It's unfortunate for the person involved and the incentives in the system are such that no one is trying to make efficient use of their time. But that's pretty much the way it is.
It's not really that different from being seated on a multi-week jury trial much less a possibly multi-month grand jury.
Many large companies tend to be pretty flexible with respect to things like jury duty. But, to say that even a small business needs to keep paying full salary for someone who is out for weeks or longer (and even if they have to hire a temporary replacement) is probably not realistic.
Per diems for things like jury duty should arguably be higher. But there's no world in which, say, a Silicon Valley software developer is going to be paid their regular daily salary with benefits.
As I wrote elsewhere, it would be nice if everyone involved were more respectful of the time being put in by unpaid or nominally paid participants. But that's no one's priority.
We don't have the American jury system so times in court tend to be way shorter. But non the less. If society here needs my support it is giving back something as well.
Not that in the one case were I was entitled to compensation I ever asked for it. Because I feel it was my civic duty. But then - I am in the lucky position to be able to afford this sentiment.
Anyway, why shouldn't a business of any size continue to pay people? Just treat employee absences as a minor insurable risk, or press for adequate compensation for witnesses and jurors by restructuring the tax system.
Passively accepting bad things guarantees you will get more of them.
Why not? The proportion of people involved in a trial at any given time must be so small that replacing their salaries would be a relatively minor drag on companies if it was distributed well.
I'm not, I'm a random person in possession of a consumer electronics device that might have a video recording of the crime in question. No need for depositions, everything I know is in this MP4 file, and now that I have transferred the file to you, LEO, you know everything I know. Further interrogation will gain you nothing but my contempt.
It's not really that different from being seated on a multi-week jury trial much less a possibly multi-month grand jury.
Forget ballparks, it's not even the same sport.
I've been informed recently that the employer in Germany has to compensate for the leave and will be reimbursed later. This sounds too good to be true though.
The question is, in this particular case, did the camera help identify an otherwise unknown suspect?
In the other case, the camera caught it on a digital format thats accessible by literally anyone living in the 21st century.
Someone has to testify that yes, they installed the camera on X date, yes, the date/time stamp is accurate, yes, it was working the last time they checked, yes, the video in question was recovered, yes, the video was transferred to the prosecutors office, no, the video was not modified to the best of my recollection.
Saying "hey, I have this mp4 that proves the murder" doesn't work in court.
The "issue" in this case is probably that the prosecutor wants to do everything in his power to maximize the probability of a successful prosecution based on the available evidence even if it means taking three weeks of someone's time rather than making do with a simple notarized statement.
And the defense wants to do everything is his power to throw roadblocks in the way of the prosecution even if it means wasting three weeks of some third party's time.
Nowhere are there any incentives to make things efficient for someone if doing so could hurt your case by even a little bit.
That doesn’t prove where the camera footage was taken. Or who owns it. Lots of unanswered questions that the defense could use to raise doubts about it.
You could testify once that this is your camera and here are the mp4 files (and their sha sum). And that would be it.
Equally, technically they didn't see anything as the video caught by the camera could actually be made up.
Imagine if it was you or a loved one that was murdered and a neighbor's camera caught the suspect breaking into the house.
>You could testify once that this is your camera and here are the mp4 files (and their sha sum). And that would be it.
This is just how the rules of evidence work (also equal protection and due process), you can't just submit video, there needs to be testimony to introduce the video into evidence. Further, the defendant has a constitutional right to cross examine the person who introduces the video into evidence.
>Equally, technically they didn't see anything as the video caught by the camera could actually be made up.
Yes, and the Defense will hammer this point home. You didn't see the murder right? If the video actually shows what it alleges to show, the defendant breaking into the home, you have no evidence the defendant actually killed the homeowner right? You have no evidence the defendant even confronted the deceased correct? Of course there are other questions about handling the video and chain of custody, but the obvious being was the video edited (by you or the police after turning it over to them)? Do you have a copy of the original video you turned over to police (is there a difference between the copies, etc...).
As another commented said there is no difference between the video and if you eye-witnessed the suspect entering the home, you would still testify one way or the other (including acknowledging you didn't see the suspect commit the murder and have no knowledge if the suspect committed the murder, its possible someone else could have broke in when you weren't watching, or around back, etc...)
I would like to see the system modified somewhat--in criminal trials everyone has to disclose what they are going to present anyway. The other side should be required to indicate if and in what way they are going to challenge the evidence. If there's no dispute about where the camera is then nobody need be available to testify to where it is. (As it's cloud there's no issue of when.)
Well interestingly this is a major issue in red light camera cases. Initially as cities were implementing red light cameras, the ticket and court case were all essentially automated.
In many jurisdictions this was challenged on multiple grounds, but one of the biggest issues (which most courts tending to agree with) is violation of the defendants rights to cross examine the State's witness and improperly introducing the video into evidence (generally it was introduced by affidavit from some record keeper in the camera company).
Its really a fundamental rights issue.
On the other hand, if the camera doesn't show everything the camera software is in effect testifying--and it comes down to if there are any flaws in the software. The government does not have a good track record on this--breathalyzers inherently are relying on the software and the manufacturers won't permit examination (discovery refused, there goes the DUI case)--so in some places it's been declared unquestionable.
(Never mind that the breathalyzer inherently has a considerable error margin due to biology--the ratio between blood alcohol and breath alcohol varies from person to person. Quick screening test, fine, evidence for conviction--not in my book.)