Diddy has been arrested.

the artist said:
www.tmz.com

Cassie's Lawyer Calls Diddy's Claim the Beating Tape Was Doctored BS

Cassie Ventura's lawyer is calling BS on Diddy's claim that the video of him beating her up in a hotel hallway is edited ... and, her attorney says he's sure the footage will be admitted into evidence.
www.tmz.com www.tmz.com
Click to expand...

So why did Puff make that long ass apology video? And before THAT pay her off?

Jay immediately said it was lies and consistently defended himself

full transparency

and weirdoes on here tried to BURY Jay.

I aint trying to hear Puff cop pleas now.
 
kesq said:
On what basis?
Click to expand...

As a defendant I am entitled to review the evidence against me. It has been stated the video has been altered and/or edited and the original destroyed. I am entitled to see the original video so I know in what ways it was changed and altered. Maybe it was edited to make it look worse, who knows? But that is the point. I am absolutely entitled to review the original unaltered video before an edited version is introduced in court against me.

When introducing evidence in court, the proponent of the evidence is responsible for laying a foundation by asking appropriate questions of the person used to enter the evidence indicating the evidence should be admitted. Of course that foundation must be laid prior to the evidence being presented to the jury...one question for certain types of evidence, including videos is "does the video you are holding fairly and accurately depict the events it purports to depict as they happened on that day?" The answer will be 'no'. They will also be asked if the original video had been changed or altered in any way. That answer will be 'yes'. At this point I would ask the court to order the original be produced and when they can't do that I would object to the admission of an edited and altered video without me and my client having the opportunity to view the original.
 
ZuluSam said:
As a defendant I am entitled to review the evidence against me. It has been stated the video has been altered and/or edited and the original destroyed. I am entitled to see the original video so I know in what ways it was changed and altered. Maybe it was edited to make it look worse, who knows? But that is the point. I am absolutely entitled to review the original unaltered video before an edited version is introduced in court against me.

When introducing evidence in court, the proponent of the evidence is responsible for laying a foundation by asking appropriate questions of the person used to enter the evidence indicating the evidence should be admitted. Of course that foundation must be laid prior to the evidence being presented to the jury...one question for certain types of evidence, including videos is "does the video you are holding fairly and accurately depict the events it purports to depict as they happened on that day?" The answer will be 'no'. They will also be asked if the original video had been changed or altered in any way. That answer will be 'yes'. At this point I would ask the court to order the original be produced and when they can't do that I would object to the admission of an edited and altered video without me and my client having the opportunity to view the original.
Click to expand...
That's a nice scenario but it really isn't how it is likely to go down. The Court might order them to play an unaltered version, but I would not bet on it being excluded. When you are a criminal defendant, as a practical matter anything you say or do that hurts you is going to be admitted, with few exceptions. Don't forget that this judge wouldn't even set a bail amount with conditions. Believe me, I wish the system was different. We'll see what happens though.
 
kesq said:
That's a nice scenario but it really isn't how it is likely to go down. The Court might order them to play an unaltered version, but I would not bet on it being excluded. When you are a criminal defendant, as a practical matter anything you say or do that hurts you is going to be admitted, with few exceptions. Don't forget that this judge wouldn't even set a bail amount with conditions. Believe me, I wish the system was different. We'll see what happens though.
Click to expand...
Bail is completely different. Especially in Federal court. You can’t compare the two. Also, you are completely wrong about anything a defendant saying being admitted against you. There is such a thing as the fourth amendment right to be free from unlawful searches of seizures. There’s such a thing as a sixth amendment right to counsel. Why do you think Miranda warnings are read to people? If a confession is Received that violates any of those constitutional protections then that evidence is not admitted in court. The entry of evidence has rules. It’s called the rules of federal evidence.

Where are they going to get the unaltered version if it’s been destroyed?
 
ZuluSam said:
Bail is completely different. Especially in Federal court. You can’t compare the two. Also, you are completely wrong about anything a defendant saying being admitted against you. There is such a thing as the fourth amendment right to be free from unlawful searches of seizures. There’s such a thing as a sixth amendment right to counsel. Why do you think Miranda warnings are read to people? If a confession is Received that violates any of those constitutional protections then that evidence is not admitted in court. The entry of evidence has rules. It’s called the rules of federal evidence.

