Depending on your state's laws, using a computer surveillance system should be admissible in court. However, make sure there's a time stamp and that the footage could not be challenged as tampered with.
The court case was dismissed because the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, it does.
You have to prove your case and convince the court.
If you can prove that it is the case to the satisfaction of the court then it is worthwhile.
Computer Associates was in a court case in 1992. This case was about how to determine if there was any copyright infringement when it comes to software.
The case that established the minimization requirement for electronic surveillance is the United States v. United States District Court (Keith) in 1972. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires minimization procedures to be implemented when wiretapping conversations because it only permits the interception of those conversations that are relevant to the investigation.
prove to the court that you are likely to have success on the merits (substantial chance of prevailing in the case)
You can sue in Civil Court. Take EVERYTHING you have to prove your case with you.
Yes. They did work on it, so you owe. If you can prove they caused the problems you have a court case for small claims court.
If you voluntarily pled guilty it will be difficult to re-open your case unless you can prove you were represented in an incompetent manner by your attorney at the time.
If you are a defendant you defend yourself, if you are the complainant you prove your case (against a defendant). This question is otherwise to ambiguous to answer correctly.
by filing case against him in the court for forged documents and asking the court to examine the documents and also to call the handwriting expert to examine the documents and give the report to the court.