lady with a sword lying around so often.

    Their system, right or wrong is not justice. But people who spend enormous sums of money, great effort and long periods of time learning how to do something have a bias towards thinking that is the way things MUST be — because otherwise it was all a waste.

  • Difdi

    Good analogy.

    The system considers the state of the cat to be unknowable until someone opens the box or is in the box with the cat.

    Having a live streaming video camera of the inside of the box is inadmissible if nobody describes to the court what it shows?

    When the judge is not allowed to look at that easily available video that everyone in the room knows exists because no one in the room has testified that it exists?

    That turns the courtroom proceedings into a farce, at best. Laws can be overturned by courts for being incomprehensible, but legal doctrines are FOREVER.

    Someone could invent a way to absolutely prove or disprove any statement, that is 100% reliable and 100% tamper-proof tomorrow, and the courts would still be refusing to use it a century later without ‘authentication’.

    When a system is that broken, you need to burn it to the ground and start over. Not worship it.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Like I’ve stated, there are other ways to authenticate the video, but the prosecutor was not prepared for those.

    “If no witness is available who has the personal knowledge necessary to authenticate a product of the photographic process, that item may be authenticated through the testimony of a witness who can describe the process by which the photo or videotape was produced, and who can state that the process produces an accurate result.” 33 Mo. Prac., Courtroom Handbook On Mo. Evid. § 901(9).1 (2012 ed.).

    The prosecutor was not prepared for the partner to not authenticate the video, and did not have someone who could authenticate it by the above method. The above method would work for an unoccupied store.

    In limited cases, Missouri has allowed videotapes in under the business records exception, which is what the prosecution tried to do.

  • TWScott

    Not so much. Even a total moron of a Defense Attorney would not even think of risking his license by asking the victim. “Did you commit the crime you were arrested for?” As whether or not the person was guilty of anything is not the subject of this trial. A half way decent Prosecutor and a Judge with an IQ larger than their shoes size would know this. Doesn’t mean they would point it out.

    What you have here is the Police protecting their own and a Judge and DA letting it happen.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    OK, how’s this for a response.

    You idiot, that is sovereign citizen BS that doesn’t even appear in the court opinion.

    On the other hand, I thought it might help him if he could see the difference in what he cited and what the opinion actually said.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Obviously you don’t have a clue.

    Thanks for playing.

    Moron.

  • Dan Matthews

    I’ll clue you in on something, your opinion doesn’t mean jack when put up against the legal process, right or wrong…in your opinion.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    It doesn’t matter if the tape came from the Pope. If the proper foundation isn’t laid to authenticate it, it’s not going to be admitted into evidence.

  • Guest

    “you obviously love argument.”

    Not at all a bad thing if you’re gonna be a lawyer.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    I think that the prosecutor violated one of the unwritten rules for lawyers – never ask a question that you don’t know the answer to. She got sandbagged by the partner with an answer she didn’t expect and wasn’t prepared for.

    I’ve seen it happen a number of times. Several times I was happy to be the one that provided that answer to a defense attorney. It happens, and it will happen again in the future.

  • legalpanther

    Think about this practically. It has been my experience that the prosecutor had more than just that one particular trial on that day, at lest on the schedule. Many settle right before trial. This was a misdemeanor trial, so it was not expected to last a really long time. Just having a tape of an incident seems like a slam dunk. Who depicted on the tape would actually claim that the tape was not a true and accurate representation of what happened that evening? The prosecutor was certainly sandbagged. A person who has time to prepare and does so appropriately, would have built in redundancies. That is, if one attempt fails, have a backup attempt. I have had many a trial where I subpoenaed a witness, but did not call them at trial because the information they were going to provide was already provided by another, more reliable source. But I had them there in case I needed them to testify. The prosecutor failed to do this. There was an inappropriate reliance on one witness, which should be avoided at all costs.

  • James Michael

    You are a moron…. ohh that”s right, you have to have a low IQ to be hired as a cop… Whoops. Statutes don’t control military policy The Commanders do within their budgets, they call them the joint chiefs of staff, and the UCMJ does Buzzard. Get a life you useless idiot….as you are Stalins definition of that….. This is the perfect definition of Treason, Breach of Oath, Duty and Trust. Then again you would actually need to be untrained from your circular logical fallacies to even get that. Hopefully you can before enough people awaken and start bringing the retort on you criminals.

