Congratulations! Care to elaborate? What did you end up saying? What did the prosecutor say (if there was one)? What did the judge say?
Thanks for letting us know.
Barry
Congratulations! Care to elaborate? What did you end up saying? What did the prosecutor say (if there was one)? What did the judge say?
Thanks for letting us know.
Barry
I will try to summarize the entire experience if I can.
I got there about 45 minutes early. All courtrooms were locked so I took a seat on the bench in the hall. I must have gotten there at just the right time because I went right through security but right behind me about 20 people showed up and security was definitely a bottleneck. People kept coming long after all the benches in the hall were taken so there were many people standing in the halls. The hall I was in had 6 courtrooms, and by looking at the posted schedule many/most/all? of the 6 were for traffic issues that day. There were probably 200 people in "my" hall waiting. One at a time the courtrooms were unlocked at about 1:00pm and people filed in to their respective rooms. My assigned time was 1:06pm (as was everyone else’s in that hall.) My courtroom started on time to the second.
There were about I'd guess 25-30 contested infractions in "my" courtroom that day and I was somewhere near the middle of the pack, maybe number 20 or so. The Judge based the order we went on where we were sitting (which I am sure no one knew walking in the room and picking seats at random - I sat near the front on the left side.) He called us one at a time up to the podium, asked us our names, swore us in, and basically talked to us. It was much less "formal" than I expected which was a huge relief to me.
For each case, he offered the three "choices" we had before he heard our story. Defer (if we were eligible, which not everyone was,) Mitigate, or Contest. The Judge was extremely friendly and I feel like he was genuinely trying to be helpful. I am sure no one felt rushed. Looking back on it I think the Judge's perceived "easy-going" attitude probably helped people to be more "honest" so that was a good play on his part.
There was no prosecutor in the room. Some prosecutor/attorney looking people came and went freely walking in to the courtroom in the middle of a case, walking up to the recorder/clerk and talking to her for a minute, and then leaving but none of them stayed. The only fixtures in the room were the clerk/recorder which the Judge asked simple questions to occasionally, the Judge himself, and "us." One person required an interpreter and when the interpreter showed up that person went next which was out of the "order" he was calling people out of the audience.
He said right off the bat that he was going to call people based on “his” order and that he felt sorry for the first person up, but that he would use that person to explain how he operated his courtroom to the rest of us. The first person up was a woman who had been involved in a fender bender and was cited for following too close. She elected to contest so the Judge read the "evidence" against her. Since there were no officers in the room the only evidence against her (or any of us) was the officer's sworn statement. When he was done reading, the Judge asked the woman what her defense was. As she started talking the Judge cut in with "Keep in mind the officer did not say in his statement who was 'Car 1' and who was 'Car 2'." The woman piped up "Wait I have pictures" and the Judge said "It is to your benefit that the officer did not clarify that." The woman piped up several more times before she was 'smelling what the Judge was stepping in.' The Judge dismissed that case on an inadequate statement or something like that. I don’t know if she “got off easy” because she was first or not. But she got off with a dismissed.
There were several other cases before mine and it was very interesting to hear them. There were a couple of cases that I would consider somewhat similar to mine in the sense they were some kind of officer error. