Matter a fact, a video tape may even help the defense more.
Video normally only captures part or parts of the crime, and what it does capture can be interrupted differently by different people, or even innocently explained by the subject.
a video shows you walking up to a wallet display and then putting a wallet in you pocket.
but it doesn't show you leaving the store with out paying for it, or even how you bought a new wallet there earlier that day, came back to look at other wallets and when doing so you left the "wallet you paid for" on the display by accident, and then was wrongfully arrested.
It's best for stores never to mention they have anything on tape to the person being arrest, or even to the police. The video tape should only be used in court as the last part of evidence, if even needed.
When a security person says "I have you on tape", it normally means their new to their job, and gives your attorney the right to ask for a copy of the tape "before" going to court.
Yes, but there has to be allot of it and it has to be compelling to convict someone purely on circumstantial evidence. But it can and has been done.
Evidence would be necessary to convict that person of the crime.
A Picture Of Him...
Motive being at the scene at the time the crime was commited no alibi evidence
To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a criminal act with a criminal intent.
Sufficient probable cause and evidence to place the defendant inside the location which was burglarized.
Charges that one can receive as punishment for shoplifting range from a misdemeanor or infraction to a more serious charge of a felony. The charges are determined by the state criminal law, and also by what is stolen.
According to the United States Constitution two witness are needed to convict someone of treason. In some cases people are convicted of treason by evidence only.
If you are keeping an eye out while someone is shoplifting you will be charged as an accomplice to the crime. It's not worth it.
It is possible, but an enormous amount of evidence is needed to convict without the body. Lots have been convicted without the dead body, but it doesn't always happen.
If, at the time of arrest, there was sufficient "probable cause" to believe that you committed the crime - and if the information was presented to a judge or grand jury and they handed down an indictment based on it - yes, you can be charged. It will be up to the prosecution to prove at trial that there IS sufficient evidence to convict you of the crime.
Only the jury can determine that for certain. It is very unlikely, however, that a video is the only existing evidence.
No, it's not enough evidence to convict someone. You know that they were there, and you can definitely consider them a suspect, but you can't make a definite conviction.
Anything that can legally be admitted that would convince a juror that someone has committed a crime.
If someone does that there a shoplifter who is shoplifting. Shoplifting is illegal,
The BASIC evidence needed is the testimony of the victim. After that supporting evidence may amount to witnesses statements, DNA evidence, items left at or collected from the scene of the offense, etc, etc.
with no evidence against you any half-way decent lawyer would probably get you proven not guilty.
Testimonial Evidence is, a recounting of events/criminal activity witnessed by someone at or near the scene of the crime. Police Reorts can be used as 'Testimonial Evidence'.
The person provides evidence to the prosecuting attorney in exchange for a reduced sentence, or to avoid prosecution.
depends on how strong the statements impact is. But usually no
YesAnother View: No, not directly. "Word of mouth" may be enough to bring drug trafficking to the attention of law enforcement, or lead their investigtion in the right direction, but the evidence that is collected and used to convict the defendant(s) must be collected in accordance with the law and the rules of evidence.
That will depend on where you are, in terms of what the laws are in your area, and things like how much was stolen and if someone has a previous record of shoplifting.
It's called "Guilt by Association". You both get charged!
There must be testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act in order to convict a person of treason. See Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.
Evidence/proof beyond a 'reasonable' doubt that the person charged actually committed the offense. Notice that the burden is not beyond ALL doubt, only beyond REASONABLE doubt.