Should You File for Discovery or Wait for Trial to Ask for Evidence

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: New Mexico
Issued a ticket for speeding.

My Notice of Non-Jury Trial just arrived. I noticed there is no prosecutor listed. How might i use this to my advantage? IE the officer can't cross-examine witnesses, make statements other than his own testimony or object to mine?

Also, is it beneficial to me to ask for everything up front as a discovery or simply ask for the officer to prove it during the trial? For example... "do you have the latest calibration from your radar gun" as i'm cross examining... as opposed to asking for it in discovery along with his training certificates, etc?

Any good list of things to request for discovery? I have found some lists but they're generally four or five items, not very comprehensive IMO. Thanks!

EDIT - I live out of state, so i also requested a trial by phone.... how does that affect me here? will i be able to successfully require these items for proof of calibration etc if the officer is also on a phonecall? can i object to his reading of the ticket ie my right to independent recollection.... etc?

With procedures varying by state, in many traffic court hearings the questioning is conducted by the hearing officer. The absence of a prosecutor does not mean that the officer cannot give effective testimony, that you won't be cross-examined, or that the officer won't be given the opportunity to rebut your testimony. You or your lawyer may question witnesses at the hearing. Depending on local practice, if you are representing yourself, the judge may require that you direct your questions to the court with the judge then asking questions of the witness(es).

If you are allowed to participate by phone, you won't be in a position to see or review documents submitted at the hearing, and won't be in a position to observe the witnesses or their reactions to questions. You can object to the officer's reviewing the ticket to refresh his memory prior to or during his testimony, but your objection would be overruled as that is entirely proper.

In my book you should always try to get your evidence together in advance of trial. As you plan to appear by phone, it's all the more important.

Thank you for your response. Is the officer typically present with the judge in these cases or is he also remote on a phone? My question is if i ask for a specific document in discovery(such as the tuning fork calibration certificates) then he'll have them ready to present to the judge, as opposed to just asking for it during cross-examination to prove foundation for his radar gun. Requesting in discovery might take away a small bit of the 'element of surprise' and if i can catch him off guard without the documents during the cross-examination won't it work to my advantage? I'm asking more for will it be a strategic advantage .

As a side note, I do have copies of those documents already that i received last month from an IPRA (FOIA) request. So I know the dates on them and to what serial numbers they correspond, but they aren't certified copies so I am pretty sure they're not admissible as evidence. Are there some documents I should request in discovery and some i'd be better of holding back on requesting?

You should expect that the officer will be present in court.

As you will not be in a position to see or review documents if you are participating in the proceeding by telephone, it would be very difficult for you to try to object to their admission. Officers are experienced witnesses. It is unlikely that the officer will be aware of your request for records prior to the hearing, or that anything you might do would come as a surprise.

Hrm, not so much a surprise, but catch him unprepared, perhaps? Asking for FCC documents for his department, calibration documents, training certifications, etc.... anything to try and refute the radar gun? Requests for discovery go to the officer directly, he would be aware of my requests, since they would be served to him.