Lawyer Opinions Wanted: Traffic Ticket Situation

Any SF lawyers, I'd like your opinions please (non-professional of course, no lawyer-client relationship is established, just conjecture )

I'll try to keep this short. Around the end of April, I recieved a fat speeding ticket while riding my motorcycle. I went to the arraignment and plead not guilty. I had the bench trial set about 2 months out. In the meantime, I had an excessive amount of trouble in contacting the prosecutor of my case; the court clerks said he was the only man that could provide the information I needed (such as my presiding judge, my court case number, etc). 3-4 phone calls and 2-3 messages later, I managed to catch him on my second trip to the court in person. I then tried finding the phone number for the Georgia State Patrol's office where I could arrange to gather evidence, such as the model of radar gun used, calibration records and to find out if a car-mounted video camera was used during the stop, and to see the video in advance. I was constantly given incorrect numbers or non-working numbers. About a week before the trial, I obtained the correct phone number and the answering officer told me it was impossible to see the information in advance since there are so many different units used, that I can see the information when I get to court for my trial. I went downstairs to the clerk, she called the GSP office for me, and they told her the exact same thing.

In this time, probably 20-30 days before trial, I submitted the TicketSlayer documents for common law default.

Trial date comes, I've got a weak defense setup due to a lack of concrete evidence from the officer's agency. I was going to argue the TicketSlayer documents/motions, since by the process the prosecutor fell into default for not answering my affidavits; I was also going to make a verbal motion for dismissal due to an impeded process of Discovery and a lack of a fair trial. I get to see the video at the actual trial and I said something during the stop that would make my case very difficult. So right before my trial is up, the prosecutor pleads down the fine and I eat the ticket. I pay up, I'm done.

It's now over a month later. I get a letter in the mail saying I need to show up to court at the beginning of next month to discuss if my motions should or should not be granted. I call up the court, talk to the court clerk as well as the prosecutor, and their records show me having gone to arraignment, filed my written motions, and the judge requesting my presence in October. Nothing showing my actual trial and it's end. I didn't want to say it at that time, in case I might be able to use this fact to my advantage.

So does this situation lend me any advantage? I have documents of everything except my actual payment from the trial showing I showed up. If I can't find my payment receipt, I'm going to be worried. Do you think that even though I paid up, that if I tell the judge the prosecutor told me my motions were ridiculous and were being dismissed at the trial, that I can still argue the TicketSlayer motions? If so, do you think I can make my verbal motion to dismiss based on the lack of evidence provided to me upon request?

If I can argue these motions, I don't mind showing up again to make a point. If it probably won't happen, or if the fact that I did in fact already go to trial would negate my ability to argue them, then I'll just call up the prosecutor, explain what happened, and have it taken care of. I know he remembers me, as he mentioned he remembered my filing of the motions that he laughed at.

Any opinion?

I Love Lamp!

were you actually speeding when you got the ticket?

Originally Posted by Get Smart

Click to expand...

were you actually speeding when you got the ticket?

A curiously missing detail...


b

Originally Posted by Get Smart

Click to expand...

were you actually speeding when you got the ticket?

Should it really matter? I'd argue it's not relevent to the original question, even though I know I'm going to end up debating that anyways.

Innocence or guilt does not matter; the judicial process was unfair/slanted in one instance and is in error in another. Hence, my question.

Is this your first ticket?


In my experience (lots) no matter how strong of an argument you have the judge and prosecutor are overworked and really dont give a **** whether or not you have a good argument. If you are truly confident you are right in this situation then take it to trial and make sure the cop that wrote you the ticket is there.

I had recently gotten a ticket in a really ******* unethical speedtrap. I thought I was going to get off easy because my friend was really tight with all the cops there. The Sergeant said he was gonna talk to the judge and prosecutor. I expected that I would get called up and everything was going to get dismissed. Wrong. "Just because I had connections I was lucky enough to keep my license". If I took it to trial it all would have been dismissed because the cop who wrote me the ticket (the complaining witness) moved to Florida and it all would have been dropped.

Originally Posted by Ludeykrus

Click to expand...

Should it really matter? I'd argue it's not relevent to the original question, even though I know I'm going to end up debating that anyways.

Innocence or guilt does not matter; the judicial process was unfair/slanted in one instance and is in error in another. Hence, my question.

Well, it does matter. I hope this doesn't come off as snarky or condescending, because I do mean it to be helpful. But you are falling into a trap that often catches pro se litigants -- the belief that the judicial process is a game that can be won by "catching" the other side in an error. Yes, serious procedural irregularities can lead to an acquittal or dismissal of a guilty defendant, because enforcing the integrity of the process is important. But it happens far less than many people believe. Like most complex human endeavors, the legal process is a messy, imprecise, system administered by fallible, and often overworked, human beings (especially at the level you're dealing with). People who work in the system undersand this and are accustomed to seeing the forest for the trees, and the law gives quite a bit of leeway for judges to overlook minor procedural irregularities that do not substantially undermine the integrity of the process. No human system could work any other way, imho.

If there is a real, good-faith dispute about the facts, the state's failure to get its sh*t together and to provide you with information you were seeking likely would redound to your benefit. Most reasonable judges would see those facts as reasons to call any doubts in your favor. However, if there is no good faith dispute and you give the impression that you're just trying to evade the central question of whether or not you committed the infraction in question, the judge is much more likely to treat your motions as BS and take your unwillingness to address the central question as a tacit admission of guilt.

For what it's worth, that's how I would have approached it when I sat as a judge pro tempore in traffic court. If I felt like you'd been making a serious effort to put together a defense based on a good-faith dispute of fact, I would be very sympathetic to your arguments. If I got the impression you didn't really dispute the fact that you were speeding, but instead were using up time and public resources being an obstructionist pain **********, I'd approach your arguments with a lot of skepticism. And if I concluded after trial that you had in fact been speeding and had no reasonable grounds for claiming otherwise, your fine/sentence would probably reflect the fact that I thought you'd been acting like a db.

To put it differently: I, and other people I know (real judges or pro tem) who have presided in traffic court often impose substantially more lenient fines, penalties, etc. for people who are willing to suck it up, admit what they did, and take care of business. Do with that information what you will.

Originally Posted by Ludeykrus

Click to expand...

Should it really matter?

heh.

lawyerdad, that was awesome.

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Click to expand...

Well, it does matter. I hope this doesn't come off as snarky or condescending, because I do mean it to be helpful. But you are falling into a trap that often catches pro se litigants -- the belief that the judicial process is a game that can be won by "catching" the other side in an error. Yes, serious procedural irregularities can lead to an acquittal or dismissal of a guilty defendant, because enforcing the integrity of the process is important. But it happens far less than many people believe. Like most complex human endeavors, the legal process is a messy, imprecise, system administered by fallible, and often overworked, human beings (especially at the level you're dealing with). People who work in the system undersand this and are accustomed to seeing the forest for the trees, and the law gives quite a bit of leeway for judges to overlook minor procedural irregularities that do not substantially undermine the integrity of the process. No human system could work any other way, imho.

If there is a real, good-faith dispute about the facts, the state's failure to get its sh*t together and to provide you with information you were seeking likely would redound to your benefit. Most reasonable judges would see those facts as reasons to call any doubts in your favor. However, if there is no good faith dispute and you give the impression that you're just trying to evade the central question of whether or not you committed the infraction in question, the judge is much more likely to treat your motions as BS and take your unwillingness to address the central question as a tacit admission of guilt.

For what it's worth, that's how I would have approached it when I sat as a judge pro tempore in traffic court. If I felt like you'd been making a serious effort to put together a defense based on a good-faith dispute of fact, I would be very sympathetic to your arguments. If I got the impression you didn't really dispute the fact that you were speeding, but instead were using up time and public resources being an obstructionist pain **********, I'd approach your arguments with a lot of skepticism. And if I concluded after trial that you had in fact been speeding and had no reasonable grounds for claiming otherwise, your fine/sentence would probably reflect the fact that I thought you'd been acting like a db.

To put it differently: I, and other people I know (real judges or pro tem) who have presided in traffic court often impose substantially more lenient fines, penalties, etc. for people who are willing to suck it up, admit what they did, and take care of business. Do with that information what you will.

Then again, the government has the burden of proving that you were committing an infraction. If reasonable minds can differ on whether you were committing an infraction or not, or if you had some other legal justification or defense, I see the fact that the government denied you discovery as a huge problem. Our entire legal system is based on both sides having equal access to relevant information, and the denial of that information by one side to the other should be grounds for dismissal.

Originally Posted by odoreater

Click to expand...

Then again, the government has the burden of proving that you were committing an infraction. If reasonable minds can differ on whether you were committing an infraction or not, or if you had some other legal justification or defense, I see the fact that the government denied you discovery as a huge problem. Our entire legal system is based on both sides having equal access to relevant information, and the denial of that information by one side to the other should be grounds for dismissal.

yeah but if he was going 110 on his crotchrocket, eff him

Originally Posted by odoreater

Click to expand...

Then again, the government has the burden of proving that you were committing an infraction. If reasonable minds can differ on whether you were committing an infraction or not, or if you had some other legal justification or defense, I see the fact that the government denied you discovery as a huge problem. Our entire legal system is based on both sides having equal access to relevant information, and the denial of that information by one side to the other should be grounds for dismissal.

I'm curious why this is a "then again". Aren't we saying the exact same thing (exept that you were more succinct)? That the failure to provide information is a big problem if there's a real factual dispute? In most jurisdictions you'll have a tough time getting terminating sanctions, or even an evidentiary presumption, based on on failure to provide discovery that's not relevant to any disputed issue.

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Click to expand...

I'm curious why this is a "then again". Aren't we saying the exact same thing (exept that you were more succinct)? That the failure to provide information is a big problem if there's a real factual dispute? In most jurisdictions you'll have a tough time getting terminating sanctions, or even an evidentiary presumption, based on on failure to provide discovery that's not relevant to any disputed issue.

Well, to me it's a little more than there being an actual dispute. Like I said, the government has the burden of proving its case. This is an aspect of our criminal law that's very important. So, even if I committed a violation/infraction/crime/whatever, I'd like to know what proof the government has against me before I decide whether I'm going to pursue a defense. I don't think the government should be given a pass just because they can't be bothered to provide a defendant with their proofs, and I think it's a dangerous road to tread on if we start to do that.

Now, I realize that this is just traffic court, and all of these considerations aren't as important as they would be in higher criminal courts (especially when the defendant's freedom might be in question), but it's just some food for thought.

Originally Posted by Tarmac

Click to expand...

yeah but if he was going 110 on his crotchrocket, eff him

Right, but when he pleads "not guilty," he is essentially saying "I didn't do what you are accusing me of, and if you think that I did, then prove it." At that point, he should be given discovery. It's not as if this is some minor technicality ("hey, I should win the case because the deadline for serving discovery was February 10 and I got this on February 11"), it's actually a pretty big deal.

And you can be damn sure that if cases were being dismissed because the state wasn't providing discovery, they would set up some mechanism where it would be very easy to get the discovery. The only reason it's so difficult to get discovery now is because the state knows that they won't be held accountable if they don't provide it.

im going to have lawyerdad defend me when i get into a legal bind one day. hopefully i never will though.

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Click to expand...

I'm curious why this is a "then again". Aren't we saying the exact same thing (exept that you were more succinct)? That the failure to provide information is a big problem if there's a real factual dispute? In most jurisdictions you'll have a tough time getting terminating sanctions, or even an evidentiary presumption, based on on failure to provide discovery that's not relevant to any disputed issue.

I really want to discuss this with you, but would like to have a clear opinion or answer before I start in: Given my circumstances in my initial post (filed written motion, wished to make verbal motion at trial regarding lack of discovery, ended up pleading out at very beginning of trial), do you think that I have a chance of arguing my written motions and letting the judge hear my verbal motion after-the-fact? I am not trying to get out on a technicality, I am angry I was not provided proper evidence to work with in time; that fact along with the video evidence compelled me to plead out (the prosecutor said 'sorry, that's the way it works'). If I still have a chance to discuss both motions even though I never had a chance to bring up the verbal, I would like to if it may behoove me.

Also, do you have any experience or know anything regarding the common law default process, aka the Ticket Slayer process?