Judge over-rules dismissal motion for lack of discovery...reschedules!!!??

[thedevo]

I went to court this morning for a speeding ticket. I was a little nervous as you have to present your case in front of everyone else who is there for court at that time. When I was called, I started out by motioning for a dismissal because the officer didn't send me all the items I had asked for in my discovery request.

When I motioned that, the judge went down the list of items on a copy of the letter I had sent to the officer. We got to "service and repair record" of the LIDAR equipment, and the officer said he didn't have that and that the Sheriff's office had no such record, and also that he didn't write the letter that was sent to me (he has secretaries write for him, even though it has his name on it). I then replyed with "you're saying the Sheriff's office keeps absolutely NO records of the vital equipment that they use?" and the judge looks at the officer with an annoyed, dumbfounded look, puzzled why that is too. The officer continues to mumble and fidget, getting flustered, then turns to his partner in the back of the room and yells at him to call the office and see if they had the records.... 5 minutes later, his partner comes back in the room and said the secretary wasn't informed of my trial date and didn't send the paperwork.

The judge then said they will have to send the items to me if they are available and that he was going to reschedule my trial so I have time to get the evidence. I then told the judge that I don't renounce my right to a speedy trial and that I was not responsible for the Sheriff's department screwing up and not sending me the items before the trial and that the case should be dismissed... I then said something like "is dismissal not an option at this time?" and the judge replied "It is an option, but im not going to grant it."

So the judge is rescheduling another trial for me, giving the officer and the Sheriff's department a free pass and a do-over to get organized.

Shouldn't the judge be compelled to dismiss in this scenario? I followed through on my end, but the Sheriff's office didn't, and yet they are given a break at the expense of me.......BSBSBSBSBSBSBS!

[Lucky225]

Originally Posted by thedevo

I went to court this morning for a speeding ticket. I was a little nervous as you have to present your case in front of everyone else who is there for court at that time. When I was called, I started out by motioning for a dismissal because the officer didn't send me all the items I had asked for in my discovery request.

When I motioned that, the judge went down the list of items on a copy of the letter I had sent to the officer. We got to "service and repair record" of the LIDAR equipment, and the officer said he didn't have that and that the Sheriff's office had no such record, and also that he didn't write the letter that was sent to me (he has secretaries write for him, even though it has his name on it). I then replyed with "you're saying the Sheriff's office keeps absolutely NO records of the vital equipment that they use?" and the judge looks at the officer with an annoyed, dumbfounded look, puzzled why that is too. The officer continues to mumble and fidget, getting flustered, then turns to his partner in the back of the room and yells at him to call the office and see if they had the records.... 5 minutes later, his partner comes back in the room and said the secretary wasn't informed of my trial date and didn't send the paperwork.

The judge then said they will have to send the items to me if they are available and that he was going to reschedule my trial so I have time to get the evidence. I then told the judge that I don't renounce my right to a speedy trial and that I was not responsible for the Sheriff's department screwing up and not sending me the items before the trial and that the case should be dismissed... I then said something like "is dismissal not an option at this time?" and the judge replied "It is an option, but im not going to grant it."

So the judge is rescheduling another trial for me, giving the officer and the Sheriff's department a free pass and a do-over to get organized.

Shouldn't the judge be compelled to dismiss in this scenario? I followed through on my end, but the Sheriff's office didn't, and yet they are given a break at the expense of me.......BSBSBSBSBSBSBS!

These things happen, just play by the rules, you saw how annoyed the judge was with the officer to begin with. Don't try to piss the judge off, he's the one who pronounces your judgement. He rescheduled the trial date to give time for discovery, lets see what discovery you get before trial. There are tons of other defenses besides lack of discovery, play your cards right.

[FoolishOne]

As Lucky stated in the other thread, the judge not granting a dismissal was always fair game. Bad-luck of the draw I guess. There's still a good chance they could forget something the next time. Cross your fingers.

Did you try and catch them off guard? I guess it kinda worked....

[Azonehits]

Originally Posted by thedevo

Shouldn't the judge be compelled to dismiss in this scenario? I followed through on my end, but the Sheriff's office didn't, and yet they are given a break at the expense of me.......BSBSBSBSBSBSBS!

The judge is doing his part and don't be upset about it. One thing, have you pleaded your case if guilty or not guilty? The judge cannot proceed until you pleaded your case. Like I stated in the other post, you always get a second date for presentation of evidence. Have you also determined the amount for the court cost in your area? Court cost in my area is almost the same as a speeding ticket guilty or not guilty. Kind of revenue making policy.

[Z1NONLY]

You are being penalized for the states incompetence.

This is just one of the many things the right to a speedy trial is supposed to protect us from.

The judge got it wrong.

[duhtroll]

This certainly falls within the judge's rights.

I expect you will receive stellar, amazingly detailed records of the service on their equipment.

And I bet the ink isn't even dry.

Plan on them not giving you anything you can use. Check your other options.

[Z1NONLY]

Originally Posted by duhtroll

This certainly falls within the judge's rights.

Within the judge’s power, maybe, but no judge has the right to deny any person his or her rights.

We have the right to a speedy trial. The state does not have the right to a second trial date just so it can get its $hit together.

The state's failure to uphold its responsibilities is not the defendant’s problem.

(At least, not when the defendant's rights are honored.)

[duhtroll]

I agree with you and would rule that way too. However, if it was really a clerical error and you were on the short end and needed more time, would you be complaining that you had been ruled against if he had not granted the continuance to fix it?

This goes both ways.

And, there's always appeal...

Originally Posted by Z1NONLY

Within the judge’s power, maybe, but no judge has the right to deny any person his or her rights.

We have the right to a speedy trial. The state does not have the right to a second trial date just so it can get its $hit together.

The state's failure to uphold its responsibilities is not the defendant’s problem.

(At least, not when the defendant's rights are honored.)

[Z1NONLY]

Originally Posted by duhtroll

I agree with you and would rule that way too. However, if it was really a clerical error and you were on the short end and needed more time, would you be complaining that you had been ruled against if he had not granted the continuance to fix it?

This goes both ways.

And, there's always appeal...

That's the problem. It doesn't go both ways. Individuals have rights to protect them from the state. The state has many, many advantages in court, not the least of which is the presumption of honesty in the absence of hard evidence.

Individuals' right to a speedy trial should not be trumped by the state's wish to have a second bite at the apple, when they fail to have their $hit together the first go-round.

What if the state simply ignored the defendant’s request for the info in the first place? I mean if they fail to hand it over, the defendant will be at a disadvantage and make prosecution easier for them if he fails to protest, or his protest is overruled.


Why not ignore defendant’s requests for info in the future? This judge has just demonstrated that, at least in his courtroom, the worst that can happen to the state is that the officer gets to take another day in court with full pay.

(And force the defendant to miss yet another day of work.)

These rulings simply encourage bad behavior by the state. An immediate dismissal would, however, deter such tactics and the state might be more responsive to defendant's request in the future.

[duhtroll]

I'm not saying how things should be in all situations. I am saying how they are. The judge likely felt that an error most likely made by someone not involved in the case should not affect the case.

I don't see the problem -- beyond the fact that were I in your situation I would want the same ruling as you do. If positions were reversed, you'd be asking for the extension.

Saying "the little guy always gets screwed" isn't true. The little guy is just *almost* always the one that gets screwed.

In short, you don't get to decide what the judge's motivations are - only he can do that. Perhaps he is cheating, perhaps not. Either way, use the appeals process.

EDIT: I should add that you seem to be assuming that the error was made with all malice in order to manipulate the system.

Another edit: I should also add that "right to a speedy trial" if left undefined as to a specific time line, is the judge's discretion. If there is not set limit then the judge can do as he pleases.

Yes, it sucks.

Originally Posted by Z1NONLY

That's the problem. It doesn't go both ways. Individuals have rights to protect them from the state. The state has many, many advantages in court, not the least of which is the presumption of honesty in the absence of hard evidence.

Individuals' right to a speedy trial should not be trumped by the state's wish to have a second bite at the apple, when they fail to have their $hit together the first go-round.

What if the state simply ignored the defendant’s request for the info in the first place? I mean if they fail to hand it over, the defendant will be at a disadvantage and make prosecution easier for them if he fails to protest, or his protest is overruled.


Why not ignore defendant’s requests for info in the future? This judge has just demonstrated that, at least in his courtroom, the worst that can happen to the state is that the officer gets to take another day in court with full pay.

(And force the defendant to miss yet another day of work.)

These rulings simply encourage bad behavior by the state. An immediate dismissal would, however, deter such tactics and the state might be more responsive to defendant's request in the future.