Trial by Written Declaration and Discovery for a Speeding Ticket

[reductivecat]

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: California

Hello,
I received speeding ticket (cvc 22347) which was for 84 in 65 I might add on a empty highway at 4am where the CHP officer did not mark radar/lidar (implicit pace?). The officer must have been a half mile behind me when he turned on his lights to pull me over. It seemed as I recall that another officer was fairly close behind. I opted to do trial by declaration knowing that I have a second chance if this fails. Anyways, I followed the instructions precisely from http://www.helpigotaticket.com/proc/discover.html on filing a discovery request to the DA and court. I have not received anything from either the DA or court about my discovery request and my trial by declaration must be received by the 16th of this month.
I am wondering what I should do/write on my trial by declaration. Besides for stating the simple facts and a plea of not guilty should I just directly ask for dismissal because the DA hasn't responded to me? Everything I've read doesn't mention using this technique until the actual trial or appeal. This makes me wonder if I should save this method until the real trial (maybe the court would disregard my request and be prepared for a trial de novo). I also wonder if its possible or advisable to get more time for my trial by declaration in order to wait for a reply for my discovery.
Any other advice would be greatly recommended.
Thanks!

[Mr. Knowitall]

You did not serve the discovery request on the police agency? Some prosecutor's offices take the position that as they don't appear for a TBD you need to serve the discovery request on the police agency and not upon them. The California Code doesn't require dismissal as a remedy for a discovery violation; you are free to argue to the court in your TBD that your defense was impaired by the lack of response to discovery, but if you want that to be convincing you actually have to demonstrate how your defense was materially impaired.

[That Guy]

BTW, there is no CVC "22347"!

I can only assume it is a 22349(a)

[reductivecat]

Thank you, both of you for the reply.
Yes this is 22349(a), the carbon copy of the ticket I have looks like a 7 but must be bad penmanship.
I did not serve the policing agency, I've read so much specifically saying that it IS the DA's responsibility so I am a bit confused here. You are saying that specifically for trial by declaration I may need to have served the policing agency? In a normal trial does this mean I don't need to serve the policing agency? As I only have six days left I don't think it is possible to serve the police agency (is it?)- I wonder if I can call the court and ask for them to extend the deadline.
The articles and discussions I've read mention that NOT contacting the police but the DA gives me an possible way out of the ticket when the DA does not respond. Therefore I hesitate before getting the information from the police. Your response Mr. Knowitall makes me think I should save this discovery point or at least expect it to be ineffective until the real trial. Would mentioning the discovery violation in the TBD somehow make the defense ineffective later on?

If and when I do mention the discovery violation, you say I have to demonstrate how my defense was impaired by this. I would like to know exactly how to show this. Is stating any of the following (as not being able to demonstrate or defend myself without the requested information) demonstrate this: that I think the officers speedometer was not calibrated properly, my ticket copy is poorly made (faded and illegible), or that I think the officer made a mistake in pacing me.

Thanks Again for your help!


Btw, I just noticed a typo at the end of my first post I meant to say appreciated not recommended.