Using Officer's TBWD Statements at a Trial De Novo

[lapdog12]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: California

First, can I use the cop's testimony from his TBWD against him in the Trial de Novo?

Second, I have a copy of the officer's TBWD, it's so incomplete I'm surprised the person I'm helping was found guilty. I'm convinced they didn't even bother to read our TBWD, but that's another matter.

The fact is the officer's TBWD form was barely filled out. He DIDN'T check ANY of the boxes. He DIDN'T sign or date the form. He only wrote a half a page statement of the facts. Listing all the usual suspects for the "reasons" this individual's speed was "un-safe".

I'm very shocked that he filled NOTHING out and it was still enough for a guilty verdict, especially with a well written defense with a clear cut "unjustified" speed limit argument.

The funny thing is I won a TBWD for the exact same location, almost exact time of day, exact MPH, at almost the exact distance away (laser), the exact officer and almost exactly the same vehicle (both white SUVs). The one I won was about 5 months prior.

Bottom line, can his statement be used against him (he's gonna read right from it anyway in court)? And does the fact that he didn't properly fill out his TBWD have any bearing on the Trial De Novo?

I'm still going to use the "unjustified survey" defense first but I want to have a back up just in case, gotta be prepared for anything in court.

Thanks in advance for any advice,
lapdog12

[That Guy]

For starters, and since it sounds like you are "helping someone", YOU, obviously can't use anything... It would have to be the defendant

First, can I use the cop's testimony from his TBWD against him in the Trial de Novo?

It depends... If they're using it to impeach him, or to present evidence of a contradiction, then maybe... It would depend on the scope of the information you're referring to and if it has any impact on his in court testimony. If on the other hand they're using it to say "you didn't state this fact in your declaration or you didn't check that box on your the form", then no, because you're second guessing the court's ability to make decisions it has the full power to make (deduce facts and weigh a witnesses testimony) and those matters are not relevant in a "new" trial!

Second, I have a copy of the officer's TBWD, it's so incomplete I'm surprised the person I'm helping was found guilty. I'm convinced they didn't even bother to read our TBWD, but that's another matter.

The fact is the officer's TBWD form was barely filled out. He DIDN'T check ANY of the boxes. He DIDN'T sign or date the form. He only wrote a half a page statement of the facts. Listing all the usual suspects for the "reasons" this individual's speed was "un-safe".

I'm very shocked that he filled NOTHING out and it was still enough for a guilty verdict, especially with a well written defense with a clear cut "unjustified" speed limit argument.

Often times, half a page is sufficient to establish that the elements of the offence charged did occur, especially if he mentioned "the usual suspects...". Also, and assuming this is a 22350 case and the defendant's speed was in excess of the posted limit, you should also understand that the officer is not required to prove that the speed was unsafe. He is only required to present evidence that the speed measured was in excess of the posted limit (in addition to a showing that the provisions of VC 40802 were met).

At any rate, as far as your "second"... Your question is... what?

And what do you mean by "unjustified speed limit"?

If that is supposed to mean that you've reviewed the survey and determined that it the speed limit is not properly justified, then you should probably post the survey so we can take a look. If on the other hand you're saying that the survey recommends one speed and the posted limit as well as the P.F./Max speed indicated on the citation refer to another speed, then I can understand!

The funny thing is I won a TBWD for the exact same location, almost exact time of day, exact MPH, at almost the exact distance away (laser), the exact officer and almost exactly the same vehicle (both white SUVs). The one I won was about 5 months prior.

And that still leaves weather and road conditions, whether pedestrian were around or not, the substance and content of the officer's testimony/declaration, the evidence he submitted... I could go on, but you get the point!

Bottom line, can his statement be used against him (he's gonna read right from it anyway in court)?

If he's going to read right from it in court then what are they proving/disproving?

And does the fact that he didn't properly fill out his TBWD have any bearing on the Trial De Novo?

Nope! A defendant's only recourse to a decision s/he is not satisfied with in a TBD is to request a TDN!

[lapdog12]

Yes, I've reviewed the survey and the speed limit is not properly justified with no lawful reason to lower the 40 MPH critical speed to the posted 35 MPH. I'm not going to post the survey because I know it's not justified and it's not done in accordance to the MUTCD (2003 edition, including Revisions 1 and 2). I can easily use Goulet as a good summary of the laws on how to justifiy a prima facie speed limit along with the MUTCD. No accidents, it's not residential and there is only one business with only one driveway (which the cop was sitting in) in the particular section of highway, it's 86 ft wide with no parking at all times on both sides of the road with no marked or un-marked crosswalks. Posted limit makes 64% of the drivers driving over the posted speed limit. I could go on, but I'm not going to because right now I don't need help with deciphering the survey.

That Guy, I've read tons of your responses to people and you usually lean towards "the speed limit is justified" so I can pretty much anticipate what your response to the survey would be. But none the less, I do appreciate your input and knowledge on this board and greatly appreciate your response in this matter. Plus, I don't want this to turn into another "justified survey" battle between you and EWYLTJ.

As for the TBWD that was won in the same location, EVERYTHING is almost EXACTLY the same as this new ticket. Weather (clear), road (86ft wide, 3 lanes in both directions), traffic (lite) all things that were not mentioned by the officer in his TBWD for the most recent ticket (which is now going to Trail De Novo). He also wrote the same thing on both tickets, pedestrians (which there were none in both occasions), lane postion and such, but no mention of traffic and weather. Again, to make it clear... EVERYTHING was pretty much EXACTLY the same on both tickets, the only difference was the distance, one was 245 ft, the other, 246 ft. Yet one ticket found NOT guilty via TBWD, the other GUILTY via TBWD and we have our date already for the Trial De Novo.

I guess I didn't have a second question. I just needed to know if such a poorly completed TBWD from the officer has any merit in the Trial De Novo. But according to you (That Guy) that would be a big NO and could make the court angry because we are insunuating that the court can't do it's job properly. I just don't understand our courts, if we have to follow all directions properly why don't they? I mean, he didn't even sign the darn thing and didn't bother to check any boxes, whatever, it obviously means nothing now.

But what if he does completely contradict himself from the TBWD to the Trial De Novo, can anything be done then?

At least I have a good idea of what the officer is going to say in court and I have ways to challenge each reason for the un-safe speed. So my friend will be prepared with two defenses for the Trial De Novo.

[That Guy]

Yes, I've reviewed the survey and the speed limit is not properly justified with no lawful reason to lower the 40 MPH critical speed to the posted 35 MPH. I'm not going to post the survey because I know it's not justified and it's not done in accordance to the MUTCD (2003 edition, including Revisions 1 and 2). I can easily use Goulet as a good summary of the laws on how to justifiy a prima facie speed limit along with the MUTCD. No accidents, it's not residential and there is only one business with only one driveway (which the cop was sitting in) in the particular section of highway, it's 86 ft wide with no parking at all times on both sides of the road with no marked or un-marked crosswalks. Posted limit makes 64% of the drivers driving over the posted speed limit. I could go on, but I'm not going to because right now I don't need help with deciphering the survey.

That Guy, I've read tons of your responses to people and you usually lean towards "the speed limit is justified" so I can pretty much anticipate what your response to the survey would be. But none the less, I do appreciate your input and knowledge on this board and greatly appreciate your response in this matter. Plus, I don't want this to turn into another "justified survey" battle between you and EWYLTJ.

As for the TBWD that was won in the same location, EVERYTHING is almost EXACTLY the same as this new ticket. Weather (clear), road (86ft wide, 3 lanes in both directions), traffic (lite) all things that were not mentioned by the officer in his TBWD for the most recent ticket (which is now going to Trail De Novo). He also wrote the same thing on both tickets, pedestrians (which there were none in both occasions), lane postion and such, but no mention of traffic and weather. Again, to make it clear... EVERYTHING was pretty much EXACTLY the same on both tickets, the only difference was the distance, one was 245 ft, the other, 246 ft. Yet one ticket found NOT guilty via TBWD, the other GUILTY via TBWD and we have our date already for the Trial De Novo.

I guess I didn't have a second question. I just needed to know if such a poorly completed TBWD from the officer has any merit in the Trial De Novo. But according to you (That Guy) that would be a big NO and could make the court angry because we are insunuating that the court can't do it's job properly. I just don't understand our courts, if we have to follow all directions properly why don't they? I mean, he didn't even sign the darn thing and didn't bother to check any boxes, whatever, it obviously means nothing now.

But what if he does completely contradict himself from the TBWD to the Trial De Novo, can anything be done then?

At least I have a good idea of what the officer is going to say in court and I have ways to challenge each reason for the un-safe speed. So my friend will be prepared with two defenses for the Trial De Novo.

Good luck to your friend in court!

Actually, I will make one additional comment...

That Guy, I've read tons of your responses to people and you usually lean towards "the speed limit is justified" so I can pretty much anticipate what your response to the survey would be.

You must have noticed that in the majority of the threads (at least as far as I remember) where I suggested that the limit is justified, none of those defendants came back to refute my opinion or report that their case was dismissed because contrary to my opinion, the judge agreed that the limit is not justified.

Same applies here, and without seeing the survey... If the recommended speed limit in the survey matches the posted speed limit, I wouldn't count on the judge dismissing the case, with or without Goulet. It might happen, but I wouldn't count on it!!!!

[lapdog12]

You must have noticed that in the majority of the threads (at least as far as I remember) where I suggested that the limit is justified, none of those defendants came back to refute my opinion or report that their case was dismissed because contrary to my opinion, the judge agreed that the limit is not justified.

Actually, I haven't seen anyone come back to refute your claims, you are right but since most of those people never followed up with their actual outcomes we'll never know if you were right or wrong in regards to the un-justified limit. Most of the time those threads just turned into an argument between you and EWYLTJ. So I guess we'll never know what actually transpired in those cases and that's a shame because the results and what happened in court would have been beneficial to others reading their posts.

Since we have no idea if you were right or wrong why did you take the time to make this statement? What was the purpose? It doesn't really help my original question or concerns at all. And I wasn't asking for you thoughts on whether the speed limit was justified or not. Are you just assuming you're right and we should all listen to everything you say because nobody contradicted you? I don't get why this was necessary. Was it because I stated that you tend to lean towards "justified speed limit" in most instances which is a correct and substantiated statement.

I wouldn't count on the judge dismissing the case, with or without Goulet. It might happen, but I wouldn't count on it!!!!

You certainly seem like a "glass is half empty" kinda guy. You make it seem that nobody should even try this defense because it never works, just like EWYLTJ makes you think you should never do a TBWD because they never work (I've helped friends win a lot more times than they've lost with TBWD). We never know what kind of judge we are going to get until we get to court so you should never assume the judge won't buy your arguments. So why try to discourage people on trying anything they possibly can in fighting their case? It's almost like you're a judge or pro tem and you don't want people to try to fight their case so you can have an easy day at the courthouse.

I'm sure you have more experience in court than I do but the two times that I actually faced a judge, they were very helpful to me and getting my point across despite my nerves and fears. And in one of those cases in pre-discovery before trial with the cop, I showed him how the speed limit in my particular section of highway wasn't justified, using Goulet, he went away, started talking to some guy in a suit and came back and said "We are going to dismiss your case." When my case was called I walked up to the podium and the cop said "I would like to move to dismiss, the speed limit isn't justified." So it does work and I have cases that contradict you and EWYLTJ and if I were to have listened to the fears put into everyone by you and him I would have never attempted fighting my tickets the way I did. Thank god for HelpIgotaticket.com, that guy is always positive in trying anything you can to win and he never once put any type of fear in what I was trying. He would take the time to explain what could happen in court but wouldn't discourage me from trying unless it would have no bearing in my defense argument.

All I know is my friend will go to court with a properly formatted legal brief helping them with their argument of an un-justified speed limit using case law and the MUTCD. If this one judge refuses to take the actual laws into account then maybe they will in Appeals, at least we'll have a paper trail on what was argued in court. And I will prepare my friend with two defesnses just in case and they'll do their best and won't go down without a fight.

Good luck to your friend in court!

Thanks.

[That Guy]

So I guess we'll never know what actually transpired in those cases...

You're free to draw your own conclusions!

Since we have no idea if you were right or wrong why did you take the time to make this statement? What was the purpose?

If you're too obtuse to figure it out on your own, I'm not going to waste any of my time explaining it to you!

And I wasn't asking for you thoughts on whether the speed limit was justified or not.

1. So you're only looking for opinions that match yours? I call it as I see it, if you disagree, then so be it, I could care less! I'm not the one with a pending court case!!!
2. You started a thread online in an open forum; understand that you cannot and will not dictate what sort of answers you will receive. If you don't like the one you received here, take your questions and your posts elsewhere!
3. I am free to post anything and everything I feel like posting whether it is relative to your specific question, your entire case, or not and regardless of whether you want to read it or not!

You certainly seem like a "glass is half empty" kinda guy.

Am I supposed to feel offended by that? You're free to have your friend walk into court with a "glass almost full" attitude, while assuming everything will work out his/her way... I on the other hand, like to be ready for the good and the bad, equally.

And by the way, why do you keep bringing up EWYLTJ? Yes, he and I have had our disagreements, and we've argued some issues ad nausium but you can rest assured that I am neither intimidated by his presence or mention, nor am I offended by any or all of his opinions, post and/or commentary!

All I know is my friend will go to court with a properly formatted legal brief helping them with their argument of an un-justified speed limit using case law and the MUTCD. If this one judge refuses to take the actual laws into account then maybe they will in Appeals, at least we'll have a paper trail on what was argued in court. And I will prepare my friend with two defesnses just in case and they'll do their best and won't go down without a fight.

Best of luck to you and him/her.

While I cannot predict the real outcome of the case, I will make a prediction that, regardless of the real outcome, you will come back and post an update stating that your friend won his/her case. Sorry to spoil your fun!

In the meantime, you got my opinion regarding the questions that you posted (and more)... Now, you can sit here and wait for other replies, or you can move along and take your pointless and meaningless arguments elsewhere.

[lapdog12]

You're free to draw your own conclusions!

yes, and we certainly know the conclusions you've drawn but it says everything about you in your signature.

Am I supposed to feel offended by that?

no, i wasn't trying to offend you just making an observation that I can freely make. If you don't like it don't read it, I heard that somewhere before. Seeing how you've gotten so worked up over an observation this must not be the first time you've heard this.

If you're too obtuse to figure it out on your own, I'm not going to waste any of my time explaining it to you!

I guess I am. I'm just trying to understand why you needed to inject your "opinion" when it wasn't asked for especially when you don't know all the details of the survey and the case, but again like you said, it's an open forum and anyone can say what they want. Congrats, you win.

So you're only looking for opinions that match yours?

When did I ask for anyone's opinion on anything? You gave your "opinion" for no reason and I questioned why you needed to say it when it didn't have anything to do with the question I did have. You just felt it necessary to continue spreading your word about justifying surveys without anything to substantiate your claim of being right in most cases. But we are allowed to make our own conclusions right.

While I cannot predict the real outcome of the case, I will make a prediction that, regardless of the real outcome, you will come back and post an update stating that your friend won his/her case. Sorry to spoil your fun!

You did spoil my fun, darn you! And I'll guess you'll never know the truth, just like you don't in all the other cases you claim to be "right" on.

or you can move along and take your pointless and meaningless arguments elsewhere.

Who was arguing about anything? What are you even talking about? I asked a question, I got an answer. I didn't want post the speed survey because I knew what answers I would get from you. That's why I made a statement in regards to how you lean in "justified surveys" cases and you, for some reason, felt like you needed to defend yourself and prove yourself right when you CAN'T. You don't have the actual outcomes. And it's fact, by the numerous posts you have, that you certainly lean in one direction in regards to using a "justified survey" defense. How is my observation wrong in any way?

Now take the advice you gave me for yourself, leave this thread. You obviously have nothing to offer other than you trying to prove you're right, which you can't. I'm worried that someone who posts as often as you do, gets so worked up over nothing. People are looking for rational advice here. If you feel like judges rarely allow "speed limit justification arguments" in their cases then say that it is your opinion and back it up with cases you've personally helped in. Just liked I've backed up my claim that it works, because it worked for me, personally. Now I can see why you and EWYLTJ argue on almost every post I've in regards to justifying surveys.

Again, thank you for answering my original question on whether or not previous TBWD testimony can be used in the Trial De Novo. Now could you just please leave me alone unless you have pertinent information in regards to my original question because if you don't you're wasting both of ours time.

[That Guy]

yes, and we certainly know the conclusions you've drawn but it says everything about you in your signature.

You obviously are as obtuse as to not even understand a joke when you read one!

no, i wasn't trying to offend you just making an observation that I can freely make.

Fair enough... Only you follow it up with this:

I'm just trying to understand why you needed to inject your "opinion" when it wasn't asked for...

So you can make an observation and yet I can't? What makes you so special?

Congrats, you win.

You make it way too easy!

When did I ask for anyone's opinion on anything? You gave your "opinion" for no reason and I questioned why you needed to say it when it didn't have anything to do with the question I did have.

Again, you do not and cannot dictate where I post or what I post! Get over yourself!

You just felt it necessary to continue spreading your word about justifying surveys without anything to substantiate your claim of being right in most cases.

Ah, yes. I am a major contributor to the grand conspiracy against the general public.

Laughable! Or should I say pathetically humorous?

You did spoil my fun, darn you! And I'll guess you'll never know the truth, just like you don't in all the other cases you claim to be "right" on.

The truth is you are not qualified to second guess a traffic engineers evaluation or determination of what speed limit should apply, but even if you could, and while you can claim all this knowledge and expertise, you're putting on a fight for a friend who obviously couldn't even start their own account and ask their own questions on here... Makes it double as challenging for him/her to stand in court and make a decent argument, but who am I to judge!

Who was arguing about anything? What are you even talking about? I asked a question, I got an answer.

YOU are arguing about who knows what... You got your answer, now scram!!!!

I didn't want post the speed survey because I knew what answers I would get from you.

Fine, then don't post it... I never forced you to do anything... I simply said "you should probably post the survey so we can take a look". An average reasonable person would offer it not simply so I can benefit from it, but mainly to get another opinion whether it be mine or anyone else's for that matter. You on the other hand, being as far from reasonable as you can be, decided you don't want to... Simply because you can predict my answer, but mainly because you are obviously unsure about the strength of your argument (regardless of your claims suggesting otherwise), and while knowing that your friend's entire defense would fall apart if the speed limit was in fact justified!

Suit yourself! Win or lose, I could care less about your cases, your friend's case, or anybody else's that comes around!

That's why I made a statement in regards to how you lean in "justified surveys" cases and you, for some reason, felt like you needed to defend yourself and prove yourself right when you CAN'T.

I have no need to "defend" myself... My opinions are on here for all to see and argue against, and they will not change simply because you came around to second guess them. I don't have to justify anything to YOU or to anyone else... Again, get over yourself, you aren't that important!

You don't have the actual outcomes. And it's fact, by the numerous posts you have, that you certainly lean in one direction in regards to using a "justified survey" defense. How is my observation wrong in any way?

Are you even reading the gibberish you're typing? I doubt it!

Now take the advice you gave me for yourself, leave this thread.

And for the THIRD time, you do not get to dictate or control where or what I post!

You obviously have nothing to offer other than you trying to prove you're right, which you can't.

I've offered you more than what you came with, and then some... Deal with that!

I'm worried that someone who posts as often as you do, gets so worked up over nothing. People are looking for rational advice here. If you feel like judges rarely allow "speed limit justification arguments" in their cases then say that it is your opinion and back it up with cases you've personally helped in. Just liked I've backed up my claim that it works, because it worked for me, personally.

Again, I don't have to prove or back up anything to you or for you.

And you've backed up your claims how? Simply by saying "it works"?

Now could you just please leave me alone unless you have pertinent information in regards to my original question because if you don't you're wasting both of ours time.

Again, for the XTH time (I stopped counting), I am not under any obligation to heed to your requests. It is not that difficult to understand...

Now, let me refer you to a previous post I made on this forum... It is the last post in this thread: Did the Judge Really Review My Trial by Written Declaration. There are a number of reasons why I am referring you to that thread... And for your sake, I sincerely hope that you are not as stupid as you're making yourself out to be... Hopefully, you'll figure out those reasons on your own and act accordingly!

Oh heck why not... I'll give you a few hints:

... I answered all your questions with more details than anyone could ask or hope for (But you're still not satisfied) AND offered you additional help if you would post your declaration... But obviously you are not going to. Hmmm, I wonder why???

Sort of similar to what's happened here... Huh?

And...

Do you seriously believe that *I* (or any of the regulars here) care if *you* (or anyone) we offer an opinion to thinks we're right?

Do you seriously think you are the only person who came here, complained about not getting the answers they were hoping for and left unhappy? ( <- HINT: GO AWAY)

Do you think you're the only person I've argued with on this forum?

And lastly, but most importantly, do you seriously think that you're slick enough, and/or that I am stupid enough not to figure out who you are or what you're trying to do and why? Seriously???

Feel free to come back and pretend you don't know who/what I'm talking about. I'll be more than happy to post a link to your other screen name and more links to your other threads wherein you questions and your attitude and reaction to the replies you received will certainly clear up this matter for all those who care to read! If, on the other hand, you decide NOT to come back, not only would I not blame you, but here's a "thank you for scramming" as well!

You make it WAAAYYY too obvious that you're dumber than a door knob, and yet you still act all slick and sinister! (Note the underlined portion in the last quote).

[That Guy]

I guess you're done trolling!

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by registering under different screen names, only to end up getting figuratively spanked into submission each and every time.

By the way, for those counting, this makes for number THREE:
1st it was bluehazard
Then you came back as hzmonte
And lastly, as lapdog12

Keep it up... Maybe eventually the Mods will IP ban you...

[lapdog12]

I guess you're done trolling!

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by registering under different screen names, only to end up getting figuratively spanked into submission each and every time.

By the way, for those counting, this makes for number THREE:
1st it was bluehazard
Then you came back as hzmonte
And lastly, as lapdog12

Keep it up... Maybe eventually the Mods will IP ban you...

The following is a statement that I would like to make for the record:

I, Lapdog12, am very concerned and frightened by the actions of the poster using the screen name "That Guy". I am concerned for the fact that someone would take the time to try to "research" me and then make a slanderous claim as stated in the above quote from "That Guy". I am concerned because if he is willing to do that then I have no idea what he may try to do next.

This is not a joke, I truly am conerned about what he may do next. I want my thoughts to be put on the record if it is to be needed in the future.

I now ask "That Guy" to please refrain from contacting me in anyway, refrain from commenting on any of my posts and to refrain from making more slanderous claims. Any further contact will be deamed as harassment. I have also addressed my concerns with the administrators of this forum.

Lapdog12