Natty Shafer Law

Utah lawyer for criminal and immigration cases


1 Comment

Video Evidence Is Invaluable

More and more police cruisers in Utah are equipped with dash cams. Not every city in Utah has them, but almost every Utah Highway Patrol cruiser does. Each city varies a little on when they record. Some record all the time, others only when police officers turn it on, and others turn on automatically when the police sirens or emergency lights are engaged.

For me and my clients, I prefer if the recording is always active. There’s no chance of someone intentionally turning it off or forgetting to turn it on. Cameras that wait until a police officer turns on the emergency lights offer too little too late; a jury or judge can never see what caused the officer to pull someone over. Often a client in a DUI or drug possession type case contends that the police officer was never justified in pulling them over in the first place. People accused of driving under the influence are not often trusted by judges so when they say that they were not speeding or weaving, their testimony is given little credit. Incidentally, dash cams do not always work in the defendant’s favor, and they corroborate what the police officer reported. In those situations, the dash cam is valuable, because there is concrete evidence that everything the police officer is saying is true, and I can push for a defendant to take a plea instead of wasting time or money pursuing the case further.

The quality of the pictures continues to get better. It is likely that most people have seen dash cam footage on news broadcast or news magazines and had difficulty telling what is happening in the video. The low resolution, grainy videos give officers license to describe a video however they want. The officer can say, “It’s difficult to see, but right there, the defendant swerves.” All the judge or jury can see is a couple of taillights moving along the road, and the officer gets the benefit of the doubt.

High resolution videos today are better, and combined with microphones on many officers’ belts, we know exactly how a conversation between a suspect and an officer transpired. Even at night, the better cameras today clearly show the lanes, street signs, and other obstacles. Juries can clearly see that an officer is lying, or at least embellishing. Often an officer uses jargon in their police report. Almost every DUI report mentions a few things: the person smelled strongly of alcohol, they stumbled, they spoke slowly and slurred their speech. While we still can’t smell what the officer smells, the tapes sometimes show a lack of stumbling or drunken speech.


1 Comment

“But I’m Innocent; I Don’t Need a Lawyer”

One of the more frustrating sentiments I encounter is the notion that innocent people do not need a lawyer. I see two major problems with the sentiment. First, the police and the prosecutor do not have special abilities to recognize who is innocent and who is guilty. Second, it presupposes that only guilty people ever get put on trial. Let us take a moment to examine each of these misconceptions.

The first misconception puts a bit too much faith in police and prosecutors to spot and recognize the truth. They are only human. They are also dependent on the process working correctly, despite being overworked and underpaid.

The police, most of the time, do not personally witness crimes and they have to rely on outside witnesses. Sometimes those witnesses are simply wrong, but some also lie to the police. (Many accused people are shocked that the police are unable to see a witness is lying.) Even when the police do personally witness crimes, they are susceptible to errors of perception and judgment. The police then write a report about what they saw and what they were told. Ideally, police reports are descriptive, accurate, and complete. Often the reports are full of jargon, containing the buzzwords they think the prosecutor wants, while leaving many important facts out. A prosecutor then relies on these reports in deciding who and what to charge. In Utah, prosecutors usually do not speak to witnesses, including the police, until it is time for trial or a suppression hearing.

The second misconception is a symptom of the first: it presupposes that prosecutors always know the truth and therefore if someone is on trial, that person is guilty. Most Americans are familiar with the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” but jury surveys suggest people often ignore this central part of our justice system. Despite being told that they must weigh all the evidence, a majority of jurors decide to issue a guilty verdict simply because someone is on trial.

Jurors think that prosecutors only go forward with cases where the prosecutor is absolutely sure the defendant is guilty. Unfortunately, prosecutors do not have that much time to dedicate to individual cases. They spend a little time looking over the case file, and maybe a few minutes speaking to the witnesses, but not much more. And due to the high turnover in many offices, a different prosecutor than the one that initially decided to file charges or who appeared at arraignment may conduct the trial. In such a system, prosecutors have little time to ponder whether a defendant is actually guilty or innocent.

In many ways, people who believe they are innocent are prone to making their cases worse. They do not see the problem with talking to the police and believe they can convince the police of their innocence. If the police have arrested you, they already think you are guilty. Also, there are so many crimes now that it is easy to admit to doing something illegal. You are not going to talk them into believing you are innocent and you may even add new charges. The innocent, most of all, need a lawyer.