When Do I Present Case Law?

I have 2 different case laws for my speeding trial, one states the squad car speedo needs to be certified, one shows that if judicial notice is taken they still have to provide me with the proof of certification of the equipment.
When is the best time to present them? opening statement, or the beginning of my cross examination? I have read both but want some expert opinions.

You can question the officer on cross. The case law will need to be from your state. I strongly suggest that you sit in on some trials before you do this on your own.

1. What state are you in?

2. What does the case law say? If it says that the prosecution has the burden to provide, then you simply allow the officer to testify. Once he is done, you can ask if the prosecution has rested its case. If the prosecution has rested, then you can move for dismissal based on the prosecution failing to meet its burden.

I live in Wisconsin.
I am just getting prepared as possible.
The case laws I have are Washington county Vs Luedtke (states vehicle speedo must be checked and proof shown of accuracy for moving radar tickets if requested by defendant)
and I also have State of WI vs Hanson. This one states that accuracy of speed (aka certification)detection must be prooved if requested by the defendant. (handy if they try to use judicial notice, they still have to show it if requested)

Like I said, i am doing LOTS of homework and have a case prepared.. I have all the radar questions to ask, Angular effect, shadowing, ect...
Sorry if i sound like i don't want to hire a lawyer, but i don't and feel i can do most of it myself. My hope is that the officer is not there, or since it has been almost a year i can cast a lot of reasonable doubt that he is incompetent to testify from memory (yes i will object if he reads off a ticket.. independent recollection).
Then this is a small town and a very poor farm county so i am hoping the prosecution is not prepared, and if he is, the police did not do their job with calibrations. I know it is a long shot, but I really am so pissed at the officers actions (total asshole, even the Mayor said she was glad he transferred from the city to the county to get rid of him) that I will make them work for their money at least.
The courts delayed the trial 3 times, so i called and requested a FIRM COURT DATE and have a letter for it. If they try to cancel again i am going to try for a dismissal for sure.
I talked with another cop from the same district and he said he cannot remember the last time he ever saw a tuning fork, and his is in the trunk.
I am not going to just give my money at free will, and will look at this as a fun day and am not scared to defend myself at all. My only worry is the cop will be a lying SOB in court, his reputation proceeds him.
He had a car in front of him and one behind him when he said he clocked me with his moving radar doing 20 over. He did a u-turn and chased me down and immediately was out of the car and all in my face because i had unloaded guns (in cases) in the back seat. He was mad that i didn't admit i knew i was speeding. He took my info and went back and wrote my ticket. He returned and gave me the ticket for exactly the 20 over for a 20-25 over ticket without giving me the 1mph break that would have knocked it down into a 4 point ticket. When i said i could not believe he wouldn't give me a 1mph benefit of the doubt break he said "maybe if you admitted how fast you were going i would have"
I am going to see if he admits to saying that and ask why if he was so sure of his radar why he needed me to admit to guilt? (among other questions)
After he gave me the ticket he zoomed off right away.... so when did he test his radar with the forks like his radar manual says he is supposed to? I will be asking questions about that as well.
All in all i will just have fun:D I hope the DA thinks that i will not show up, and he will be in for a surprise when i am there and prepared if he isn't.
I am not a lawyer, i just play one on TV He he ...

Washington County v. Luedtke

The Hanson/Kramer test ( State v. Hanson, 85 Wis. 2d 233, 245, 270 N.W.2d 212 (1978), and later approved and explained in State v. Kramer, 99 Wis. 2d 700, 703, 299 N.W. 2d 882 (1981)) requires the prosecution to establish:
"1. The officer operating the device has adequate training and experience in its operation.

"2. That the radar device was in proper working condition at the time of the arrest. This will be established by proof that suggested methods of testing the proper functioning of the device were followed.

"3. That the device was used in an area where road conditions are such that there is a minimum possibility of distortion.

"4. That the input speed of the patrol car must be verified, this being especially important where there is a reasonable dispute that road conditions may have distorted the accuracy of the reading (i.e., presence of large trucks, congested traffic and the roadside being heavily covered with trees and signs).

"5. That the speed meter should be expertly tested within a reasonable proximity following the arrest and that such testing be done by means which do not rely on the radar device's own internal calibrations."

[For Item 4]This court has never held that proof, by evidence of separate testing, of the accuracy of a patrol car's speedometer was required to trigger the prima facie presumption of the radar device's accuracy. All that is required to verify or corroborate the radar-determined speed of the patrol car is a visual inspection, at the appropriate time, of the patrol car's own speedometer.

I think you need to read the cases again.

I am not following you on that one.
However, the area is wooded, and also on a large curve that could also have made the vehicle speed beam measure something off the side of the road easier causeing a larger angular effect and a higher than actual defendant's car reading.

Quote:

---

Quoting schmalts

---

I am not following you on that one.
However, the area is wooded, and also on a large curve that could also have made the vehicle speed beam measure something off the side of the road easier causeing a larger angular effect and a higher than actual defendant's car reading.

---

Actually, the cosine effect, due to angle of approach, causes the vehicle's speed to read LOWER than it is actually going. It is ALWAYS in the DRIVER'S favor.

Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Actually, the cosine effect, due to angle of approach, causes the vehicle's speed to read LOWER than it is actually going. It is ALWAYS in the DRIVER'S favor.

Barry

---

You are incorrect. The cosine error will make the speed reading slower than actual, but if it is the squad car reading that reads slower, then compared to my car's reading, the difference is higher because of the angular effect of the beam used to read the squad car's speed. Remember, there is 2 seperate beams for moving radar, one for the squad cars speed and one for the target. If the squads car reading for ANY reason is a a mile or two off it will make the defendants speed read higher.

Quote:

---

Quoting schmalts

---

Remember, there is 2 seperate beams for moving radar, one for the squad cars speed and one for the target.

---

Sometimes -- some models, such as the Kustom Golden Eagle are wired into the vehicle's speedometer. It has two beams, one forward, one aft. Get's ya comin' and goin'.

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Sometimes -- some models, such as the Kustom Golden Eagle are wired into the vehicle's speedometer. It has two beams, one forward, one aft. Get's ya comin' and goin'.

---

If that is the case i would think that speedometer calibration would be manditory if the prosecution was to use moving radar in this case, am i correct?