Went to trial today...

[Damion]

Argh :madashell:

Went to trial today for a bogus speeding ticket that I decided to plead "not guilty" to. I represented myself, and found the whole process pretty interesting. I did very well on the HS debate team years ago, and figured that since this was the "major leagues", I'd have a tough case against me. The reality was that the "case" against me was a complete joke.

I still lost, despite the fact that:

The officer couldn't recall what direction I was traveling (had the street and direction totally wrong, until I refreshed his memory)

Couldn't recall the color of my vehicle

Had no idea what a NHTSA "radar checklist" was

Stated that radar cannot reflect off metal objects

Knew exactly how much time had elapsed between the moment he made a "visual estimate" and radar contact, yet couldn't recall the the street he cited me on or the color of my vehicle

Basically, I got him to say "I can't recall" or "I don't know" to about 10 questions *very important* to proving the prosecution's case.

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.)

On the other hand, during my cross-examination, every question I was asked only made my case look stronger. At one point, the prosecutor wondered aloud if the aerial maps of the area that I submitted were accurate, since I didn't take the photographs myself. She shut right up when I asked whether or not she was qualified to question US government satellite data.

For the sake of space, I'm leaving out most of the details... but the bottom line is that there was *no* witness testimony against me, since the officer couldn't remember anything, and since you can't be prosecuted at a trial by the citation itself, or the officer's notes.

The prosecution's case looked absolutely foolish, the photographic evidence made it look even worse.

Afterwards, the judge, bailiff, and prosecuting attorney all congratulated me on the fantastic job I did defending myself. Yet, I still lost... and that kind of upsets me a little. The judge imposed the *full* amount of the ticket, both he and the prosecutor implying I should have just "taken the deal" of $70 and a conviction. You tell me what a joke that is, in fact, it's objectable on several grounds (two I can think of right off the top of me head).

The really sad part is that almost everyone I know told me I was a "fool" for wanting to stand up for  myself against "a cop" and/or "the system", and that naturally, I would lose. I could understand if my defense was "your honor I swear I wasn't speeding", but I had a solid case, whereas their witness couldn't remember the color of his own underwear. I only fought it because I knew I was right... and had an excellent, well thought out defense, actually dismantling the prosecution's argument, without resorting to a "his word against mine" defense which is a guaranteed loss.

At least I feel great knowing they were the _real_ losers, LOL. Their case would have been laughed at in my piddly HS debate class.

Anyhow, thanks to amiga.org for allowing me to vent and ramble a little. ;-)

[bloodline]

Ok, but did you actually break the speed limit?

[Agafaster]

can you not appeal ?
sounds like your legal system is even worse than ours !

[Damion]

@bloodline

If I *was* guilty, I would have paid the ticket without going to court. It was only $130, with a "bend over and take it" option of $70. So for me, it was just a matter of principle. I figured if they're going to make me pay, I might as well make them work for it. :-)

 

Agafaster wrote:
can you not appeal ?
sounds like your legal system is even worse than ours !

Yeah, I'm looking into it. I'll pretty much need a lawyer if I want to appeal, and that will likely run a few thousand. I may just file a complaint against the judge with the State judicial commission. I have to study up a bit beforehand though (make sure I have proper grounds for a valid complaint/etc). From the research I've done so far, we have at least one judge in this State convicted of DUI back before 1998, that still hasn't served his sentence...

   

[Karlos]

Call me cynical but it seems to me they won't let you win, especially given how weak their position was. If they do, they are opening themselves up to every driver trouncing them in court whenever they issue a ticket...

For the sake of space, I'm leaving out most of the details... but the bottom line is that there was *no* witness testimony against me

I dunno, feel free as far as I'm concerned. It sounds like interesting reading :-D

[bloodline]

-D- wrote:
@bloodline

If I *was* guilty, I would have paid the ticket without going to court. It was only $130, with a "bend over and take it" option of $70. So for me, it was just a matter of principle. I figured if they're going to make me pay, I might as well make them work for it. :-)
   

I don't understand... what exactly do they have to charge you with?

[Damion]

Karlos wrote:
Call me cynical but it seems to me they won't let you win, especially given how weak their position was. If they do, they are opening themselves up to every driver trouncing them in court whenever they issue a ticket...

Perhaps, though it seems most would pay rather than go through the hassle of a trial. My general perception is that the majority of issued tickets are *probably* valid. (There are definitely exceptions.)

Our traffic court works essentially like this:

You're given a ticket for xyz offense

At this point, you can either

A. Pay the ticket by mail ahead of time

B. Show up on the scheduled court date (usually about one month after the ticket date).

If you plead "guilty" in court, the judge will most likely grant you a small break on the fine. Depending on your record, he/she may allow you to take an internet "traffic school" course, which prevents your insurance company from being notified about the ticket.

If you plead "not guilty", you will then speak with a city attorney. His job is to scare you away from setting a trial date, offering the chance of an even further reduced fine, *if* the judge agrees.

(I should mention there is a third option of "nolo contendere", similar to guilty without directly admitting so.)

If you decide to go to trial, they set a date. You show up, wait several hours after your appointment, and the prosecuting attorney (may or may not be the same one) tries one last time to sway you away from trial. In the event you decide to have the trial, the attorney calls the local PD, which then radio the Officer, asking them to go to the courthouse. You then wait some more. (The Officer gets paid extra, so they don't mind. The few I saw casually strolled in, smirking and joking with the prosecuting attorney.)
 
