Johnmelissa said:
I have failed in my attempt to communicate that the Gargoyle statement was a personal revelation that corroborated.
Corroborated for you, but by itself it is legally irrelevant. That's the point. Because YOU say it's relevant or proves something is entirely beside the point. To a court it proves only that your wife makes the claim he called her a gargoyle.
The video system was established last year in a complaint to the neighbor's Sheriff's Dept. Every person and organization stipulates to the existence and functionality of the video surveillance system.
That's wonderful. But it doesn't mean that it's free and easy to access. We have gang houses in my town that miraculously are recording when they are victims, but refuse to let us review tape when they are the suspects or claim the system was no working. Amazing how that works. Bottom line is that we cannot force them to turn it over, any more than the officers in your situation could have forced him to turn it over even if he had admitted that it caught the whole thing.
The bottom line, since it's the neighbor's arrest, if he wanted to prove his case in court HE could produce the tape. Absent that it would have come down to who claimed what in court. And over a great hosing incident, the judge would likely toss the whole thing anyway.
I am fully confidant that, if this went to trial which, we agree, it won't, the judge or, ultimately, the jury would actually or effectively throw this case out.
I doubt the DA would have taken such a piddly thing to trial ... and he didn't. And a judge likely would have strongly encouraged the parties to settle. Or, the judge may just find there to have been insufficient evidence to support the allegation at trial and drop the whole thing.
The police have no business ignoring evidence.
The police cannot just seize it because you say it exists. That nasty 4th Amendment again.
In the hypothetical, I would make it known that there is a functioning video system with camera in plain view on the front of the garage in front and the neighbor would say my video is broken. What do you think 12 common people are going to think of the neighbor?
They might reasonably conclude he is lying. Or, at least feel there was sufficient reasonable doubt.
On this forum, common sense is ability non grata.
Common sense, and what you "KNOW" to be true, are not the foundations of the US criminal justice system. If they were, then we would not need judges or juries.
If my wife knows an intimate detail of my neighbor and his son, that is they play Gargoyle video games, the quality of the testimony is higher since she had no possible way of knowing that prior to the event.
So YOU say. The counter argument is, "So what?" And, perhaps she made it up to SOUND like something he MIGHT say. It doesn't PROVE anything. It might intimate that he said something to her with the proper foundation, but it is doubtful that it would PROVE a darn thing.
You really need to understand the court process, and the concept of evidence and testimony a little more if you even think of trying to bring this into court at a civil OR a criminal trial.
Hopefully you and your neighbor can work this out ... though I suspect that the DA may find himself stuck between a couple of schoolyard know-it-alls that both have their chests shoved out convinced of their own superiority and righteousness. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion that at least you are not going to go into this meeting with the goal of resolution in mind.
- Carl