  • James Michael

    Just whom do you think We the People are? A cop, A Judge? are you really that moronic. WE pay all of you to preserve the peace and serve justice. While you in fact beat teenagers in the head and terrorize and kill and rape and maim innocent people because you are ignorant neanderthals. No one trusts cops, lawyers or the courts…. Well not anyone that is awake and intelligent anyway. You are an Employee not my employer…. and without “cause” you have nothing, you are just a grunting gorilla….. Sorry you can’t fool me as I can see

  • legalpanther

    Sorry to disagree, but what you are asking for is a form of lawlessness and unpredictability. There are a set of rules that must be followed by both sides and the judge. The judge cannot ignore rules because it fits within your sense of justice.

    Let me provide an example of which I have personal knowledge. While in college, a fraternity house had an annual party that always had fairly weird theme. This one particular year, the theme focused around yard statues. In order to set the stage for the party, members from the fraternity house went into the community and stole lawn statues from people’s yards. At one house, they apparently made too much noise and the owner, an off duty police officer, came out to investigate only to see fraternity guys throwing his lawn statue into the back of a vehicle. He also noticed one more thing, one of the boys was wearing a shirt with his greek letters on it. Well, the officer went to his department, gathered some uniformed officers and went to the fraternity house. The officers entered, with no warrant, and confiscated more than 200 stolen lawn statues. Several fraternity members were charged. Their attorney moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds the police lacked a search warrant. The court agreed, suppressed the evidence and dismissed the case.

    Was justice done? This would depend on your point of view. To those folks who had their lawn statues stolen, no it was not. But to those who support the Bill of Rights and the rule of law, it was done. So should the judge in this case seek justice and ignore the law? The answer is no.

    Bottom line, judges have to follow the rule of law, no matter how distasteful that ruling may be for them.

  • Proud GrandPa

    A judge should be more concerned etc….
    .
    You should read The Famous Cases of the Renown Judge Dee, the first historical, non-fiction novel of a Chinese judge circa 1000 AD. He is a judge who had a sheriff beaten for trying to provoke a confession from a suspect by moving the dead body to the man’s doorstep for shock effect.
    .
    The suspect ran to the judge’s home and pounded a gong. The law of China required judges to honor the plea for justice of a citizen any time day or night. Judge Dee investigated and punished the local sheriff. Judge Dee also had his own investigators.
    .

  • Ernie Menard

    Just got home from work…

    I’ve gone through your posts on this topic and your initial arguments for authentication revolved around the defendant, the police officer whose memory differed from the tape, and the victim. The gist of your arguments has changed to reflect the possibility that there were other methods for getting the video authenticated.

    I never said that authentication wasn’t necessary, I specifically stated that the prosecutor failed to do his job by not getting the video authenticated as there were other ways to do it.

    I’ve since read the result of legalpanthers research into chain of custody authentication and his conclusion that such authentication doesn’t seem acceptable in Missouri. However, this leads to absurd consequences if the only witness to a crime is a video camera.

    Yeah, I’m that guy that went to both LSU and Loyola. I applied to Southern first, but was rejected. FWIW, I didn’t fail out or drop out.

  • Difdi

    One is not the other.

    When a rule of evidence is so far out of touch with reality that the average, reasonable citizen takes one looks and suspects illegal drugs are involved, then the rule needs to be re-examined.

    When rules get too far from reality, people lose respect for them.

  • lordastral

    Cops get away with this shit all the time and the so-called justice system is there to protect them. That’s the way it is. If you lump all cops together and say they are all corrupt, you won’t be far wrong because the ones that aren’t will still cover up for the rest.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Did not say that you did. I just wanted to know because if you were that guy, I could debate the finer points with you.

