Results 1 to 9 of 9

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default Prosecutor Was Allowed to Enter Evidence Never Provided in Discovery

    My question involves traffic court in the State of: Missouri

    In my speeding trial, I made a written request for discovery that included asking for any other copies of the citation/information and any other records that the prosecutor planned to use in court. In the hearing, the prosecutor looked at my copy of the citation and told the judge and myself that my copy was the exact same as his copy. The judge then denied that part of the request as moot.

    Fast forward to trial... As I was questioning the officer about not following policy and writing the speed gun and tuning fork numbers on the citation, he said that he did. The prosecutor then told the judge (a different one from the discovery hearing) that the court's copy has that information on it. I immediately objected. The prosecutor told the judge I could have gotten that citation with all the information from the court file. The judge told him, "I'm not so sure about that." They seem to have major issues with their electronic court files. He told me, "I'm not sure an appeals court would agree with me, but I'm going to overrule your objection."

    I also saw that the citation had been amended to add a cross street for which there was only one street name on my citation; it was another point I planed to use.

    Does the prosecutor have to provide those documents, even if they are in the court file if requested by discovery? Furthermore, can he amend the citation just minutes before trail and not inform me. The courts official copy had been signed by him on the trial date. Doesn't that substantially interfere with my right to defend myself?




    ALSO another point of trouble in the case was these two ordinances. This ticket was issued for a violation on a state highway. It appears these two conflict with each other when it comes to state highways. One says they must be in concurrence of the State Highway Commission and the other says they must follow the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

    1201.025 Authority of State Highway and Transportation Commission. --All regulations contained in this Traffic Code regarding traffic control devices on State highways shall be with the concurrence of the State Highway and Transportation Commission. The State Highway and Transportation Commission is hereby authorized to post and install all regulatory signs on State highways.

    1201.120 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. --All traffic control devices on highways, roadways, alleyways, and driveways within St. Louis County shall conform to the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" published by the Federal Highway Administration bearing the identification number D6.1-1978, and its latest revisions. Copies of the manual are on file in the office of the St. Louis County Clerk and in the Department of Highways and Traffic.

    Do you think an appeals court would remand this for a new trial?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Prosecutor Was Allowed to Enter Evidence Never Provided in Discovery

    You've not provided any evidence that the prosecutor's copy was different than yours. Just that the one in the court file is different.

    How did it prejudice your defense that the cross-street was identified on the ticket? You were aware of the cross-street involved, right? The street identified was the correct cross-street?

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in relation to state highways. If you commit a violation on a state highway that also falls under the jurisdiction of a municipality, you can normally be charged under either the state statute or a municipal ordinance.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default Re: Prosecutor Was Allowed to Enter Evidence Never Provided in Discovery

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    You've not provided any evidence that the prosecutor's copy was different than yours. Just that the one in the court file is different.

    How did it prejudice your defense that the cross-street was identified on the ticket? You were aware of the cross-street involved, right? The street identified was the correct cross-street?

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in relation to state highways. If you commit a violation on a state highway that also falls under the jurisdiction of a municipality, you can normally be charged under either the state statute or a municipal ordinance.
    It was different because it did provide the cross street. I thought the violation occurred on a different part of the road, right where the speed limit lowers. That would have been another violation of the written department policy and would have showed the officer didn't follow that part as well so he probably didn't follow the other parts regarding testing the radar unit as required. Also, traffic patterns were different and so was the road design.

    Also, the radar unit and tuning fork number were on the court citation and not on mine. Department policy requires they be entered on the citation to "show which radar unit and tuning forks were used to monitor the violation". Since they weren't on my ticket, they were written on their copy later on. Most likely it was after I requested all the testing documents. At that point, they could have given me any testing documents that were valid and then written the numbers on their citation right before court.

    Isn't the fact that they denied my motion to get that court document that actually charged me with a violation and then using it in court enough for appeal, not even considering it was different?

    As far as the state highway, they have two ordinances that show how traffic control devices should be setup. They conflict with each other regarding state highways. In one, they say they must be in concurrence with the State Highway and Transportation Commission and the other says they must follow the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Well those two actually conflict. The state one says conventional road speed limit signs SHALL be 36"X42" and the federal manual says they should be at least 30"x36".

    How can they say the signs must be conform and be in concurrence with two different documents? In addition, state law says that the State Transportation Commission has exclusive jurisdiction on all state and federal roads in the state.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Prosecutor Was Allowed to Enter Evidence Never Provided in Discovery

    Exclusive jurisdiction to install and maintain traffic control devices does not mean exclusive jurisdiction to issue traffic tickets for violations.

    Again, how did it prejudice your defense that the cross-street was identified on the ticket?

    Again, you told us that you filed a motion against the prosecutor, the prosecutor indicated that you had the same version of the ticket that he did, and you've not yet given us any indication that the prosecutor was being untruthful. Presumably you raised your challenges to the ticket as issued to you when you were in court.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default Re: Prosecutor Was Allowed to Enter Evidence Never Provided in Discovery

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    Exclusive jurisdiction to install and maintain traffic control devices does not mean exclusive jurisdiction to issue traffic tickets for violations.