Where are they going to get the unaltered version if it’s been destroyed?
Click to expand...
This gonna be long, so no offense taken if Colin Powell rules are followed.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I litigate this shit every day. Every. Goddamn. Day. The system is not a vending machine where you put a coin in, and get the result you deserve. There are more exceptions to the 4th amendment and Miranda than you or I could count, and how they are interpreted is within the sole discretion of the judge. That is why I referred to the bail ruling, because if you can't get a fair shake on bail (which Diddy didn't) you can pretty much expect not to win any close calls on any other issues.

As for anything a defendant says being admissible against him, wake up my brother. Those things are called "admissions" and you can bet your ass that every single one will be admitted, unless you have incontrovertable evidence of torture or the statement being outside of Miranda with no exception. Don't take my word for it. Google the shit. Federal rule of evidence 801.

That said, I am glad you are aware that you do have 4th Amendment rights and Miranda rights. The only proper response to any questions from a cop is

"Am I free to leave?"

If the answer is yes, then leave. If not, shut the fuck up, and we don't have to argue about the "admissions" issue.
 
Are-You-Afraid-Of-Clowns.gif
 
kesq said:
This gonna be long, so no offense taken if Colin Powell rules are followed.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I litigate this shit every day. Every. Goddamn. Day. The system is not a vending machine where you put a coin in, and get the result you deserve. There are more exceptions to the 4th amendment and Miranda than you or I could count, and how they are interpreted is within the sole discretion of the judge. That is why I referred to the bail ruling, because if you can't get a fair shake on bail (which Diddy didn't) you can pretty much expect not to win any close calls on any other issues.

As for anything a defendant says being admissible against him, wake up my brother. Those things are called "admissions" and you can bet your ass that every single one will be admitted, unless you have incontrovertable evidence of torture or the statement being outside of Miranda with no exception. Don't take my word for it. Google the shit. Federal rule of evidence 801.

That said, I am glad you are aware that you do have 4th Amendment rights and Miranda rights. The only proper response to any questions from a cop is

"Am I free to leave?"

If the answer is yes, then leave. If not, shut the fuck up, and we don't have to argue about the "admissions" issue.
Click to expand...

I don't take anything you say as being a jerk...but I was licensed by the State Bar of Texas in 1990 and prosecuted my first year practicing (1991) and have been trying cases every since a baby lawyer, including trying federal criminal cases. I am considered a trial lawyer and the essence of being a trial lawyer is the mastery of evidence. I indicated that they had a very good argument for keeping it out; I never said it was automatic. I persist in that assertion, but fully understand there are areas that fall within the court's discretion.

I don't have to google anything....Fed Rule 801 is the rule against hearsay. That is not what we are talking about. The rule we are talking about is the rule of optional completeness at the very least and simply not being able to lay the foundation for the introduction of a video.

It appears the question may be moot, because there are rumblings that the original video is available, and if it is, here are the foundational questions for offering and having a video admitted as evidence:

I don't mean to be a jerk either, but this is basic evidence 101: (I added some comments)

  • "Do you recognize what has been marked for identification as Exhibit A?"

  • "What is it?"

  • "How do you recognize it?"

  • "Is it true and accurate?"

  • "Did you witness the events depicted in the video?" (not necessary if the basis of the foundation is the recording equipment operating properly)

  • "Is this a fair and accurate representation of what you witnessed?" (see above)

  • "Was the video recording made on a device capable of making an accurate recording?"

  • "Have you provided the original video or an unaltered copy of the original video for us today?" (crucial to the admission of the evidence regardless of whether the above offer is based on personal observation confirming that the video accurately depicts the events that were witnessed OR whether the offer is based on the equipment operating correctly as in video of and incident in a hotel next to the elevator)

  • "Is the copy you provided a digital copy of the video for admission as an exhibit in court?"

  • "On what day and time was this video recording made?"

  • "Was the camera functioning properly at the time of the recording?"

  • "Have any parts of the video been deleted or altered?" (again, crucial to laying a proper foundation)

  • "Is this video relevant to the issues in this case?"

As you can see, there are questions that will have to be answered in a way that the sponsor of the evidence can't lay a proper foundation if the original is in fact missing.

If I was arguing for the government, then I would argue that we provided what we had, and since we were not responsible for lost original, then we had no control over that and therefor the evidence should be admitted.

The defense should then come back with the rule of optional completeness....I am sure you know what that is.