    My argument hasn’t changed, at first I was pointing out the reasons that it was not authenticated at this trial. Nowhere did I state that there were no other means of authenticating the tape. As you know, there is a difference in discussion between someone that has had legal training and those who have not. I was trying to keep it simple, for a couple of reasons. One, most here don’t have the background. They can understand it, but you have to explain it because it is outside of their area of expertise. Second, I really did not think this discussion would last this long, so why go into the more detailed information (or research for that matter).

    After LP posted, I looked up the Mo. Prac. treatise on evidence. I think the prosecutor could have gotten it in, but it would take other witnesses and she was not prepared for (nor do I believe she expected) that the partner would develop “selective” amnesia.

  • Jefft90

    The howling mob won’t like this but the Asst Cir Attorney had a shit case, Uncooperative witness, and uncooperative victim. She knew foundation was the key for the video when the kid victim refused to testify.
    She dismissed and refilled knowing the shit partner Fowler, would take the fifth. I guess the only mistake she might have made is not having a good proffer from the shit partner when she got him not only state but federal immunity the day of the trial, unless Fowler admitted to a crime she really had nothing to hold over him with regard to the immunity deal. Hell she even tried to slip one by the judge by releasing stills of the video despite a court order withholding the video in order to get public opinion pressure on Fowler.

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/video-of-st-louis-police-officer-striking-teen-is-released/article_c00117a4-4fb2-5669-9a8c-4b9399e36985.html

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Yawn.

    Miss your prozac again?

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    It’s a shame that one of our veterans has slipped so far. I would encourage anyone that knows James to get him the help that he needs.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Uh huh. Sure.

  • Dan Matthews

    You have missed your Thorazine injection one or two or three too many times.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    You don’t pay me anything and probably never have.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    The article and the SLPOA release also tend to explain the forearm strike. The handcuffed kid had been arrested for pointing a gun at the officers and drug possession.

    The totally unjustified forearm strike was payback for him pointing the gun at the officers.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Fotagrafee, I would stick to taking pictures if I were you, since your reading comprehension is lacking.

    Find one place here where I defended the ex-officer – every time I spoke of him I have said he should be behind bars for abusing a handcuffed prisoner.

  • Dan Matthews

    Does it take a great deal of energy and focus for you to be a butt head, or does it just come to you naturally?

  • ActaNonVerba

    Progressives want more government, they gets more government.

    Just not the government they were wanting or expecting.

    Enjoy your tax dollars being misspent and your individual rights being eroded for the lie known as the “Greater good” fallacy. This fallacy is often the cover used to allow unspeakable evil to reign supreme in government and its agents/enforcers (i.e. police). Of which are then continually feed more tax payer money to keep their corruption and villainy alive via faux perpetual wars (e.g. War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror, etc) and bought and paid for regulatory, tax and IP laws that work against the little guy in society and benefit only those with power and money to influence a bloated, uncaring, uninterested, inept, and often corrupt big government.

  • Me!

    And this idiot may get his job back? This make me sick. Why did the boy not testify? Someone make threats if he did? I’m guessing that the case.

  • Michael Richards

    THAT’S WHAT ASSAULT IS … I don’t even know why Florida continues to be brought up. My God, the Wikipedia entry states: Assault and battery is the combination of two violent crimes: assault (the threat of violence) and battery (physical violence). This legal distinction exists only in jurisdictions that distinguish assault as threatened violence rather than actual violence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_and_battery

    …but seriously, just search Google for assault vs. battery

  • Herr Hur

    This is why we need competing law enforcement agencies.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    No, he refused to testify so that he would not incriminate himself on the charges of pointing a gun at the officers and possession of drugs.

    It’s in the comments.

  • prariegirl

    I am going cross eyed reading the intricacies of the laws here. I will just speak as a human who knows right from wrong. I see a young boy being told to get out of the truck. He is told he is a lying POS by the cop. I don’t hear a response from the boy. Then he is side arm smacked in the side of the head by the cop. And it knocks him down while he is handcuffed. What is the purpose of handcuffs to begin with if cops assault the restrained anyway? Ditch the handcuffs, taze them several times, be sure to use pepper spray and then beat them unconscius (sp)? Mr. cop you would feel like a bigger man beating someone down that was not restrained, instead of beating them while defenseless, no? Self defense? From what pussy cop, a kid you handcuffed? This kid was standing there. Lunging at you pig? What kind of person would do this? It is wrong, against the rules of humanity and how we treat one another. This kid I guarantee you will be a cop hater forever and forever be seeking revenge. You idiots just created another criminal every time you bully and beat a defenseless human. Has every cop lost his humanity? And don’t say its a tough job, you knew it when you got into it. Get out if you cannot deal with people humanly.

  • legalpanther

    But the rules are not far from reality. All evidence submitted to the court has to be authenticated (there are a few exceptions). It is not authenticated be cause the attorney claims it is what it is. This is not a case where the rules have failed, but is a case where the prosecution failed to have the proper persons at trial to give testimony that would authenticate the exhibit.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    It happens. Some that have a real hatred for the police don’t want to hear what is actually happening.

    It used to happen on the street too, so I’m used to it, although I will admit that I get snarky with some of them.

    Glad to see you at PINAC and I hope you will stay around.

  • Oliverio Bagaco

    Dam law enforcers are full of bastards out of control. from top down

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    That’s because it is not the legal definition. It is the definition for common usage and everyday discussions, but it means nothing in court where the definitions are established by the statute enacted by that state’s legislature.

  • Reptar

    Does anyone have the contact info for this department or the judge? I would personally like to contact them about this corruption Email me @ malvado509@yahoo.com, thanks.

  • Allahu Akbar

    Maybe that teenager should “accidentally” discharge a firearm into the offending officer’s face. “Hey…It was an accident!”

    Same for the corrupt P.O.S. judge that is obviously banging the dude she is covering for.

  • Ron Grounds

    Evil

  • Angey dad

    As a father, I would hunt down both officers in the video. A discreet beating would occur. Neither would be able to return to duty.

  • Wandering_Bard

    Don’t let the haters get you down, Ex Cop. I’ve found your input to be some of the most logical and well-informed on this forum.

    Unfortunately, objectivity is something that many of the commenters here sorely lack.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Except the defense attorney won’t risk his license by doing so. He has no obligation to the victim, his obligation is to his client, the defendant.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Thanks.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    I don’t think anyone disagrees with you that what the ex-officer did was wrong and he should be behind bars. It is not appropriate, it is not right, it is not moral, it is criminal, and it violates his oath.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    If he had a good father, do you think he would be possessing drugs and pointing guns at officers?

    Not that what the officer and his partner did was right, it wasn’t. But neither is self-help.

  • Nova

    “videos like these should only be used to protect police” – it goes both ways jackass. When police abuse their power of authority and harm “suspects who cooperate and protect themselves using their natural rights, as states in the Constitution’s ‘Bill of Rights’, they deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law, to serve justice to those who were wronged. If they abide by the laws, they have nothing to fear.

  • odinsthunder

    When there is such an obvious miscarriage of justice like this, there is where the Feds should get involved. It saves the other options like vigilante justice that always seems to follow when the system fails to provide justice. Look back in history, the examples are there….

  • Dan Matthews

    It would be difficult for me to refer to this woman as “Judge ……” as judges are supposed to do just that, judge based upon the evidence. By refusing to look at all the evidence in order to reach a proper conclusion, she removes herself from being a judge. In reaching her conclusion by excluding “legal evidence” she leaves herself to be judged by the public for her actions. She may have had legal authority to refuse to see the video, but it puts her in the public eye as acting against her oath in my opinion.

  • prariegirl

    Thank you ex-cop. I get a bit angry when I see things like that, being a mother and all. I feel just as badly for the boys family, if he has one. That is child abuse as well! What is going on with law enforcement, can you enlighten me please?

  • The_Governments_koch

    “But neither is self-help.”

    Tell that to the founding fathers.

  • Nathan K

    It’s pathetic that we have people such as her representing constituents. She obviously has some sort of bias towards the police, and has such invalidated her service to the public. Stop trying to cover up the obviously immoral and incorrect actions of the LEO. You’re a disgrace, Judge Burke. May you be dismissed from your position for this grievous offense. Disgusting.

  • DWA

    Agreed. Judge should be removed immediately and her law license, if, in fact, she holds one, forfeited.

  • Hector

    Brings back memories….

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Dan, she didn’t have a choice. Had she admitted the evidence, she would have been overturned on appeal. She couldn’t even look at the evidence. She did exactly what we pay her to do, which is follow the law. She swore an oath to follow the law when she became a judge.

    If the prosecutor isn’t prepared to lay a proper foundation to admit the evidence, it is not the judge’s place to ignore the law and look at it anyway. Do you want them to do that if you are the defendant? Or a family member or friend?

  • Dan Matthews

    I understand your explanation, but wonder why time wasn’t given to authenticate the evidence. Is it possible that the police would now provide it for authentication?
    If the evidence and it’s source we’re explained to her, I think it only right for her to set another trial date.
    It just seems there were other options to discover the “truth” that she could have called for that would have allowed the evidence to be shown at some time. By not doing so, she is in fact favors the claim of the LEO.

    Of all the people who would not allow crucial evidence to be explored, I feel a judge should be last on the list.

    “As much as it hurts, the only thing that matters is the truth.”. – Dana Scully

  • Dan Matthews

    I believe what you are saying in this case is that the prosecutor prevented the evidence from being submitted properly.
    It gets back to my belief that the DA is not interested in right or wrong, only in winning, no matter who suffers.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Even if the prosecution asked for a continuance, the defense would object. She should have been ready when she announced ready for trial at the beginning.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    I think the DA got sandbagged, I don’t think she was expecting the partner to lie. BTW, the DA lost, so I don’t think that’s your best argument to go with.

  • Jon

    So police videos shouldn’t be used to protect the public? I thought that was the point.

  • Dan Matthews

    I wonder if the prosecutor really wanted to win this one.
    Let him keep his job and make him and the PD look foolish by winning a civil case.

  • Dan Matthews

    But you are hypothesizing too. Why couldn’t the DA cry foul if they really wanted the truth? I find it difficult to believe with that kind of evidence, it was not followed through properly and presented according to law.
    Are we surprised that the copy’s partner lied?
    BTW, can the kid file a civil lawsuit where that video can be presented, provided it doesn’t disappear?

  • SickandTired

    In this overboard video surveillance world, the police want to pick and choose when they can be recorded doing their jobs, as not to incriminate them in any wrong doing! Well this Jeff Roorda ought to be recalled by the people of his district, and see how he likes that for “being held accountable” Jerk! If this wacko Judge Theresa Counts Burke is accountable to The People she ought to be dealt with accordingly as well!

  • legalpanther

    There is no reason to appeal the case. There has to be a mistake at law or an abuse of discretion in order to have a valid appeal. So this case is over and should remain that way.

    There may be a possible perjury claim. However, I have rarely seen them prosecuted as it is hard to prove.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Read the rest of the comments by legalpanther and myself.

    Until you do, you’re just re-hashing the same points that have already been addressed.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Which is why he wouldn’t testify in the first place, and why he was given immunity and ordered to testify.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    No it doesn’t.

  • legalpanther

    Yes he could file the civil suit. That video could be submitted as evidence, as long as his counsel lays the proper foundation for its authentication (the kid’s counsel will be bound by the same rules as the prosecution). If the kid decides to testify, authentication will be easy (just have the kid testify that it accurately represents the events).

  • Dan Matthews

    Thank you.
    I’m not sure if the kid is a thug or not, he still did not deserve being abused that way.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    What the limitations on torts vs. the felony charges? Would he be able to wait until the statute has run on the felonies before filing the tort action?

  • Dan Matthews

    EC, when you are surrounded by people who don’t want to hear and can’t understand reason, you are either in a nut house or just plain wasting your time.
    I’d choose the nut house myself, at least the inmates can pretend they are listening and you expect nothing in return.

  • MongoLikesCandy

    So maybe the prosecutor screwed up by not having it “authenticated”. But if he had been alone with the prisoner and was caught on camera executing him, would you still need a witness to “authenticate” it? How does this work?

