REAL Court Experiences

[SmaartAasSaabr]

Wins:
Suf Daddy - New Hampshire - ProLaser III
Scoutwon - Massachusetts
Jane Hughes in MA with a LIDAR
anjapower - New Hampshire - 81 in a 55

Losses:
cantstandtheman 's LIDAR case in Wenatche, WA - February 2006
awesometbn - GA ProLaser III
ftothe3 - 80 in 65 VT laser

[Suf Daddy]

You can add to that a Clerk Magistrate, Equipment issue that I OwN3d a few days ago....

SP: "but he's got a long record.........."

Defendant: " how long?"

SP: L O N G ....................

CM: Not Responsible.

-Suf Daddy

[Suf Daddy]

You can also add the MA girl in the LIDAR ticket as a sticky in this section.

RapidTransit (MA) got out of his radar ticket............ Good job.

-Suf Daddy

[SmaartAasSaabr]

[Lucky225]

Went to court yesterday for "Careless and Prohibited" driving. Here' thetranscript as best as I can remember.

DA: "The prosecution calls Officer Tony Saylors to the stand"

Tony(while reading from the back of his citation): "On April 12th, 2006 at about 4:30 PM..."

ME: Objection your honor, the witness is clearly reading from a writing, and he has not laid the proper foundation for the use of a writing. He has not testified as to whether he needs to refer to his notes to refresh his recollection. In any event, I have the right to inspect any writing the witness will use and I ask the court to instruct the witness to show me the writing while he lays the proper foundation.

Judge: Does he need this writing to refresh his recollection?

Prosecution: Yes, your honor

Judge: Officer Saylor, please show mr. morgan what your notes, and lay the proper foundation for the use of them.

Tony(after reading the notes in it's entirety during my objection, while the judge and DA were talking): Your honor I won't need my notes, I'll continue to testify with out them.

Tony: As I was leaving Riverside cafe, I saw a green S-10 driving at a high rate of speed northbound on highway 67 N, which I visually estimated to be about 50 miles per hour. I proceeded to follow this vehicle northbound on highway 67 N. He turned on Geniva Street, and spun his tires as he was making the turn. Genevia is a 20 mile per hour street, and I visually estimated him at driving about 30 miles per hour on this street. I continued to follow him across Genevia where Genevia turns into Dalton, and he then turned again to enter his residence and spun his tires on the gravel.

DA: What happened when you got to his residence?

Tony: He got out of his vehicle, and went up his steps and was attempting to enter his residence. I called him down from his steps to talk to me.

DA: How did the conversation go?

Tony: Well, I told him I was concerned because I saw him speeding back there and that he had spun his tires coming around the intersection. And he told me I have no evidence of that as I didn't clock him on radar.

DA: You then issued him a citation for Careless and Prohibited driving?

Tony: Correct

DA: No further questions, pass the witness

Judge: CROSS

ME: Isn't it true there was an abudance of gravel at the location where the alleged violation occured?

Tony: I don't know about an abudance.

Me: There was a fair amount of gravel on the road wasn't there?

Tony: Yes.

Me: Isn't it true that a person driving of reasonable judgement over that amount of gravel in the street may spin his tires if he was unaware of the gravel on the road?

Tony: Well, I didn't spin my tires.

Me: I didn't ask if you spun your tires, I asked if a person driving with reasonabe judgement over that amount of gravel in the street might spin his tires if he was unaware there was gravel there.

Tony: It's possible.

ME: Would you consider such a person to be careless?

Tony: Yes

me: Where were you located when you first saw my vehicle?

Tony: Riverside Cafe, I was just coming out of it and heading northbound, you were in front of me.

me: In which lane were you traveling?

Tony: There's only one lane there

Me: Is there any reason you decided to follow me?

Tony: Yes.

Me: And what might that reason be?

Tony: I visually estimated you to be going about 20 miles over the speed limit.

Me: Isn't it true that you followed me all the way to my residence, some 1 and a half miles away?

Tony: I don't know if that's the distance, but yes.

Me: Isn't it true that you never once turned your lights or siren on to stop me, but instead asked to talk to me as I was attempting to enter my residence?

Tony: Yes.

