Security camera images, even if initially appearing unclear, may be sufficient for jury identification where the jury has the opportunity to view them repeatedly and compare them with the accused in the dock and other footage. Supporting forensic evidence (DNA, fingerprints, phone records) may properly corroborate such identification even where insufficient independently to prove guilt. A plea of guilty discount can adequately explain sentencing disparity between co-offenders for parity purposes.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.