At any rate, in my humble opinion, it would be ineffective assistance of counsel to not make the objection and back it up with caselaw....because I can guarantee case law on the issue exists.
 
ZuluSam said:
I don't take anything you say as being a jerk...but I was licensed by the State Bar of Texas in 1990 and prosecuted my first year practicing (1991) and have been trying cases every since a baby lawyer, including trying federal criminal cases. I am considered a trial lawyer and the essence of being a trial lawyer is the mastery of evidence. I indicated that they had a very good argument for keeping it out; I never said it was automatic. I persist in that assertion, but fully understand there are areas that fall within the court's discretion.

I don't have to google anything....Fed Rule 801 is the rule against hearsay. That is not what we are talking about. The rule we are talking about is the rule of optional completeness at the very least and simply not being able to lay the foundation for the introduction of a video.

It appears the question may be moot, because there are rumblings that the original video is available, and if it is, here are the foundational questions for offering and having a video admitted as evidence:

I don't mean to be a jerk either, but this is basic evidence 101: (I added some comments)

  • "Do you recognize what has been marked for identification as Exhibit A?"

  • "What is it?"

  • "How do you recognize it?"

  • "Is it true and accurate?"

  • "Did you witness the events depicted in the video?" (not necessary if the basis of the foundation is the recording equipment operating properly)

  • "Is this a fair and accurate representation of what you witnessed?" (see above)

  • "Was the video recording made on a device capable of making an accurate recording?"

  • "Have you provided the original video or an unaltered copy of the original video for us today?" (crucial to the admission of the evidence regardless of whether the above offer is based on personal observation confirming that the video accurately depicts the events that were witnessed OR whether the offer is based on the equipment operating correctly as in video of and incident in a hotel next to the elevator)

  • "Is the copy you provided a digital copy of the video for admission as an exhibit in court?"

  • "On what day and time was this video recording made?"

  • "Was the camera functioning properly at the time of the recording?"

  • "Have any parts of the video been deleted or altered?" (again, crucial to laying a proper foundation)

  • "Is this video relevant to the issues in this case?"

As you can see, there are questions that will have to be answered in a way that the sponsor of the evidence can't lay a proper foundation if the original is in fact missing.

If I was arguing for the government, then I would argue that we provided what we had, and since we were not responsible for lost original, then we had no control over that and therefor the evidence should be admitted.

The defense should then come back with the rule of optional completeness....I am sure you know what that is.

At any rate, in my humble opinion, it would be ineffective assistance of counsel to not make the objection and back it up with caselaw....because I can guarantee case law on the issue exists.
Click to expand...
Are you currently practicing law?
 
kesq said:
Are you currently practicing law?
Click to expand...
Yes. I am 60 years old. I know that for most people onBGOL that’s old and decrepit, but in the area of law many trial lawyers litigate cases as well into their 70s. I have had my own office for a little over 30 years. I still practice criminal law but probably do about 40% Personal Injury trial.
 
November last year I picked a jury on two counts agg assault with a deadly weapon and one count of agg robbery and one count of tampering with physical evidence. My client was accused of robbing a lady and her two kids in the park with two of his friends and stealing $500. There was video of him and his friends leaving and my client turning around and firing a gun in their direction. It was an interesting trial because it came out in trial that in fact, the robbery was of a girl who was selling them weed. They stole the weed from her. The girls mother literally took her 15-year-old daughter to a park to sell weed.The offer was never less than 30 years to do on an aggravated case and in Texas one must serve at least half your sentence before you’re eligible for parole.

I’m sure you know that at the end of a jury trial the judge ask if either party would like to poll the jury. Of course we knew we were gonna get found guilty because There was a video of him shooting at them. And so after they found him guilty the judge asked if we wanna poll the jury and of course we said yes, which you should do in every case. For the first time in 30 years for someone who tries at least two or three big felony cases a year it mattered. The judge asked the usual question of each juror, “is this your verdict?”? One lady would not answer that it was her verdict after being asked several times. She just sat there. The judge sent them back to continue deliberating. During that time because of the way the evidence came out we told the prosecution if they put 10 on the table, we would take it. They felt like they had no choice and my boy jumped on it.