Me: So you've testified that you saw me speeding, and spinning my tires around intersections, yet you never made any attempt to pull me over, but instead followed me to my residence. Is there any reason you decided to let me drive in such a manner, endangering life and property, when you could have easily pulled me over to stop me from endangering the safety of others?

Tony: I was just observing you.

Me: Officer, on my citation here, you check that I was not wearing my seat belt, How could you possibly have any knowledge of whether or not I was wearing my seatbelt if you never pulled me over to inspect for such a violation?

DA: Objection, your honor, this has no relevance to the charge, and is simply not an element that needs to be proved or disproved.

Judge: What's your reason for asking about the seatbelt?

ME: Your honor, in the state of arkansas there is a $10 fine reduction for drivers who wear their seat belt. I am a law-abiding citizen, and I always wear my seat belt.

Judge: objection overruled, I'm going to allow it as this will determine punishment in a sentencing.

Tony: Well, I had no idea weather or not you were wearing your seat belt since I couldn't aproach your vehicle to inspect.

Me: That's my question, why did you mark I wasn't, if you simply didn't know either way?

Tony: I had no evidence you were wearing it.

Me: Do you consider yourself to have fairly well developed powers of observation and memory for details concerning weather and road conditions?

Tony: I don't understand the question, if he's asking if I remember the weather that day, I don't.

Me: That wasn't the question, but I'll move on, I think you've pretty much answered that question. Was there any other traffic on the road when you began to follow me?

Tony: I don't know, I wasn't paying attention.

me: Officer, is this your signature on this citation?

Tony: Yes.

me: The location on this citation says Oak Street, is that where you're alleging this violation took place?

Tony: Yes, you spun your tires at Oak & Dunn.

Me: When you began following me were heading northbound on Highway 67 N correct?

Tony: Yes

me: You then turned left on Geniva Drive over there by the community center and continued following me across Marr Street where Geniva turns into E Dalton, Correct?

Tony: Yes

Me: Officer, you're aware that you're sworn in under testimony and that perjury is a crime?

Tony: Yes

Me: Officer, after you began following me straight on E. Dalton you turned right on dunn and continued to follow me into my apartments correct?

Tony: Yes

Me: So given the route we took to get to my residence, how could I have possibly spun my tires on Oak Street?

Judge: I'm not going to take the location into account, that's just to give general area where you were stopped.

Me: Your honor, this is an element of the case, he has just testified to me spinning my tires at that location, which is impossible for me to do if I was never at that location.

Judge: I don't find the location relevant.

Me: No further questions

DA: Your honor, I'd like to amend this charge to a lesser charge of Careless and Inattentive driving.

Judge: Do you have any objections to that Mr. Morgan?

Me: No objections, but I still maintain my plea of not guilty to either charge.

Judge: Anything further, do you wish to testify or call any witnesses?

Me: No your honor, I do have closing arguments though.

Judge: We'll get to that in a second, anything further prosecuter?

DA: No your honor.

Judge: Closing

Me: The defendant maintains he did not commit the alleged offense, and never lost controll of the vehicle or drove in a manner that was careless or prohibited, or inattentive. The prosecution has failed to prove it's allegation. The officer followed me for over a mile and a half to my residence an made no attempt to pull me over or make a traffic stop in any way, and was intent on writing me a citation before an offense had even occurred. The officer testifies that the alleged violation occured on a street that wasn't even traveled by the defendant at the time of the alleged violation. The officer further testifies that the reason he was following me was speeding, however he followed me for over a mile, I find it hard to believe that an officer would allow a person to drive in such a manner, endangering the safety of persons and property, and I believe the officer had no probable cause to follow me, and the stop in it's self was illegal. Defendant deserves the benefit where reasonable doubt has been presented and a verdict of not guilty should be entered.

Judge: Okay, I'm going to have to find you guilty in this instance. The officer did testify you spun your tires on Geniva Drive while he was following you, and that's enough evidence for me. There was however no testimony as to weather or not a seat belt was in use, and there is reasonable doubt as to weather or not you were. I will therefore give you a $10 fine reduction, assuming you were wearing your seat belt. The fine with court costs is $120.

[Suf Daddy]

I was thinking win as I read this. Its this level of courtroom prowese I hope each person can bring to their court case.

I think you did an excellent job, and in the end the other street location was the infraction of spinning tires that swung the case for the prosecution.

Great job though.

-Suf Daddy

[Lucky225]

Yea, I did get the prosecution to amend the charge from the state law to city ordinance which doesn't go on my record, and did get the $10 fine reduction, so it is a bit of a 'win.' The state law is 2 points on the record I believe, it's worse than speeding and caries a $180 fine plus court costs. $120 including court costs and no points on the driving record is good enough for me. I would apeal this normally, but I'm moving out of state, so I'm happy with it.

[Lucky225]

Well I won't post the entire transcript, but here's the jist of yesterday's court case (august 1st). I was found guilty in err, and I can't apeal because I'm moving, which the judge had prior knowledge of which I believed crippled my case. That and the fact I had no sleep again, and was totally unprepared. The prosecution didn't fulfill their discovery request, but instead showed me the documents during a 20 minute rescess, which the judge found 'satisfactory' even though I didn't have time to prepare a defense or verify authenticity of such documents. The cop that pulled me over was not only certified, but a radar instructer.
Upon Cross-Examination I asked if the unit was properly functioning on the day of my arrest and if he had any proof to that. He submitted the Tuning fork daily log. I asked how he identified this as the same document associated with his particular unit, he said he matched the serial numbers, so I aksed what the serial numbers were, which he couldn't answer. I asked if he had placed a mark on it to identify it as the same log sheet he matched the serial numbers up with, he said no. I motioned for dismissal, the judge overruled it claiming his testimony that he matched the serial numbers was proper identification. The prosecution offered the radar unit into evidence as well. I asked if he had calibrated the radar unit and did a run through test immediately before and after my arrest. He testified he did not, and that the tuning fork log was evidence it was calibrated on the day of my arrest. I offered case law showing that this was required, the judge didn't seem to care. He testified there were other vehicles, but they were 1-2 miles away in either direction. I asked if he knew that larger vehicles, though further away, may create a stronger signal than a smaller vehicle closer to him, he testified yes. I asked about harmonic frequencies and if he realized that cb radios can interfere, he testified they could. I put my witness on the stand who testified she glances at my speedometer occasionally and I was going 55miles per hour, and I was not in anyway driving at a speed unreasonable or unsafe. (forgot to ask her about cross traffic, and forgot to request the prosecution play video of the stop which showed heavy traffic, and I even think it said medium traffic on the damn ticket, god I need sleep before I go to these things) Anyways, hanging judge found me guilty. It was entertaining, and I'm getting a new license in another state, and I'll update my insurance company before this ticket hits w/ the new number, so no big deal. But the moral of this story is, if you're gonna fight you better run every possibility through your head and have a well prepared defense. It's not impossible to win, I've won several cases, just a combination of nervousness, no sleep, and unpreparedness that was the thorn in my side today.

[CapeCodPoliceOfficer]

Me: The defendant maintains he did not commit the alleged offense, and never lost controll of the vehicle or drove in a manner that was careless or prohibited, or inattentive. The prosecution has failed to prove it's allegation. The officer followed me for over a mile and a half to my residence an made no attempt to pull me over or make a traffic stop in any way, and was intent on writing me a citation before an offense had even occurred. The officer testifies that the alleged violation occured on a street that wasn't even traveled by the defendant at the time of the alleged violation. The officer further testifies that the reason he was following me was speeding, however he followed me for over a mile, I find it hard to believe that an officer would allow a person to drive in such a manner, endangering the safety of persons and property, and I believe the officer had no probable cause to follow me, and the stop in it's self was illegal. Defendant deserves the benefit where reasonable doubt has been presented and a verdict of not guilty should be entered.

There is a reason you were found guilty, you had no idea what you were talking about. Because he followed you and watched the violations doest mean he has to stop you right away, he did not testify that you were drunk, and even though you were driving irresposibly it wasnt so bad that it was an emergency. Secondly last time I knew you dont need probable cause to drive behind somone in the same direction, that is just silly. How is driving behind or following you a restrction on your 4th amendment right, its not. Are you saying that if I am driving down the street and a xar pulls in front of me I cant drive behind it. An officer can even run your license plate randomly and at anytime he or she wants so that argument is moot. It is so funny funny how people think they are smart enough to actualy go to court and try cases, I personaly live to see it.

[<<JAZZY>>]

:roll: