Printable View
I am almost 98% sure that your fear will not become fact. If it does, you can express the confusion of the case and the Judge will understand. I highly doubt that the city prosecutor will amend the affidavit. He's got too much paperwork to worry about.
Brendan
Thank You Brendan from my heart. 98% surety is more than enough for me to be relax at this point. To cover up 2%, I am still considering multi-pronged defence for my-self in case one fails. This Web-site & you have inspired me and had Flared-up my Hunger for more reaserch in law. I'l come back as soon I find some legit points/shots for defence, untile then Pleeeeeease keep checking my posts. Thanks again.
Thank You Jazzgear, for your enthusiasm and spirit for helping others, but I agree with Barry's advice, because it is practical and based on the fact that defendant HAVE to subpoena the engineer and/or officer othervise their sworn statementa are admissible in the WA courts. I can see the differance between "criminal" and "Traffic Infraction" cases in wa. Mr.Jazzgear your strategey might possibally work in "criminal" cases,not in ifraction cases. One medication might good for one patience but not for other.infact it can harm. I cann't merely object the certificate unless I had filed a subpoena prior to 30 days of hearing, and if I subpoena the engineer I have to pay his time/cost in case I loose the battle+ I'm sending siganal to the prosecter to be prepare carefully for the fight.
Just think about a lost person asking direction to his destination and somebody give him wrong direction, how would you feel.
Anyway Thank You again for your help, but I'l stick to the Barry's advice.
jslabana, I don't believe you have to pay anything if you subpoena the SMD expert -- at least I didn't five years ago when I had my hearing. I don't see anything in the court rules that even permit such a fee. You could call the Clerk and verify that, but I'm pretty sure there's no fee.
And, thanks,
Barry
Barry you are right that if I WIN the case I don't have to pay smd expert Fee, BUT if I loose the case/battle than I havr to pay smd expert Fees. AS the Court Rule LIRLJ 6.6(d) SAYS
SPEED MEASURING DEVICE: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
CERTIFICATION
Any person who requests production of an electronic
speed measuring device (SMD) expert, and who is thereafter
found by the Court to have committed the infraction, may be
required to pay the fee charged by the expert as a cost
incurred by that party, as provided in RCW 46.63.151.
I meant to say in my previous post# 27 that in case I LOOSE THE BATTLE then I have to pay smd expert. It has mentioned also in the cover page of discovery
I STILL APRECIATE YOUR CONCERN, THANK YOU BARRY .
Hmmmm. That's an interesting "local" rule. It is NOT in the state-wide IRLJ's. I really think that rule might get overturned on appeal, since the SMD expert, while subpoenaed by the defendant, is actually a prosecution witness -- one that the defense subsequently gets to cross-examine.
IRLJ 6.6, at least the way I interpret it, merely allows the prosecution to take a "shortcut" in authenticating the SMD device, which is required by ER 901. It is the prosecution's evidence which MUST be authenticated. This foundation can be established by an IRLJ 6.6 certificate or, if the defense insists, by the SMD expert who performed or supervised the tests.
Which court is this, just out of curiosity?
Barry
Barry, It is close to Airport, STI.