LOS ANGELES, CA – A burglary trial is moving forward here in Los Angeles County Superior Court despite key surveillance footage being withheld from both the victim and the court.
With the defense arguing the edited video could misrepresent the events in question, Judge Christopher W. Dybwad maintained his position of only showing a specific part of the footage, potentially providing misleading information to the victim, said the defense.
Defense Attorney Benjamin Tarzynski motioned under section 356, a California Evidence Code section that addresses the admission of further evidence when only part of a statement is admitted, requiring the admission of the entire statement if it is relevant to the issue.
The witness, a detective, was called to the stand by the defense and questioned about the surveillance tape he played for the victim.
When asked “how much tape was not shown (to the victim),” the detective admitted “several minutes” were not included, noting it was “maybe between several to five minutes.”
The witness also admitted that they did not obtain the entire footage.
Judge Dybwad ruled the discovery hearing was over, so attorney Tarzynski could not be requesting additional evidence to be considered. However, the defense argued it was not trying to “discover” this evidence but rather asking for all the surveillance tape to be played.
This would ensure, the defense argued, the evidence was not solely on the “hearsay of an officer” who played an “edited version” of the surveillance tape.
The defense maintained it was possible the edited version could have been a misrepresentation of what was heard and, without the missing minutes of footage that were omitted, there is still uncertainty of what occurred during the alleged burglary.
When Judge Dybwad asked why he believed the edited tape could be a misrepresentation of the truth, defense counsel Tarzynski stated the “information (was) privileged,” but he would be happy to present that to “court in camera.”
Then, Tarzynski asked the detective if he had seen the entirety of the surveillance footage from the moment of entry to the moment the accused left the property.
The officer testified “none was presented” to them, and after consulting their notes, the witness confirmed they did not inquire about the full tapes.
Without the full video, Tarzynski requested that the victim’s comments, which were based on the edited tapes, should be struck from the record.
Despite the argument from the defense attorney, Judge Dybwad denied motion 356, ruling he disagreed that Tarzynski provided sufficient reason to suggest the edited evidence shown to the victim was misleading, holding it was unnecessary to present the full surveillance footage of the alleged burglary.