I currently have a personal injury case for a district judge’s court coordinator’s son. I also represented a district court judge’s bailiff‘s daughter on a drug case that I got dismissed last year. I only say this because COURT staff sees a lot of lawyers come and go and so I feel honored when court staff recommends me or hires me to handle their cases because I know They have a lot of lawyers they can choose from.

I prepare for at least four or five jury trials a year and of those four or five maybe two or three will actually go. I’m in the process of preparing one right now for another knucklehead who was in custody on a agg robbery and evading in a vehicle. I got this clown bail and he got out on bail and while out on bail, he picked up three new agg robberies. They’ve only offered 30 but I got an indication last week they might go with 15 so I’m going to reach out to him this afternoon and see if he’ll take it. If not, I’ll try that shit.
 
Last edited:
I have found employment law to be far more lucrative and less intensive than personal injury law. I’m phasing PI cases out and looking to do more employment and Surrogate work as I semiretire and move out of the US.
 
kesq said:
This gonna be long, so no offense taken if Colin Powell rules are followed.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I litigate this shit every day. Every. Goddamn. Day. The system is not a vending machine where you put a coin in, and get the result you deserve. There are more exceptions to the 4th amendment and Miranda than you or I could count, and how they are interpreted is within the sole discretion of the judge. That is why I referred to the bail ruling, because if you can't get a fair shake on bail (which Diddy didn't) you can pretty much expect not to win any close calls on any other issues.

As for anything a defendant says being admissible against him, wake up my brother. Those things are called "admissions" and you can bet your ass that every single one will be admitted, unless you have incontrovertable evidence of torture or the statement being outside of Miranda with no exception. Don't take my word for it. Google the shit. Federal rule of evidence 801.

That said, I am glad you are aware that you do have 4th Amendment rights and Miranda rights. The only proper response to any questions from a cop is

"Am I free to leave?"

If the answer is yes, then leave. If not, shut the fuck up, and we don't have to argue about the "admissions" issue.
Click to expand...

ZuluSam said:
I don't take anything you say as being a jerk...but I was licensed by the State Bar of Texas in 1990 and prosecuted my first year practicing (1991) and have been trying cases every since a baby lawyer, including trying federal criminal cases. I am considered a trial lawyer and the essence of being a trial lawyer is the mastery of evidence. I indicated that they had a very good argument for keeping it out; I never said it was automatic. I persist in that assertion, but fully understand there are areas that fall within the court's discretion.

I don't have to google anything....Fed Rule 801 is the rule against hearsay. That is not what we are talking about. The rule we are talking about is the rule of optional completeness at the very least and simply not being able to lay the foundation for the introduction of a video.

It appears the question may be moot, because there are rumblings that the original video is available, and if it is, here are the foundational questions for offering and having a video admitted as evidence:

I don't mean to be a jerk either, but this is basic evidence 101: (I added some comments)

  • "Do you recognize what has been marked for identification as Exhibit A?"

  • "What is it?"

  • "How do you recognize it?"

  • "Is it true and accurate?"

  • "Did you witness the events depicted in the video?" (not necessary if the basis of the foundation is the recording equipment operating properly)

  • "Is this a fair and accurate representation of what you witnessed?" (see above)

  • "Was the video recording made on a device capable of making an accurate recording?"

  • "Have you provided the original video or an unaltered copy of the original video for us today?" (crucial to the admission of the evidence regardless of whether the above offer is based on personal observation confirming that the video accurately depicts the events that were witnessed OR whether the offer is based on the equipment operating correctly as in video of and incident in a hotel next to the elevator)

  • "Is the copy you provided a digital copy of the video for admission as an exhibit in court?"

  • "On what day and time was this video recording made?"

  • "Was the camera functioning properly at the time of the recording?"

  • "Have any parts of the video been deleted or altered?" (again, crucial to laying a proper foundation)

  • "Is this video relevant to the issues in this case?"

As you can see, there are questions that will have to be answered in a way that the sponsor of the evidence can't lay a proper foundation if the original is in fact missing.

If I was arguing for the government, then I would argue that we provided what we had, and since we were not responsible for lost original, then we had no control over that and therefor the evidence should be admitted.

The defense should then come back with the rule of optional completeness....I am sure you know what that is.

At any rate, in my humble opinion, it would be ineffective assistance of counsel to not make the objection and back it up with caselaw....because I can guarantee case law on the issue exists.
Click to expand...
Niggas is spittin'. Thanks for the info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top