Went to trial today...

[Damion]

KThunder wrote:

-D- wrote:
...
Sure, if you plead guilty at your arraignment, that's true. The notes, and your plea, are sufficient for conviction. Trial is a little different, and something to remember is that you are supposed to be _innocent_ until (if) the judge decides that the testimony against you is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Officer notes cannot testify against you, only the officer himself can. That's why, technically, the Prosecuting attorney has to ask permission for the officer to reflect back on his notes, once, before testifying. (I.e, he cannot testify directly from his notes.) If he can't remember anything regarding the circumstances of your ticket (in this case, even the simplest of details), well, there shouldn't be much for the judge to go on for conviction, especially if your defense is solid.

so a police officer who pulls say only 10 cars a day is supposed to remember the details of just one that happened weeks before. i would say that anyone who went to court would get off because i doubt anyone could reasonably expected to do that.

Not necessarily. After reviewing the notes, the officer's general testimony along with his experience and training should generally be enough, especially if the defendant's testimony is of the "I swear I didn't do it" type, which many are.

and how exactly is your defence solid does your speedometer have a printout? or a camera with date and time code stamped on it? how exactly are you defending yourslf "yes your honor i realize the radar said i was going 78 in a 55 but it is wrong i remember clearly that i was going 54.7742 mph"

LOL. Here's a refresher from my initial post:

I then presented my case, consisting of tons of photos indicating that the prosecution's story was physically impossible. (Like an officer making a visual estimate of speed, operating the radar equipment, and my vehicle slowing from 26 mph to 0 in the span of a few car lengths. Or that radar cannot reliably return accurate data through metal fences, cars, and buildings.)

I'll post a photo or two later. In addition, the officer responding "I can't recall" to questions like "you just testified "x", however, wasn't it actually "y" is considered good defense. He admitted *more than once* that he wasn't sure his own testimony was accurate.

The fact is, officer notes alone cannot legally convict you at trial. (Once again, that's why a case will be dismissed in the event the officer doesn't show up.) Only his testimony as a trained witness can. I also agree that most times, an officer's observation *is* accurate. No reason to act like a pr!ck because you don't want to agree with that.

[Damion]

@PMC and miles

LOL! :pint:


OK.

This was the view from the officer's position. I was traveling towards him. This one I submitted as evidence (it wasn't really contested). Keep in mind, he admitted that a clear, unobstructed target is necessary for radar to return reliable data. There are roughly a few car lengths distance from where I would have been a "clear, unobstructed" target, to the intersection. In this amount of space, he made a reliable visual estimation of speed, operated his radar, and I slowed to a stop from 26 MPH. :lol:  




Another one... the arrow points to the officer's position. Notice the location of the fence.




An aerial view. I'm the yellow car... the arrow indicates my lane position and direction of travel. The red "x" is the officer's position. I highlighted the fence with a black line.




And just for kicks, my car. The officer had no problem identifying who was in this vehicle he stopped, yet couldn't recall *anything* about the vehicle, or much of anything else.





Anyhow, it's "spilled milk" at this point. I generally respect law enforcement... it's a job I wouldn't want, that's for sure. However, they're not super-humans incapable of making mistakes.

Guilty or not, I'll probably fight the next one too (hopefully no time soon)... might as well make them work for it if they're just going to take it irregardless, LOL.