Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Basically I'm writing a story where the leader of a criminal gang, has collateral on all of gang members as insurance on them.
Basically he has videos of each member committing a crime, and has all these videos kept in a secret place, as insurance on all of them.
The main character (a cop), finds out about this macguffin of incriminating videos and wants to find it, and the villains of course want to prevent him from finding it. In the end of the story, the main character finds all the videos, and turns them over to his police associates. The police then use the videos as evidence to make arrests on each member, for each of those crimes in the videos.
However, there is a legal hole in this whole thing. In reality, if a crime is recorded on video, the court cannot accept the video as evidence, unless the person who made it, is willing to testify to it.
And in this case, a bunch of collateral videos were found, and the person who made them (the gang leader), would not be willing to testify to this of course. Even if they subpoena him to, he will 'take the fifth', so to speak.
So in my story, I want to bend reality a bit and have the court accept the videos as evidence to charge the gang members with the crimes on the videos, but without the person who made them needing to testify.
I've seen this law bent in some fictional stories before like in the movie Enemy of the State (1998), and season 5 of 24.
However, to what extent would the reader be willing to bend this law to accept the story, or would most readers not even be aware of the law and would not let it bother them, when they read the story.
1) some people won't know about the law and will take it as you lay it out.
2) some people willingly suspend their disbelief, in order to enjoy the story.
2) some people will nit-pick every fine detail.
You could make them all happy by having the videos created by a character who is willing to testify; perhaps the videos were stolen from the videographer, or the mob boss had some hold over the videographer to keep him/her quiet. Or maybe a character lies and claims credit for creating the videos, just to see the villains brought to justice.
Yeah maybe one of the gang members helped shoot the videos while hidden and the police can cut a deal with him to turn on the others, or something.
Actually I saw a movie a while ago (can't remember what it was), but in it, the villains believe that if you ask an undercover cop, if he is actually a cop, the cop legally has to say yes, and that is how you spot an undercover cop.
But this was just made up for the movie, and cops in real life do not have to answer that question with a yes while undercover. That's just an example, but it's how the writer bent the law for dramatic license, and fans were probably okay with it.
Watch "Wonder Woman" or "Superman" and re-ask your question. Most audiences are not interested in reality, most readers - except us weirdos who like historical accuracy - aren't interested either.
As for how the legal system actually works? The police know, those involved with the courts generally know, and the smarter criminals know. The general public might know bits and pieces, but otherwise haven't a clue.
Yep, I asked law enforcement officers for research and they said that a video of a crime is inadmissible in court unless the person who made the video can testify to it.
But for my story, I want an ending where the person who the cops arrest the villains for their crimes, regardless of the person who made the videos not being available or willing to testify, if that's acceptable.
There's a crime film out now that was viewed 11 million times in the first three days of its release. It centers on a cop and his partner, who is an orc.
So, no, I don't think audiences would get all hung up on the complexities of the admissibility of video evidence.
Okay thanks, it's just some readers who give me feedback get real jumpy on legal technicalities. Like for example, one reader said that it was a plot hole in my story as to why the police do not get a new arrest warrant every time the villain (who is on the run) changes locations, cause legally every time a suspect you want to arrest changes locations you have to apply for a new warrant with the new location on the warrant.
But I felt it was kind of ridiculous to have to show the police apply for a warrant each time this happens, and it would slow down the suspense. But I was told it was a plot hole, and the reader couldn't seem to get past it. So I am wondering what is acceptable and unacceptable. I mean I asked the readers if the story I had written so far made sense, so maybe he was looking too hard?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
