Speeding ticket halp

[Jekyll]

Originally Posted by odoreater

Also, I would be very surprised if he tried to change what the ticket says as far as the speed just because you showed up to court and pled not guilty. That would tarnish his credibility in the eyes of the court.

In the Remarks portion of the citation he wrote that my actual speed was 44.


It seems like a lawyer would be overkill for what is a relatively minor charge. Plus, I already admitted guilt to the officer so I doubt I'd be able to actually win. Of course, if he didn't show and I won by default that would be pretty cool. But I mainly just don't want the points on my license. Is there anyone from Michigan how it works here?

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

I have no idea how you took, from a post that explicitly distinguished between BS arguments and good-faith arguments, that I would be sending the messages to cops and prosecutors that all defenses will be considered BS defenses.

That's just the way it happens to work out in real life. There are a lot of judges out there that handle traffic matters that seem to think that a defendant should be punished more severely for raising a defense than if he just pleads. I'm not sure what kind of defenses you consider legitimate and what kind of defenses you consider BS, but in the real world, there are many judges who consider defenses as BS that I would consider legitimate.

Say, for example, that a defendant was clocked on radar doing 55 in a 35. If I ask for the radar printout and the configuration records of the radar gun, is it a bullshit defense for me to argue for a dismissal if the state doesn't provide them or has misplaced them? Is it a bullshit defense, if they do provide them, for me to argue that the radar was improperly calibrated? There is no issue of perjury because my client has the right not to testify. A lot of municipal court judges will impose heavier fines, longer suspensions, etc. to people who raise these defenses and ask for a trial than for people who just plead out.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by odoreater

That's just the way it happens to work out in real life. There are a lot of judges out there that handle traffic matters that seem to think that a defendant should be punished more severely for raising a defense than if he just pleads. I'm not sure what kind of defenses you consider legitimate and what kind of defenses you consider BS, but in the real world, there are many judges who consider defenses as BS that I would consider legitimate.

Say, for example, that a defendant was clocked on radar doing 55 in a 35. If I ask for the radar printout and the configuration records of the radar gun, is it a bullshit defense for me to argue for a dismissal if the state doesn't provide them or has misplaced them? Is it a bullshit defense, if they do provide them, for me to argue that the radar was improperly calibrated? There is no issue of perjury because my client has the right not to testify. A lot of municipal court judges will impose heavier fines, longer suspensions, etc. to people who raise these defenses and ask for a trial than for people who just plead out.

I would not have a problem with you presenting that argument. But if you truly don't believe that in real life it's possible to distinguish between bad-faith arguments and arguments asserted in good faith even recognizing they may be an "uphill fight", then I think you have to give up on the system altogether.

Of course, people may draw those lines in different places in particular situations. A certain level of inconsistency and even inaccuracy are inevitable in a system administered by imperfect human beings -- which is one reason the rule of lenity is often a good thing to keep in mind. But I don't think the fact that it's possible for a judge to decide the question the wrong way means means it shouldn't be considered a relevant or useful question.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

I would not have a problem with you presenting that argument. But if you truly don't believe that in real life it's possible to distinguish between bad-faith arguments and arguments asserted in good faith even recognizing they may be an "uphill fight", then I think you have to give up on the system altogether.

Of course, people may draw those lines in different places in particular situations. A certain level of inconsistency and even inaccuracy are inevitable in a system administered by imperfect human beings -- which is one reason the rule of lenity is often a good thing to keep in mind. But I don't think the fact that it's possible for a judge to decide the question the wrong way means means it shouldn't be considered a relevant or useful question.

That's true. I suspect that I draw the line in a much different place than many prosecutors or judges draw the line. But sometimes it gets very frustrating because there are many judges out there that just want to move the docket along, make some money for the town where they're sitting, and don't give a **** about even legitimate arguments.

Here's an example. I had a case where my client was trying to get his driver's license renewed in Florida and they tell him he can't renew it because he has charges outstanding in New Jersey. He hires me to figure out and resolve the New Jersey charges. It turns out that the charges are for driving without a license and without registration from about 5 years earlier. My client could not have been driving in NJ five years earlier because he was in Florida at the time. I get payroll records from his employer that he was at work in Florida on the date in question (and on the day before and day after); I get an affidavit from his supervisor that he was on the job site in Florida at the time. We then go to court and I present this to the prosecutor. The police officer comes in and says he can't identify my client as the driver because it was from 5 years ago. They then look at some more reports and discover that the car in question was registered to someone else, not to my client. By this point, it's clear to everyone that my client was not the driver of that car.

So, we go before the judge, explain everything and the prosecutor tells the judge that the charges should be dismissed. The judge agrees. Then he turns to me and says: "why didn't your client show up in court five years ago." I respond: "because he didn't know there were charges against him, he's been in Florida all this time and didn't find out about the charges until he tried to renew his license. Once he found out about it, he retained me and we came to court to answer the charges." What does the judge decide to do? He decides to hit my client with two $100 fines for contempt on both tickets for not showing up to court. Why? Because the city wasted all this time on this case and can't let this guy go without milking him for some money.

That's why I rarely handle traffic cases now (other than DWI) - because I don't want to be a part of a system that's not intended to be fair, but is intended to milk people out of as many sheckels as possible.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by odoreater

That's true. I suspect that I draw the line in a much different place than many prosecutors or judges draw the line. But sometimes it gets very frustrating because there are many judges out there that just want to move the docket along, make some money for the town where they're sitting, and don't give a **** about even legitimate arguments.

Here's an example. I had a case where my client was trying to get his driver's license renewed in Florida and they tell him he can't renew it because he has charges outstanding in New Jersey. He hires me to figure out and resolve the New Jersey charges. It turns out that the charges are for driving without a license and without registration from about 5 years earlier. My client could not have been driving in NJ five years earlier because he was in Florida at the time. I get payroll records from his employer that he was at work in Florida on the date in question (and on the day before and day after); I get an affidavit from his supervisor that he was on the job site in Florida at the time. We then go to court and I present this to the prosecutor. The police officer comes in and says he can't identify my client as the driver because it was from 5 years ago. They then look at some more reports and discover that the car in question was registered to someone else, not to my client. By this point, it's clear to everyone that my client was not the driver of that car.

So, we go before the judge, explain everything and the prosecutor tells the judge that the charges should be dismissed. The judge agrees. Then he turns to me and says: "why didn't your client show up in court five years ago." I respond: "because he didn't know there were charges against him, he's been in Florida all this time and didn't find out about the charges until he tried to renew his license. Once he found out about it, he retained me and we came to court to answer the charges." What does the judge decide to do? He decides to hit my client with two $100 fines for contempt on both tickets for not showing up to court. Why? Because the city wasted all this time on this case and can't let this guy go without milking him for some money.

That's why I rarely handle traffic cases now (other than DWI) - because I don't want to be a part of a system that's not intended to be fair, but is intended to milk people out of as many sheckels as possible.

I get that, absolutely.

 

[uhurit]

You admitted to speeding...you're done. Either pay the ticket, or go to court hoping for a deal with a prosecutor.

Got nailed in WI doing 20 over (6 points with maximum of 12 and you're suspended). Had to go to traffic school voluntarily to shave off 3 points: as a result, insurance went up by $5 a month

 

[cimabue]

I once contested a ticket and won on appeal.

Funny thing is, I had had a wild night and was still kinda drunk the morning of the hearing.

It was me, the judge and a court reporter. I'm pretty sure they were drunk, too.

"Case dismissed!"

It is said God looks out for drunks and fools.

 

[retronotmetro]

Originally Posted by odoreater

Ah, the "trial tax." By doing what you were doing, aren't you sending a message to the State (prosecutor and cops) that they don't really have to do their job in the best manner possible, because even if they don't, the judge will consider whatever defenses may be raised as "BS defenses" and will slap the defendant even harder than if they had just admitted their culpability?

That exact concept is codified in the federal sentencing guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 knocks down a defendant's exposure for pleading guilty, and knocks it down a little more if they plead early enough to allow the prosecution to avoid preparing for trial and thus enable the "government and the court to allocate their resources efficiently." It alters the risk analysis enough to weed out BS defenses, and I doubt most federal agents are even aware of it, much less affected by it.

 

[sho'nuff]

Originally Posted by cimabue

I once contested a ticket and won on appeal.

Funny thing is, I had had a wild night and was still kinda drunk the morning of the hearing.

It was me, the judge and a court reporter. I'm pretty sure they were drunk, too.

"Case dismissed!"

It is said God looks out for drunks and fools.

what did you say? i hope you are pitifully joking for your sake. if youre not i hope to find you to tear you apart.
******* drunk drivers like you are the ones responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people and bystanders, children and families. God does NOT look out for you, you ******* asshole. i'll kill people like you if it were not for the laws of this country.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by sho'nuff

what did you say? i hope you are pitifully joking for your sake. if youre not i hope to find you to tear you apart.
******* drunk drivers like you are the ones responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people and bystanders, children and families. God does NOT look out for you, you ******* asshole. i'll kill people like you if it were not for the laws of this country.

Easy there sparky.

By the way, I represent a lot of people accused of DWI. Generally, they are not treated very well by the courts or by state DWI laws. So, no, nobody is looking out for them (except me, of course).

 

[shoreman1782]

Originally Posted by sho'nuff

what did you say? i hope you are pitifully joking for your sake. if youre not i hope to find you to tear you apart.
******* drunk drivers like you are the ones responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people and bystanders, children and families. God does NOT look out for you, you ******* asshole. i'll kill people like you if it were not for the laws of this country.

Did he say he drove drunk or just showed up to the hearing drunk?

 

[sho'nuff]

i dont know , i cant read into that, but i didnt like that last line.

and i dO NOT like the fact he is making light of the concept of driving drunk.

i know of a family who LOST a family member (Teen) to a drunk driver. this is serious emotions for me

 

[JayJay]

Originally Posted by sho'nuff

i dont know , i cant read into that, but i didnt like that last line.

and i dO NOT like the fact he is making light of the concept of driving drunk.

i know of a family who LOST a family member (Teen) to a drunk driver. this is serious emotions for me

Two 15 year old girls were walking on the sidewalk earlier this week when a drunk driver hit them. They are both in very serious condition. I agree, drunk driving is nothing to make light of.

 

[SpooPoker]

Originally Posted by whusurdadi

In MD we have PBJ's (Probation Before Judgement) - so as long as you have a fairly clean record (and the judge is in a good mood), plead guilty and you just pay court costs!
I just had one 2 weeks ago (my 3rd PBJ so far

)

Racing to beat the crowds at NMLC??

Originally Posted by Jekyll

...

You are 20 with 4700+ poasts?!?

 

[Jekyll]

Originally Posted by SpooPoker

Racing to beat the crowds at NMLC??

You are 20 with 4700+ poasts?!?
The majority of them were made when I was 19.

In my defense, less than 1% of them contain any substance.