When they're good and ready, it's showtime. The judge can either be very rude or very forgiving, depending on who you get.

For the sake of space, I'm leaving out most of the details... but the bottom line is that there was *no* witness testimony against me

I dunno, feel free as far as I'm concerned. It sounds like interesting reading :-D[/quote]

LOL, I may expand upon things over the weekend, post a few pics or something. I'm going to try and forget about it for a while though... I'm driving my girlfriend nuts, and my co-workers are starting to jokingly refer to me as "Cochran". ("Hey, is that Cochran's car??? Let's pull his *ss over! :lol:)

I don't understand... what exactly do they have to charge you with?

Got me. :-) Technically, speeding, though the "witness" couldn't remember anything. Therefore, the ticket should have been dismissed since there wasn't any witness against me. (Dismissed on grounds of case "lacks foundation")

Basically, they used the Officer's notes as testimony, which isn't exactly legal. Especially in this case, since the Officer indirectly admitted that he didn't know whether or not the notes were accurate.

My only regret is that my closing argument wasn't quite as poignant as I would have liked... I did only a fair job of  summarizing my evidence. But, something tells me it wouldn't have made much difference anyhow.
 
 

[Karlos]

If all else fails, make sure you go out of your way to completely trash them in the press. Make sure every other driver knows about the quality of ticket conviction decisions in "borderline" cases and the fairness of the legal system when it comes to contesting them :-)

[KThunder]

i thought of fighting a ticket once but i was told by a lawyer freind that traffic tickets are a bit different than other cases in many respects.
first the officer is not considered a wittness in most repects. the officer is a law inforcement agent they dont have to remember the color of your vehicle or directions or anything like that, the entirety of the evidence against you is the ticket which has the info of the offence. it can be agued but radar stuff has been standardized for decades and works very well (there is a legal term or it but i dont remeber it) if it has been calibrated and used properly (which the court assumes and is difficult to disprove) it is accepted as correct.
think of it this way if someone stole a computer from a store and there were several witnesses that is different than if an officer caught the thief in the act with cameras, a traffic violater is essentially cuaght in the act.
put it another way he has radar info (which he was trained to use) and you have a strong recollection of a speedometer (most of which are wrong by at least a few mph)

[FluffyMcDeath]

That totally sucks.
In Canada, if you actually show up in court for a ticket you've got better than 70% odds it'll get thrown out, guilty or not. Seems that most of the time the police don't show up for such piddling cases.

Or, at least that's what I hear from people I know who have gone that route.

[Damion]

For those who may have been at least somewhat interested, my apologies for the lack of an update, LOL. :-)

Yesterday, I spoke with a buddy of mine who is a lawyer... and we had quite an interesting conversation about my recent "action" in the courtroom. (This was after he berated me for not allowing him to coach me beforehand.) After relaying the details of the trial, he said the system is often "a crock", he also said "they screwed you", basically affirming my general notions about the whole thing.

Although he thought I presented enough of a defense for a dismissal, he also noted that oftentimes, solid evidence is secondary to finding loopholes in the law. No matter how clear, the judge can (within reason) blow off evidence as he pleases... but he has to uphold the law. (Probably not news to most of you.) As an example, someone here was recently acquitted of DUI, not because he wasn't guilty, but because the police took a blood sample when they technically weren't supposed to. Good thing his lawyer knew that, I guess.

In other words, you kind of have to beat them at their own game.

Apparently, there's little use in filing a complaint, since the State Judicial Commission will likely sit on it for years before doing anything, if they do anything.

An appeal is also unwise, since it will cost me time and money, both in large amounts. (I would absolutely need to retain counsel.)

However... in the event I receive another ticket sometime in the future, he said he would be glad to help out... he said he loves to see people win these types of cases, LOL. He assured me that tickets are beatable.

I don't feel too bad at this point. At least the opportunity for a trial (however screwed) was there, and next time I'll be *very* well prepared, more experienced, and less nervous. Actually, in a sick kind of way, I'm really starting to look forward to my next ticket.

In the near future I'll get one of the photos up that I submitted as evidence. It's quite enlightening. ;-)

@KThunder

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.

@fluffy

Hey Fluffy!!! Nice to see you're still around. Hope all has been well with you. :pint:

[PMC]

A policeman pulls a guy over for speeding and walks up to the window of the culprits car.  As he's reaching for his notebook and remonstrating with the driver, the copper flails away at some bothersome flies

"Damn flies" says the policeman

"Yes, they're a nuisance this time of year.  They're very fond of buzzing round a horse's arse" said the driver.

"Now, sonny I hope you're not comparing an officer of the law to a horses's arse?" answers the policeman, tersely.

"No sir" said the driver, "can't fool them flies though".

[miles]

True story,

A woman in Wellington NZ gets pulled over by the police for speeding.  Officer walks up to her car.  She says to officer, "guess you are going to want me to buy a ticket to the Wellington Policeman's Ball?".  Officer replys "Welington Police don't have balls."  Woman just about pisses herself laughing, cop walks away no ticket issued.  :-D

[KThunder]

-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.
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"

[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.