Well, it is possible that the judge had made up his mind, it is possible he had heard too many traffic cases,but it is also possible that thew officer covered most if not all the material that would be covered under the 30 questions; which when they are read as a script, one after the other, where the officer is not given the opportunity to one question before the next one starts, example:
18. Could you please read this part of Section 22351(b) for the court?
22351.(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful...
19. That sounds like I am guilty, but could you please read the rest of it -- the underlined part?
22351.(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.
So you're supposed to interrupt him when he gets to "unlawful" so you could throw in your quip of "that sounds like I'm guilty"?
Let's go through them though... The way I see it, if you have to ask 1 through 14, then you either weren't listening or you are simply intent on irritating the judge simply because the officer is required to state those elements as part of his case. If he failed to mention one, or two of those items, why are you asking him and by doing so, adding to the "evidence that is before the judge", evidence that he can now review and determine that the officer did indeed cover ALL of the elements of the offence! Congratulations... You just helped reiterate all the required elements and dug yourself in a hole!
Sorry if this is too blunt but, 15 and 16 are just plain old stupid!
17.... Hey wait a minute, there is actually ONE question that is of value here!
18 and 19 I covered above!
q 20 would require the defendant (who is asking the question) to understand the difference between "competent evidence" as in irrefutable unquestionable proof of a something which is the burden that the defendant carries; whereas a "competent witness" and as long as he/she does not fit the definitions in Evidence Code 701(a), he's good to go...
A person is disqualified to be a witness if he or she is:
(1) Incapable of expressing himself or herself concerning the matter so as to be understood, either directly or through interpretation by one who can understand him; or
(2) Incapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth.
So in other words, just because you can get a witness to state that "yes, he is a competent witness" does not automatically mean that his testimony rises to the level of competent evidence. But wait, let us assume that it does, and now the testimony that the officer offered is to be considered as competent evidence... Well, didn't he just testify that he cited you in violation of the basic speed law because he though your speed was unsafe for conditions?
Is the judge supposed to forget that? Aren't you in court for that one reason alone? Because you were cited for a basic speed law violation????
So how much of an impact do questions 20 through 27 have?
And do you ask all of them or would you have to be careful not to ask the ones where the officer answered "yes, it was inherently unsafe.....etc"?
Also, what if the officer answers one by saying "no, I didn't testify to that, in fact, now that you mention it, you were in danger of such and such"... There you just helped him seal the deal! But skip that...
Q 28 about what property, how about state property if officer was in a CHP vehicle or county property or city property....
Q 29 is "the set up", to attempt to tie in what I warned against under Q20 above.... Because Q30, goes as follows:
Given your competent testimony as evidence of my speed as it relates to the conditions at the time and place of this alleged violation (not the average conditions covered in the survey, but the exact conditions you testified to – i.e., the conditions specified in 22351(b)), where is your case, Officer?
As far as conditions in the survey versus conditions at the time, we've discussed this before and hope we still agree that the survey must be conducted under what can be described as perfect conditions, otherwise, its validity would be subject to dispute. So you shouldn't go there either.
As for the conditions under 22351(b), i.e. "the conditions thereupon at the time you were cited, well, at best, they could be as perfect as they were when the survey was conducted and if that is the case, 85% of drivers determined that XX speed (presumably the posted speed) is the highest yet safest speed they would drive through that road. Defendant comes along and decides that adding 15 mph over the XX limit, should still be considered safe because at 18 years of age, his experience supersedes that of any of those people who were surveyed!
The author (would rather not refer to him by name) closes this chapter with the following:
If you make it through question 14 without the officer bringing up anything negative, you have pretty much won your case. Once you get past question 20 the officer may try to change his or her testimony, in which case you challenge the officer's memory of the case and his or her competency as a witness for the prosecution.
I say you should probably skip questions 1 through 14. Explained why above. And if you make it to 20 then you either have an extremely patient judge or he simply fell asleep on the bench! As for the officer changing his answers and and you challenging his competency, isn't this whole entire exercise is to prove him competent so you could tie that into your burden for providing competent evidence, (a flawed concept) but now you would challenge his competency unless he gave you the answers you want?
Tell me then Mr defendant... If the officer isn't competent because his answers weren't competent, then were is your competent evidence and in turn... Where is your case, Defendant?
I'll look forward to those because thus far, you've only provided the dumb-ass replies!
In the meantime, understand that you're still missing several points...
You made it clear that you cannot pay the fine. I don't know how you made it to trial without posting bail then again, some court will allow that... But you've also made it clear that there is a good possibility (for the simple fact that you never mentioned a survey) that you lack the understanding to determine whether you have any grounds for appeal.
You're also asking us to help you with your "proposed statement"... But we weren't there at your trial, you've provided us with no transcript and no recording of the trial. How can we help you with matters we have no idea about?
Or maybe you're expecting us to craft statements that would add potential to a potential-less appeal?
Lastly, you've made it clear that you have no intent or desire, no time or money to pursue anything right now! If that includes an appeal, then why are you here pretending you want to appeal when in fact, you're not going to pursue it! All of that on top of you making it clear that you're appealing because (1) you don't like the verdict and the reason you don't like the verdict is (2) because you don't have the money to pay the fine.
Well, your fine is due and payable unless you were given an extension and or stay by the court!
If you don't believe that there is a huge amount of time and effort spent on an appeal, with no guarantee of a posiytive outcome even if you have a well documented case (which you don't) then read this thread: How to Make and File an Effective Appeal