Objectives To assess the effects of BWCs on prosecutorial and court-related charge outcomes across multiple crime types, including domestic violence charges, crimes committed against police officers, and drug/alcohol charges. Methods A cluster-randomized controlled trial with 22 spatiotemporal police units assigned to BWCs and 17 assigned to control conditions. Data from the State Attorney’s Office were used to track convictions, adjudication withheld dispositions, and declined prosecutions for both experimental and control charges. A series of multilevel logistic and negative binomial regression models were used to estimate the effect of BWC footage on charge outcomes. Outcomes BWCs led to a significantly higher proportion of crimes against police officers resulting in convictions or adjudication withheld outcomes, and a significantly higher proportion of domestic violence charges resulting in convictions alone, compared to control charges. However, after the clustering effect was taken into account, only the effect of BWCs on crimes against police officers remained statistically significant. Conclusion These early results suggest that BWCs have significant evidentiary value that varies by crime type. BWCs may be best suited to capture evidence of crimes committed against police officers and potentially in domestic violence offenses as well.

Despite substantial recent developments in body‐worn camera (BWC) research, little is known about the effect of BWC footage on downstream criminal justice actors and agencies. Analyzing both quantitative and qualitative survey responses taken from state prosecutors in Miami‐Dade County (FL) in 2019, this study provides one of the most detailed examinations of prosecutors' experiences with BWC footage to date. Using descriptive analyses, ordinary least squares regressions, and structural equation modeling, we examine how the operational challenges associated with BWC footage affect the degree to which prosecutors use the footage and perceive it to be useful. Our results suggest that poor footage quality and delayed video transfer may limit the utility of BWC footage—and in turn—that lower perceptions of utility may reduce the formal usage of BWC footage in court. These findings differ across case‐processing stages, however, with transfer delay affecting the utility of BWC video for charging decisions and footage quality affecting the utility of BWC video across multiple case processing stages. Implications and policy recommendations based on these results are discussed.