Evidence

[GabrielaSweetheart]

Just curious to what degree a provider could lose a case if pushed to trial for conviction of prostitution if there was no audio or video as evidence. Just the laws word against theirs. Is there any other evidence they could use that would give the judge beyond reasonable doubt the provider is guilty of prostitution? Pm fore more details if you have experience or knowledge of what to do. Cause I don't understand why they'd set up a sting without audio or video.

[19Trees]

Introduction of video evidence is fairly new when viewed in context of 200 years of jurisprudence. Its presence or absence does not (usually, but it could) make or break a case. Decisions (made by judges or juries) are supposed to be made by the "totality of the evidence," which includes witness testimony, depositions, physical and scientific evidence.

Without damming video/audio, State (depending on other evidence available, or not) more likely to accept a plea so as to avoid the possibility of going to trial and losing.

19Trees

[jframe2]

....
- Defendant does not accept (or is not offered) a plea and goes to trial, specifically a jury trial, the witnesses are the Undercover cop (UC) and the backup team. No audio or video evidence.

A jury from a more metropolitan area can see this case as a waste of time when there are more serious crimes in their community and find a not guilty.

Almost, almost always a trial before a Judge will result in a Guilty for various reasons; knows the criminal history of the defendant, knows how hard the UC unit works, personal problem with prostitution, etc.

So the bottom line really is that there is no sure answer to this question. It depends on a types of variables; trial before a Jury or Judge; skill of the UC unit at testifying, personal attitudes of a judge, on and on.

The one thing a defendant can control is the ability/preparation to hire the best (which equals more expensive defense attorney) that they can afford.

Now on with the day....

Originally Posted by 19Trees

Introduction of video evidence is fairly new when viewed in context of 200 years of jurisprudence. Its presence or absence does not (usually, but it could) make or break a case. Decisions (made by judges or juries) are supposed to be made by the "totality of the evidence," which includes witness testimony, depositions, physical and scientific evidence.

Without damming video/audio, State (depending on other evidence available, or not) more likely to accept a plea so as to avoid the possibility of going to trial and losing.

19Trees

[Joe Buck]

The one thing a defendant can control is the ability/preparation to hire the best (which equals more expensive defense attorney) that they can afford.

Now on with the day....[/QUOTE]


Ditto...........find and hire the best attorney you can! It will cost you some money but will be well worth it.

[ck1942]

Put it this way.

If you get a jury trial, and if the LE witnesses are credible, doesn't matter if the actual elements of the crime happened (offer of sex for money or money for sex, especially even if only the cops made the offer!), if there is no doubt that the defendant was actually physically present and arrest on premises was made, most jurors will usually believe the cops.

Put it another way: defendant decides to fight it out in court. It's a misdemeanor, for crying out loud, but if defendant pushes on and the prosecution decides to "make an example" and defendant doesn't have top quality representation...

...Defendant is on the very short end of a very long stick. Especially financially. Don't even think court-appointed attorney options.

Quality representation can usually stretch out pre-trial and either get a case dismissed or gain a deferred adjudication plea which works for the defendant.

Best of luck!