How is possible for a case where there is no evidence towards the defendant that he committed the crime, NO CRIME SCENE. NO GUN. NO PROOF. in a he shot or not case for the jury to come to random conclusion or verdict that the defendant was not the shooter but a getaway driver? When there was nobody else involved in the case and after the victim had already switched the version of his story to 7 (SEVEN) completely different versions? Also admitted on the stand the prosecutor showed him pictures and gave him details about the defendant at the beginning of trial. Giving him details including a scar and eye color of the defendant and the color of the car to stick to because the victim was shot at night. There are plenty more details that indicate corruption to a obvious level.
The color difference of the car describe the first versions was comparing black to white, but after the detective spoke to the victim he gave him additional information, instead of questioning him and interrogating him like they do to victims in other cases and how they did the defendant threatening him that they had videos and evidence which they did not have at all. I don't understand how they can give the prosecutors any credibility to their accusations after the victim straight up admitted on the stand that the detective had gave him additional information and showed him pictures of the defendant. Something that is illegal. Finally to top it off the night the victim was shot there was one police report which involved a truck matching his vehicles description in a shooting in the neighborhood where the victims family members are a part of that neighborhoods gang. I am not a lawyer and clearly noticed why our attorney was arguing reasonable doubt, could he have done more?
What's your question? Either way, the answer is to hire an appellate attorney to look into this if he/you have been convicted.
Law Offices of David Shapiro 3555 4th Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 (619) 295-3555
The prosecution is not required to record witness statements. but it is a good idea so the jurors can determine for themselves what was said. In terms of evidence, the jury can believe one witness over several but the evidence must be sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.
Criminal Defense Attorney
The simple answer to you question is, "no", they are not required to record witness or suspect interviews, although it is the best practice.
As to the rest of your statement, what you are describing is a case where you believe that someone, (yourself?) was wrongfully convicted. Under most circumstances, the best way to deal with that kind of a problem is to file an appeal. Ask the trial attorney to file an appeal, (you have 60 days from the day of sentencing) and request representation by Appellate Defenders.
Good luck with your case.