Discovery Not Received 7 Days Prior in Washington State

[pande]

Thanks for all the help. Hearing is tomorrow morning, I still don't know what I'm going to do. I've prepared photos and a video to show the lack of signage, but the giant knot in my stomach is making me want to lean toward deferral. I have one added complication of having been a CDL holder at one time (in the 1990's) It is not current or "active" - my current driver's license is a regular WA State one. I cannot find clarification of what "holder" means with respect to eligibility for deferral, so I guess I need to be ready for both situations. I will try to go for deferral and if judge says no, then I'll present my case & video etc. Had the officer not made the mistake of writing that I was Eastbound, I would feel better about contesting entirely. I can't subpoena him (and doubt that would help anyway as I don't know how I'd prove I was WB when his report says EB). Do I need to request deferral at the beginning or wait for judge to offer it?

re: the RCW cited - I thought the .16U referred to the 16mph over the speed limit he cited me for. I'm not sure what the "U" means. How can I find out what .16U is? Where are the fee schedules posted for moving violations in Snohomish County? I'm finding Snohomish to be very hard to get info from. Their website is either out of date or lacking info and there are no humans answering phones there.

[blewis]

The .16U notation means "16 over the limit, in an 'under 40' zone". The "U" stands for "under 40". There used to be a Word document that listed the "Total Penalty" for WA state, but it was removed from the website over a year ago. According to that schedule, your fine should be $195. I explained it all in a post in another thread. Just don't "double" the fine. You'll see, it works out to $195.

I went through a possible defense in your other thread. But, I understand just asking for a deferral. Please let me know what happens.

Barry

[colemac65]

i gotta agree with BARRY, the officer has cited a RCW that does not exist! that box is for the RCW or STATUTE, not the speed!!!!! good luck today! sorry i didnt get your pm till this morning!

[dbenjami]

Barry-
I plan to serve the Federal Way prosecutor's office with a request for discovery. The question I have is in the timing...IRLJ 3.1 states that the request must be served "at least 14 days before a contested hearing" yet the paperword I recieved from the court with my hearing date states "You must make the request in writing at least 30 days before the hearing."

So which is it? Of course it would behoove me to serve the prosecutor with the least amount of time for them to respond in time to get the discovery items back to me.

[blewis]

Read your paperwork carefully. The only thing I know with a 30 day time limit on it, is a subpoena for the SMD expert (see IRLJ 6.6 (b)). I checked the Federal Way Municipal Court Rules and they don't have any 30 day limits that I can see either.

My personal preference is to submit my request as soon as I can, as that gives me more time to create my defense. I think it's rare that you don't get your discovery materials in time -- but it does happen.

Barry

[dbenjami]

No, it does not seem that their court rules stipulate 30 days. They sent a pink piece of paper that stated the following:

As a defendent, you are entitled to the following:

the right to bring a lawyer, at your expense.
The right to present evidence and examine witnesses in court.
The right to request from the prosecutor a witness list and a copy of the citing officer's sworn statement if it will be offered into evidence at the hearing. You must make the request in writing at least 30 days before the hearing, and the witness list and citing officer's sworn statement should be given to you at least 7 days before the hearing.

There is no reference to an IRLJ or FWMCLIR with that statement. So, can they ding me if I serve the prosecutor in less than 30 days based on this mailing that seemingly ignores the actual statute?

On another note, I am requesting the copies of the latest certification for the SMD. Am I reading IRLJ 6.6 correctly that in order to get that paperwork I need to file for that 30 days in advance? I am unclear on what they are referring to in regards to "expert." I do not intend on calling an expert in SMD's to testify.

[blewis]

There is no reference to an IRLJ or FWMCLIR with that statement. So, can they ding me if I serve the prosecutor in less than 30 days based on this mailing that seemingly ignores the actual statute?

I don't know, but I don't think so. This looks like a "convenience" for the prosecutor -- to make sure they have time to get the materials to you. But, without legal authority, they would probably be hard-pressed to enforce it. However, that decision is up to you. Just remember, there may be recently enacted local rules that have not been published on the web.

On another note, I am requesting the copies of the latest certification for the SMD. Am I reading IRLJ 6.6 correctly that in order to get that paperwork I need to file for that 30 days in advance? I am unclear on what they are referring to in regards to "expert." I do not intend on calling an expert in SMD's to testify.

Before SMD results can be admitted into evidence, the prosecution must establish that the SMD device properly employed certain principles (Doppler effect or time-of-flight, for example) , was properly maintained and calibrated, and, if used properly, would yield accurate results. To accomplish that, the prosecutor would normally have to bring in the SMD expert who did the calibration to testify that the device was, indeed, working properly at the time of the testing.

IRLJ 6.6 allows the prosecutor to introduce a "calibration certificate", in lieu of the SMD expert's appearance -- unless YOU subpoena the SMD expert. Then the certificate is NOT admissible and the SMD expert must testify.

If you do not subpoena the SMD expert, and the prosecutor wishes to introduce the certificate, they must either send you a copy (if you request it in discovery), or it must be on file with the court (where you must go if you wish to see it). But notice, if you request it in discovery, the prosecutor is still under NO obligation to send it to you -- as long as it's on file with the court.

Barry

[dbenjami]

Is there a special form I need to file with the prosecutor to subpoena the expert, or do I just add that somehow to the "Request for Discovery"?