Judge Says Officer Ticket is Enough Evidence to Convict

[wuthell]

I’m from California. They had setup a speed trap and were ticketing people left and right. I was driving at the flow of traffic. From what I can tell, every officer there was writing a ticket for someone they pull over for speeding. The speed limit was 65MPH and the officer said I was going at 79MPH, and he used a lidar radar to detect my speed. My lawyer made a request for discovery. At the first court date, they have not given my lawyer the requested discovery that he requested, and the judge gave me a continuance. He made another request for discovery again soon after that. At week before my next court date, the officer requested to postpone the court date to a week after. A week after and I still didn't get my requested discovery. At the trial this time, the judge basically says the discovery is not important and the front and back of the officer’s ticket is enough evidence to say I am guilty. My lawyer, and I was shock by the judge response, and he didn't even allow a continuance this time around. This got drag out for a year already and now I can't afford the lawyers services anymore. My lawyer said he will give me free advice to fight this because the judge abuses my constitutional rights. Have anyone have any similar experience and your option on this case? What are my changes?

[EWYLTJ]

Traffic court judges are notorious for simply ignoring the law. I would suggest filing an appeal. It isn't very hard to do, but it does take some work. There is a good tutorial on www.helpigotaticket.com. You can lie down and take it if you like, or you can stand up and fight. Up to you...

[BOR]

If it's classified as an "infraction" the burden of proof may only be by a "preponderance of the evidence". I don't know what the classification is OR if CA permits a lower burden of proof for such if it is.


Say this is true, you as a defendant need to attack this low standard by direct evidence or credibility.