When Can Georgia Prosecutors Use Surveillance Video Footage as Evidence?

We live in a society where video surveillance is just about everywhere, at least when it comes to public spaces. Many stores maintain such cameras in order to deter potential shoplifting. But can footage from such cameras actually be used as evidence in court?

Georgia Appeals Court Upholds Armed Robbery Conviction

A recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision, Thompson v. State, illustrates how courts examine and admit such evidence. In this case, a loss prevention associate at a department store was using a restroom at the store. While standing at the urinal, another man walked up behind the associate and put a gun to his neck. The man told the associate to give him his keys, wallet, and money.

After handing over the items, the associate then tried to grab the man’s gun. There was a brief struggle, during which time the associate saw the man’s face. The man then got up from the floor and ran out of the bathroom. The associate called the police.

The associate was also in charge of the store’s surveillance cameras. He pulled footage taken from the bathroom during this incident and gave it to the police. The police later identified the defendant as the man who assaulted the store associate. The associate then made an eyewitness identification at trial.

At trial, the prosecution also introduced the surveillance camera footage. The defense objected, arguing the video was not properly authenticated. The trial judge overruled the objection. The jury ultimately found the defendant guilty of aggravated assault and armed robbery.

On appeal, the defendant renewed his objection to the use of the surveillance video. The Court of Appeals, however, saw no legal error and upheld the defendant’s convictions. As the appellate court explained, video footage taken from “unmanned” cameras are only admissible as evidence in a Georgia criminal trial when the judge determines, based on “competent evidence presented to the court,” that the video “tends to reliably show the fact or facts for which it is offered.”

Normally, such unmanned camera footage should contain proper date and time stamps. The footage in this case did not. The Court of Appeals said that did not render the video inadmissible, however, as the store associate provided corroboration of the events on the tape. And in any event, the lack of a date or timestamp went to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. (In other words, the jury could have chosen to discount or ignore the evidence if it wished.)

Contact Hawkins Spizman Trial Lawyers Today

If you are facing criminal charges, it is important to work with an experienced Atlanta theft lawyer who can carefully scrutinize the government’s case against you and advise you on any potential areas of weakness that could benefit you. Call Hawkins Spizman Trial Lawyers today to schedule a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Georgia including Atlanta, Dunwoody, Alpharetta, Cobb County, Fulton County, Gwinnett County, Johns Creek and Sandy Springs.

Source:

efast.gaappeals.us/download?filingId=e938aa7b-0335-484e-8139-102a622630d1