That boggles the mind. He was a traffic cop for 13 years, trained in guesstimating speed but not use of a radar gun? Willing to bet it is a lot easier to learn to use a radar gun.
Just out of curiosity because I’m too lazy to read the case:
Most states have per se speed limits in that if you’re driving over a given speed, it’s a strict liability offense and you’re pretty much guilty.
- Do states that have these per se limits still have “safe and reasonable” or “safe given the condition” fall backs that would enable a cop to ticket you for going over the speed limit by some amount, but not a speed certain?
1a) If so, was that an issue in this case? He was being tried for “speeding, generally” as opposed to “going 67 in a 65MPH zone”
I suspect that most lawyers here won’t object to this - it’s, after all, the court saying that eyewitness testimony can form the basis for conviction of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is kind of self-evident.
My only problem with this case (not so much, but still a bit in a legal sense, more a just/fairness sense) is if this gets extended to convicting people of aggravating factors, like speeding more than a certain amount, or reckless driving because you were going over 30 over the speed limit, or something to that effect.
As somebody pointed out earlier, if the police officer saw you shoot somebody he’d be testifying against you in court and his testimony in that case would, at a minimum, be sending you to prison for a long time. If you believe a police officer’s testimony over something as serious as murder why would you doubt him over something as trivial as speeding?
Because there’s a bit of a difference in the certainty between seeing you shoot someone and driving 39 or 40 miles an hour over the speed limit? (I’m not talking about credibility, it’s more of an accuracy thing)
I hope it takes more than just the word of the cop to sentence someone to jail for murder. No doubt the cop’s testimony on that is significant but is there really nothing more needed than that?
Heck, if I was a bad cop and wanted someone dead I’d shoot them then just say you did it.
We’re still looking at two seperate issues: a police officer being mistaken (ie saying he can tell the difference between a car going 60 mph and car going 80 mph when he really can’t) and a police officer lying (ie saying you were speeding when he knew you weren’t).
On the accuracy question, as I’ve said it’s a testable issue. On the honesty issue, that falls back on who the judge and jury find more credible. Offhand, I can’t think of a better system. It’s no more just to have an automatic rule of believing everything a cop says is true than it is to have an automatic rule of believing everything a cop says is false.
Unless you’re really paranoid about cops you don’t think they’re out there shooting random people on the street.
But let’s say it’s Vic Mackie and the victim is Jimmy the Pimp. Mackie shoots Jimmy and then says he witnessed you commit the murder.
Now at some point during the trial, your lawyer is going to show that you’re just a tourist who happened to be walking down the street who had never met Jimmy the Pimp, has never owned a gun, and has never been arrested. Meanwhile, your lawyer will also have witnesses come forward that will testify that Mackie had been threatening Jimmy for a couple of weeks because Jimmy wasn’t making his payoffs.
At some point, Detective Mackie is going to stop sounding credible to the jury.
So short answer is yeah, you need something more than the cop’s word alone to convict someone of murder.
Try it another way. Cop brings you into the police station and books you for murdering me. The DA looks at the case and the only evidence that exists for you doing it is the cop’s say-so. No other evidence whatsoever. Will the DA prosecute?
Depends on the reputation of the cop I would imagine.
There’s certainly no requirement that the DA present evidence other than the testimony of eyewitnesses. It all comes down to whether the DA believes the witness, and whether he thinks the jury will believe the witness.
Of course, physical evidence is good, and the more the better. But all that is required is that the prosecution convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. But plenty of people have been convicted based only on eyewitness testimony.
Actually I think the short answer is no. A cop’s word alone would be enough to convict somebody of murder. Most cops aren’t Vic Mackie. If they testify they saw somebody commit a murder, they’re almost certainly telling the truth. And there will be no counter-evidence that the cop is lying and had a reason to commit the murder himself. So the jury will believe the cop and convict.
I thought there were components to “proving” murder in court that had to be met (motive, opportunity and so on).
Aside from that though I thought you had to show the mens rea which I do not see in this case.
Method, motive, and opportunity is a way to think about solving the case. And anyway, if the cop sees me shooting a guy, that’s your method and opportunity right there. The only thing he doesn’t have is motive, which could be as simple as that I’m psychotic.
And showing mens rea shouldn’t be too hard–he saw me shoot a guy. If he saw me walking around and I accidentally stepped on a hidden gun and it went off and shot someone, then I don’t have mens rea. But, you know, pointing a gun and someone and deliberately pulling the trigger is a different story.
We convinct people of crimes all day every day, based on eyewitness testimony, this isn’t something that was dreamed up yesterday. “I saw the defendant stab the victim.” “I found the body at 1327 West Elm Street.” “That gun is the gun I found at the crime scene.” “This is the bullet I tested for ballistics evidence.” “The bullet found in the victims body was a .45 caliber, and this baggie right here contains the bullet.” And so on.
If we don’t accept eyewitness testimony then we can’t establish the validity of any physical evidence. Every piece of physical evidence requires the sworn testimony of some human being that the physical evidence is genuine, that it was correctly gathered, from a particular time and a particular place. A videotape of me shooting a guy can’t be entered into evidence without someone swearing that the tape was collected from such and such a camera at such and such a place at such and such a time, that it was stored and labeled correctly, and so on.