Introducing Evidence After a Discovery Request

My question involves traffic court in the State of: California

I made a discovery request to the chp for a ticket I received in november for toll evasion

In my letter I wrote as follows:

the following are copies of notes made by the defendant immediately after the ticket was issued and recorded statements of witnesses are attached:
(x) none

After I received my discover I came across some evidence I want to introduce but since I made my discovery request do I have to give a copy of it to the officer before court

That's not a disclosure of the evidence you wish to present but an indication that you already obtained some of the information (witness statements, notes) that you are requesting. The wording is a little odd but it really should be interpretted "copies made by the defendant of notes".

You're free to present whatever evidence you want regardless of what you wrote on the discovery request.

I agree that your discovery request, or at least what you quoted above, is phrased in a confusing manner.

Technically, the police officer is not the prosecutor although he'll likely be the only one on the prosecution side of the courtroom. There is no requirement that the District Attorney attend the trial, even though he or she is usually the prosecutor of record in a California Traffic Case. In fact, your Discovery Request and the evidence you intend to present should have been sent to the DA, even though they would likely do nothing with it. If you develop evidence after submitting your initial discovery request, you should forward that evidence as well.

If you withhold evidence, the prosecution could object to the presentation of that evidence, although that would not properly be done by the officer since he's only a witness in the case. His contribution to the trial should be limited to testimony or to presenting evidence. You, on the other hand, can act both as a witness and can properly object or question a witness. Since you've made a discovery request, the court may properly prevent you from offering evidence if it can be established that you didn't provide it to the prosecution, although other lesser sanctions are possible as well.

You should also have a friend execute a Proof of Service (POS) Form indicating that they mailed or delivered the discovery request to the DA. This form is available on the California Courts Website although the only one I've found is POS Civil. I've used this one in traffic infraction cases, although traffic infractions in California are criminal matters. The form includes a sworn statement by the person, not a party to the case, serving the discovery request.

The discovery request form I used was from the nolo website

and I did have a friend mail it and they fill out a proof of service

what im getting at is the officer wrote down the wrong vehicle info but plate and vin are correct and he took no notes

My plan is to try to get him to testify that he stoped a vehicle matching the description of the ticket then show the judge a picture of my vehicle and say if the officer can't remember the vehicle i was driving How can I be convicted of the changes

Quote:

---

Quoting farvaszx6r

---

The discovery request form I used was from the nolo website

and I did have a friend mail it and they fill out a proof of service

what im getting at is the officer wrote down the wrong vehicle info but plate and vin are correct and he took no notes

My plan is to try to get him to testify that he stoped a vehicle matching the description of the ticket then show the judge a picture of my vehicle and say if the officer can't remember the vehicle i was driving How can I be convicted of the changes

---

I think you're close to where you need to be. Don't focus too much on incorrect vehicle info, but it's worth bringing up. It would be worth getting him to describe your vehicle and then show a picture of your vehicle. However, if you testify at this point, you give up your right against self incrimination, which could be a problem.

The more important question may be whether the officer has notes and whether he has an INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION of what happened. You can ask whether he recalls what you were wearing, etc. and maybe try to exclude any testimony based on notes. If you present yourself well in terms of personal appearance and respect in the courtroom, both for the officer and the judge, you might have a chance.

There is a zero percent chance of preventing an officer from refreshing his memory from his notes or from the citation.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

There is a zero percent chance of preventing an officer from refreshing his memory from his notes or from the citation.

---

Nope, especially if the defendant can prove that the request was properly served, depending on the judge in the case. There is a chance that the judge will preclude introduction of evidence or the officer's refreshment of recollection based on notes if those notes were requested in discovery. It's not a certainty but it is an appropriate sanction and an appropriate motion by the defense. The defendant has an absolute right to at least the front and back of the officer's citation copy in California, plus any notes or recordings. The minimum sanction would be an opportunity for the defendant to review the officer's notes and possibly delay the trial in order to prepare a new defense.

Let me clarify I received a package from*the*California Highway Patrol the package containedthe copy of the citation both front and back and a letter from the commander that says

this office received your informal discovery requests on February 17th 2015 the request is in reference to citation number xxxxxxxx and issued by officer xxxxxxxxx on November 14 2014 there are no written or recorded statements of witnesses diagrams drawings associated with this enforcement action therefore these items are not enclosed

the front of the citation has the wrong vehicle information my drivers license information and the lane and direction of travel I was going

on the back of the citation there is nothing written

so if the office bring any other material related to this case to court can legitimately asked to have it excluded

it the officer can't remember the event what is the likelihood of the case being thrown out

If the officer can't remember what happened, there's a very good chance.

If you used the Nolo Discovery Request, I'm guessing you asked for copies of all notes made by the officer. You can ask for exclusion of these notes if there are any and they weren't provided but you may not win that argument. First, there are other, less severe sanctions available, and second, the CHP has no obligation in law to comply with a discovery request made by you. If you had made your request with the DA or with both the DA and the CHP, you'd be in a stronger position, but the judge may or may not exclude the notes or testimony based on the notes.

The citation problems to some extent can be seen as minimal. But, if the officer has no independent recollection of the event and has no notes to refresh his recollection, then proving that your vehicle wasn't even moving in the direction of travel noted on the citation could be important.

If the officer tried to introduce evidence after its existence was denied in the response to your discovery request, then at least ask to have it excluded. If that doesn't work, ask for a delay in trial so that you can review the evidence and prepare an alternative defense as appropriate.

Thank you everyone for all the advice

I did send a discovery request to both the da and chp with proof of service and I have a signed letter from the officer's commander saying that no other evidence exists besides the ticket so it sounds like I have all my ducks in a row

I just have one last question the judge conveniently scheduled my trial on a Thursday 3 days before the end of the 45 day speedy trial period and they only have traffic trials on Wednesday and Thursday so if the officer does bring in additional evidence do I have a strong argument for dismissal based on having to choose between the right to a speedy trial and the right to discovery