SOUTH PACIFIC stage manager arraigned for alleged voyeurism — Page 2

If there's a trial, the video will probably be viewed in camera first by the judge and attorneys. I don't think there are rules of evidence specifically governing this kind of case the way there is with sexual assault and child molestation cases, but generally speaking, if the judge thinks that the probative value of the video is outweighed by its other potential effects - confusion of the issues, delay in the trial, whatever - that evidence can be kept out.

I'm not that up on the rules of evidence or criminal procedure, but I don't think that a description of the video's content can be substituted for the video itself; the rules tend to insist on originals of everything where available. Hopefully they can close the courthouse up somehow to prevent humiliation.

Does anybody know where I can get video like this of Tom Wopat?

---

I know it's wrong, but I wish someone made a video of the MEN of SOUTH PACIFIC, especially one with that uber delicious Charlie Brady :o)

Barbour served 60 days for a far more heinous Crime

And didn't he settle in that case? I don't believe it actually went to a criminal court. He'd have gotten more if he'd gone to court.

---

I agree wholeheartedly with sleeper2. People focus on SM/director confusion before they think about what the jerk is guilty of? Warped.

"If there's a trial, the video will probably be viewed in camera first by the judge and attorneys."

Perhaps, but it would be to determine admissibility. The mere fact it might embarass the victim cannot be taken into account, as a defendant has the right to confront his accuser and ALL evidence against him.

"I don't think there are rules of evidence specifically governing this kind of case the way there is with sexual assault and child molestation cases, but generally speaking, if the judge thinks that the probative value of the video is outweighed by its other potential effects - confusion of the issues, delay in the trial, whatever - that evidence can be kept out."

No. There are very set rules as to when something can be excluded (say, the police illegally obtained the video). Confusion of issues wouldn't allow for exclusion, and certainly a delay in trial has nothing to do with admission of evidence.

However, it is likely that the court would be cleared of spectators, so that only the jury would be viewing the video.

"I'm not that up on the rules of evidence or criminal procedure, but I don't think that a description of the video's content can be substituted for the video itself;"

It can't. And if the jury is not allowed to see the video, then a reference to the existence of one cannot be made. And since that is what the accused is being charged with, the tape is it. Without it there is no case.

"the rules tend to insist on originals of everything where available."

Absolutely. A copy can easily be doctored version of the original. Originals are necessary if possible.

"Hopefully they can close the courthouse up somehow to prevent humiliation."

Won't happen. Trials are a matter of public record. They need to be subjected to public scrutiny. At most the video will only be played to the jury.

People focus on SM/director confusion before they think about what the jerk is guilty of? Warped.

People actually expect everyone to post the exact same response and ignore anything else with respect to the articles and coverage of this case? Warped.

---

I think many of us aren't discussing the case because we don't know the details. There's no public proof on either side. I'd prefer to make a judgment when more information comes.

Matt, I'm so sorry I offended your delicate constitution with my response. I had read the whole thread, but did not find anything that would have precluded my responding in that fashion. I hope you are recovering from the shock my post obviously created for you.