All still useful. And thanks to you both. Indeed trial is tomorrow.
One point where there seems to be some disagreement is in regards to "prosecution" proving there isn't a speed trap.
"Technically, the prosecution for VC 22349(b) is required to prove "not a speed trap", but the definition of "speed trap" (in VC 40802) says a speed trap is a particular section of highway where ..."
If indeed "prosecution" is required to prove anything at all, but I only have the judge and the officer present, who plays the role of the "prosecution".
If that's the case (is it?)
I've seen it suggested that
"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. "
If it's a bunch of hooey to raise the possibility that the absence of prosecution means the absence of proof that there is no speed trap, thus no case -- I'd rather not tick off the judge/commissioner.
Thanks again, Here I go! 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.