    Again, how did it prejudice your defense that the cross-street was identified on the ticket?

    Again, you told us that you filed a motion against the prosecutor, the prosecutor indicated that you had the same version of the ticket that he did, and you've not yet given us any indication that the prosecutor was being untruthful. Presumably you raised your challenges to the ticket as issued to you when you were in court.
    I understand the county has jurisdiction to issue traffic tickets on state highways; I have no issue with that. My issue is with the speed limit signs. They are 30"X40" which is not big enough according to the state traffic commission, but are big enough according to the federal manual.

    Another ordinance says:
    1201.110 When Traffic Signs Required for Enforcement Purposes. --No provisions of this ordinance for which signs are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator, if at the time and place of the alleged violation, an official sign is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person. If a particular section does not state that signs are required, the section shall be effective even though no signs are erected or in place.

    Not having the violation information(citation) with all of the information (cross street, radar information) prejudices me because I can't properly defend against something if I don't know where it happen. How could the prosecutor change ANYTHING on the official information without notifying me? Any other citation I've had, the prosecutors always mail me a copy of the changes.

    If the police say you are arrested for robbing a Bank of America and tell you it's the one at 1st and Main Street, and then the prosecutor tells you that the charge documents are correct that say Bank of America on 1st Street and you get to trial and in the middle of it, they say it was actually the Bank of America at 1st and Riverview Street, don't you think that will affect your ability to defend yourself?

    BTW, thanks for your posts.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Prosecutor Was Allowed to Enter Evidence Never Provided in Discovery

    Presumably you presented your argument in relation to the signs at your trial, and presumably the judge found against you. If you preserved the issue at the trial court and you plan to appeal, you can raise the issue on appeal.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    832

    Default Re: Prosecutor Was Allowed to Enter Evidence Never Provided in Discovery

    Quote Quoting lancers
    View Post
    As far as the state highway, they have two ordinances that show how traffic control devices should be setup. They conflict with each other regarding state highways. In one, they say they must be in concurrence with the State Highway and Transportation Commission and the other says they must follow the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Well those two actually conflict. The state one says conventional road speed limit signs SHALL be 36"X42" and the federal manual says they should be at least 30"x36".

    How can they say the signs must be conform and be in concurrence with two different documents? In addition, state law says that the State Transportation Commission has exclusive jurisdiction on all state and federal roads in the state.
    I think you are reading too far into the Federal and State requirements.

    The FEDERAL requirement is the signs are to be AT LEAST 30"x36".

    The STATE requirement is the signs SHALL BE 36"x42".

    The state makes the requirements the signs be a specific size, probably for uniformity throughout the state. That size requirement meets AND exceeds that of the federal requirement. All the feds say is the sign has to be bigger than 30x36. If a state wants to make each sign the size of a billboard, they are in compliance.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default Re: Prosecutor Was Allowed to Enter Evidence Never Provided in Discovery

    Quote Quoting sniper
    View Post
    I think you are reading too far into the Federal and State requirements.

    The FEDERAL requirement is the signs are to be AT LEAST 30"x36".

    The STATE requirement is the signs SHALL BE 36"x42".

    The state makes the requirements the signs be a specific size, probably for uniformity throughout the state. That size requirement meets AND exceeds that of the federal requirement. All the feds say is the sign has to be bigger than 30x36. If a state wants to make each sign the size of a billboard, they are in compliance.
    I made a typing error, the state says the signs SHALL BE 36"x48" It is irregardless though.

    I think I understand what you are saying that one says "at least" and the other says "shall" with the latter being bigger so there is no conflict on that matter. The actual language of the federal manual also says "shall" too, but generally larger signs can be used if engineering studies show it is needed therefor it's like "at least". There are actual conflicts between the two manuals though. They are also both subject to change which could put them in conflict if they were not already. Could you think of some cases like this where the government says they must follow two different set of rules on the same matter?

    Shouldn't that have meant that the judge should make sure the signs met both manuals' requirements? He basically disregarded the state's manual in favor of the federal one after the prosecutor brought it up. He ignored that the state said it "shall be 36"x48"" when it was 30"x42".

    I think what is really frustrating is the judge, who does traffic cases 2-3 nights a week, didn't even know what a "traffic control devices" was. He had to have the prosecutor look it up on his computer. You could tell he was just used to people coming in and saying they weren't speeding and not providing any legal arguments.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Discovery: Denied Discovery by the Prosecutor
    By styleguy in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-24-2011, 01:09 AM
  2. Quiet Enjoyment: Landlord Allowed Unauthorized Relative to Enter Unit, Items Stolen
    By stickyfingaz in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 12:42 PM
  3. Pretrial Procedure: Prosecutor is Withholding Exculpatory Evidence
    By noonecouldeverguesswhoiam in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 06:29 PM
  4. Divorce: How Do I Enter Something Into Evidence
    By Movingon1975 in forum Divorce, Annulment and Separation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 06:44 AM
  5. Search and Seizure: Party at a Residency: Are the Police Allowed to Enter and Frisk
    By Vadoff in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-10-2009, 11:10 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources