My question involves a California speeding ticket citing 22349(b) "70+ in a 55". My trial is at the end of this week.
Question 1
Assuming that no prosecuting attorney is present at my trial (which is probable), I will argue that (before the officer testifies), "Prosecution of this case is an executive act as per Esteybar v Municipal Court (one that the judiciary cannot perform) and that officer _________ who has appeared is a witness, nothing more, nothing less as per People v Marcroft and therefore he cannot perform an act of prosecution."
I plan to move for dismissal based on the fact that the prosecution has not met the burden of VC40803.
For some reason, my instinct tells me it isn't this easy, and the judge will just get angry at this.
I've also heard that this can be skirted by the court if the violation is an infraction and if the judge remains impartial "doesn't coach the witness".
Do you have some advice on this approach?
and then one more...
Question 2
At my arraignment, the no-nonsense judge added that CA 22349(b) did not require a survey and that the violation would be upheld if I was driving one MPH over 55, 58 or any other speed - it's the same violation.
This was a particularly dismal edict since my last line of defense was a graph printout of actual vehicle speed that day (my truck carries a OBDII speed recording system). At the time of violation, (and before and after) it shows the vehicle never exceeded 63 MPH.
The judge seemed pretty confident, and almost seemed to be expecting my defense.
Is my only remaining defense to simply request an original radar training certificate?
Much thanks,
Jack