    And I understand the prisoner went 5th amendment, but how would he be required to self-incriminate himself when this is a case that is not about his infractions? His infractions are irrelevant to the assault. Unless he was offered a deal, he couldve testified without danger to himself.

    I understand (not sympathize or support) the overzealous, violent cop. I understand the prisoner shutting up. I understand the partner covering up for his friend. I even understand a judge feeling bound by a technicality. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS ROORDA CREEP. What a corrupt little shithead.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    What is going on? As far as what?

  • Dan Matthews

    If you have been reading the comments, the fault is not with the judge according to ExCop, and I think he has enough credit ability to be calling it correctly.
    The question now seems to be getting a lawyer and going after the cop in a civil suit, then, if possible, finding out what the prosecutor’s real intentions. Perhaps she takes direction from the DA about how to handle damning evidence.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Oh, there are some here that both hear and understand reason, and will discuss matters.

    Then there are some that have their mind made up, regardless of the facts or the evidence, but are otherwise rational. They might have been witchburners in past times, but they just are set in their beliefs.

    And then you have the whackjobs and nuts.

    I just put out the truth and explain the facts and if they choose to listen, fine, if not that’s fine too.

    After all, there are none so blind as those that will not see, nor so deaf as those that will not hear…

  • Dan Matthews

    I think that if the founding fathers saw what a fiasco the legal process has evolved into, they might call foul or fully understand the complexity designed into it.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    If this was a murder trial instead of a misdemeanor assault, you would have had a more experienced ADA, and they typically would be much better prepared. They would have used an alternative method to authenticate the video and not relied on just one witness. I would imagine that in a murder case, the partner would have likely been charged also, as an accomplice.

    The prisoner would normally be asked by the defense attorney about his own crimes, as an attack on his credibility. You cannot pick and choose what questions you will answer, so if he is going to take the Fifth, it is to all questions, not just the ones that are inconvenient for him to answer.

    I agree with you on Roorda, and fail to understand why the people of Missouri have elected him as a state representative.

  • legalpanther

    For a run of the mill felony, it is 3 years. For civil assault and for civil battery, it is 2 years.

  • Dan Matthews

    I agree with you 100%. I did not mean to imply all the people here were not listening, as I know that many provide good input and/or rebuttal.
    Then there are those who continue to spew their opinions with little, if any, regard of the truth or fact.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Well, that pretty much ends the idea of a civil suit.

    There’s no way he would expose himself to the felony charges to file the tort action (at least not if he’s smart).

  • legalpanther

    I will not completely exclude that idea that the ADA purposefully threw the case, but it is not likely. I deal with ADAs on misdemeanor cases at least a few times a week. They are overworked, have a huge caseload, and receive little office help. Indeed, the budget provided to prosecute each misdemeanor case is very small.

    Some ADAs are also overconfident. They are before the same judge all the time, in some jurisdictions, everyday. The judge rules in their favor on most things as they have a built in credibility, it seems. This overconfidence leads to poor decision making sometimes, as in making sure to have the witnesses necessary to lay down the proper foundation.

  • Difdi

    The mere fact that a video camera mounted on a police vehicle, that clearly shows objective reality is not admissible unless a much more fallible human being says it was there? That’s insanity.

    I get that the rules are rock solid tradition. But any rule or law needs to be looked at from time to time to ensure it continues to make sense. When a rule turns a court from a solemn pursuit of justice to a comedic farce in the eyes of the public, something must be done to correct it. Anything else is insanity.

    That rule of evidence predates things like fingerprinting, DNA testing, video cameras, audio recorders, etc. It has not been significantly updated since, causing technology to leave it behind. It’s possible for technology to create an impartial, objective account of reality. But the court system is not allowed to know this. That’s insanity.

    It’s so insane, that anyone not biased in favor of the system takes one look and wonders if magic mushrooms or other psychedelic drug were in use in the courtroom.

    When the people who are expected to trust the system and rely on it to be fair and just can’t help wondering what drug-induced hallucinations the system originated from, there is a problem. If people have no faith in the system, they will circumvent it when they need justice. The system has a vested interest in preventing this from happening; It can use force or it can use reason, but in the long run, reason works better.

    The absurdity of the rule is right up there with the emperor’s new clothes. And just like the emperor’s nonexistent finery, no one involved in the matter has the courage to see and speak the truth.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Fingerprints and DNA have to be authenticated too. You have to lay a foundation that the piece of evidence is what it is purported to be.

  • legalpanther

    But there is one thing that you are apparently unaware of or choose to ignore — in trial, the only facts that exist are those that are presented during said trial. The court is not permitted to perceive, acknowledge , or decide upon facts that are not presented during the trial. The example I always use is this, if the parties stipulate that the sky is green, for that trial the sky is green, not blue.

    Plus, most states in this country base their Rules of Evidence on the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Federal Rules of Evidence did not come into existence until 1975. So, though they might be based upon general rules that developed over centuries of both British and American Jurisprudence, the Rules are fairly modern.

    Fingerprinting dates to the late 1800s. So the rules were set in place after fingerprinting became an accepted method of identification. But even using your examples, to submit fingerprints into evidence they have to be authenticated by testimony, to enter DNA into evidence, it has to be authenticated by testimony. The prosecutor cannot just hand in a sheet of paper and say DNA testing states it was defendant’s blood on the knife handle. Likewise, the prosecutor cannot show a photo of a fingerprint and state that it belongs to the defendant. There must be someone there to testify that these items are what they are reported to be.

    So, in this case, how is the court to know where the video came from? How is the court supposed to know that this came from a police vehicle? The only way a court could make those determinations is if someone appears and testifies to that fact. That is it, nothing more.

    The rules of evidence did not thwart justice in this case. A poorly prepared ADA did. The burden was clearly upon that person to present the testimony to authenticate the video. That person failed miserably. The rules did what they were designed to do — make certain that all parties are presented with the same level playing field.

  • Difdi

    I’m aware of that. You’re helping me prove my point, not refuting it.

  • Robert Fletcher

    This Judge needs to be relieved of her duties

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Without authentication, police and prosecutors would be able to introduce evidence without showing it was connected to the crime.

    OK, I got these fingerprints from this other burglary three years ago that I know are his, we can pass them off as being connected to this murder case. We really don’t have any other evidence, but we “know” he did it, because we’re the police.

    It serves a valid purpose to require authentication.

  • Difdi

    Straw man.

    We’re not talking about falsifying evidence here. We’re discussing objective reality being subordinate to perjured testimony.

  • Dirtbag Surfer

    The Fed’s are already involved, as is the State, vis-à-vis case law. This is what the judge had to go by, no question about it. Unless the laws regarding the admissibility of evidence are changed, then any judge would have to make the same determination as this one did in this case. I think in totality, you would have to weigh the impact of changing the rule of law regarding the admissibility of submitted evidence has overall, not this just this one case, which seems to be a anomaly. I have to believe that this is a unique situation where due to the “perfect storm” of circumstances, justice was not served as us lay people wish it would have been. Changing the law may result in the opening of the floodgates for both sides of a case to introduce “evidence” that currently isn’t admissible in a court of law. Probably such a not a good idea in the end. As much as I thing is a huge drag to see these cops get off on this one, I firmly believe that the judge had no other choice than to render the decision that she made. Thanks to ExCop-LawStudent for explaining why and how this happened. Very good information and eye opening as well!

  • odinsthunder

    I’m an ex-cop and I’ve always had a real problem with double standards. Listening to this pile of crap that LE video shouldn’t be used for evidence of wrongdoing against police is one of the most asinine things I’ve ever heard of. That’s the height of corruption. Evidence is evidence where ever you can legally get it. I’m not a conspiracy person, but what these police agencies around the country are doing on a daily basis is getting scary. Not a day goes by that I don’t see an uncalled for police shooting of an unarmed, innocent person. I would have gone to jail without question, but this just seems to be the new norm. It’s frightening….

  • Robert Fletcher

    If the people re elect that judge they deserve her

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Why, do you have an objection to a judge that follows the law?

    Read the rest of the comments. She didn’t have a choice.

PINAC

PINAC Logo cutout copy
Be the Media