I would even go a step further and say that cops’ testimony should not even be accepted if they don’t have bodycam footage to back it up. When you have a camera that’s able to verify anything you need it to, the absence of that verification should be viewed through the lens that you specifically did not want whatever was happening during that time to be recorded.
Can you say: “conflict of interest”? We’re at trial, the cop(s) who performed the arrest made a judgement call in the field - of course they’re going to double down. What would it do for the career of a cop on the stand to say “you know, I think we made a mistake that day…”? The fact that the case has gone to trial basically makes the cop’s testimony redundant, what they’re going to say is basically a foregone conclusion, why waste time making them say it again?
I would even go a step further and say that cops’ testimony should not even be accepted if they don’t have bodycam footage to back it up. When you have a camera that’s able to verify anything you need it to, the absence of that verification should be viewed through the lens that you specifically did not want whatever was happening during that time to be recorded.
Can you say: “conflict of interest”? We’re at trial, the cop(s) who performed the arrest made a judgement call in the field - of course they’re going to double down. What would it do for the career of a cop on the stand to say “you know, I think we made a mistake that day…”? The fact that the case has gone to trial basically makes the cop’s testimony redundant, what they’re going to say is basically a foregone conclusion, why waste time making them say it again?