Discovery Materials Received - Opinions on My Best Approach

Nope. Don't subpoena, I guarantee you'll lose.

If I do not subpoena the trooper, then my only real hope is to try to convince the judge that the trooper's sworn statement is incorrect or incomplete as far as the facts.

I believe he mistakenly singled me out of a group of vehicles coming toward him, traveling at 60-70 MPH, from almost a quarter mile away, around a slight bend.

If I do subpoena and he shows up for court I will be able to question his testimony from direct recollection and not just his sworn statement.

I'm going to need some photos and diagrams to do this either way.

Don't subpoena. He will most likely change his testimony, and then you'll really be screwed. There's no way you'll be able to convince the judge that the trooper's statement is incorrect.

Try and scan the documents, we might find some more inconsistencies. Did you go and find the certification for design and construction on file with the court? The laser might not even be calibrated to WA standard.

However, if you feel you can beat this by subpoenaing, then you better be prepared to be an expert on the Prolaser III and you better ask him a lot of good questions. Questions about his hand movement, his calibration, whether or not he shot through an open window. Preparing for a witness will prove to be one of the HARDEST things you EVER do. Even lawyers hate prepping for witnesses. Which is why the judge, in the end, will side with the prosecution.

At the end of the day, however, your arguments are limited. You're in a district court, so you can try your best to say "the statute doesn't exist" or the subsection argument, but it looks to me like an uphill battle.

I hate to be a negative nancy, but this is one tough case.

Brendan

you have a document that is part of the notice of infraction that is stamped "filed 04/20/2010) although when i pulled this case number up via washington courts, it says that it was filed on the 1st.

i would make this one of my arguments.....

your honor, this notice of infraction stated it was filed on 04/20/10 and show it to the judge where it says FILED and motion to dismiss under irlj 2.2d
I would think you have basis for something here and would be surprised if the judge denied...basically, you cant factually determine the filing date! was it the 1st or the 20th?

Quote:

---

Quoting colemac65

---

you have a document that is part of the notice of infraction that is stamped "filed 04/20/2010) although when i pulled this case number up via washington courts, it says that it was filed on the 1st.

i would make this one of my arguments.....

your honor, this notice of infraction stated it was filed on 04/20/10 and show it to the judge where it says FILED and motion to dismiss under irlj 2.2d
I would think you have basis for something here and would be surprised if the judge denied...basically, you cant factually determine the filing date! was it the 1st or the 20th?

---

Thanks colemac, the ticket was stamped as filed on the 2nd of April, one day after I received it. Sorry about the document angle. I think that'll be a dead end.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Don't subpoena. He will most likely change his testimony, and then you'll really be screwed. There's no way you'll be able to convince the judge that the trooper's statement is incorrect.

Try and scan the documents, we might find some more inconsistencies. Did you go and find the certification for design and construction on file with the court? The laser might not even be calibrated to WA standard.

However, if you feel you can beat this by subpoenaing, then you better be prepared to be an expert on the Prolaser III and you better ask him a lot of good questions. Questions about his hand movement, his calibration, whether or not he shot through an open window. Preparing for a witness will prove to be one of the HARDEST things you EVER do. Even lawyers hate prepping for witnesses. Which is why the judge, in the end, will side with the prosecution.

At the end of the day, however, your arguments are limited. You're in a district court, so you can try your best to say "the statute doesn't exist" or the subsection argument, but it looks to me like an uphill battle.

I hate to be a negative nancy, but this is one tough case.

Brendan

---

I'm having some trouble scanning the docs but the stuff about the LIDAR cals and whatnot appear to be in order. It was calibrated on 3/18/10 by Steen R Nicholson whose initials appear on the document listing the correct instrument number L-1313 and serial number PL-XXXXX.

The trooper was standing next to his motorcycle using the laser to tag vehicles.

You probably haven't seen Cole's bumper sticker: "Dyslexics of the World -- Untie".

LOL!

Barry

I have screenshots that I can post (from Google maps) of the area in question. I am tempted toward taking photos of my own this weekend

You do need to attack the laser device...it says it was calibrated; it does not say that it was calibrated per NHSTA guidelines. So the calibration means nothing. Also, the officer's speed estimation is BS .. their training is not sufficient ... did you get the certificate of calibration & compare the testing to the required testing of the NHSTA requirements? You need to argue the data that the LIDAR unit spews out or you lost. You should not testify , at least not until you ask for a summary judgment after the prosecutions rests. If you just want to go into court & give testimony to your speed w/o attacking the lidar reading's accuracy you will surely lose. The tests the officer did is not sufficient - you should learn these tests and what they mean ... Kustom calibration's are generally faulty, not meeting up to the NHSTA requirements

I prevailed today and walked away. Trooper did not fill in enough details on his sworn statement as to traffic conditions.

Cool.

So how does that work? Did the Judge do that on his own , or did you or your attorney point out the missing details ?

I'll be contesting a speeding ticket soon....just curious how things work.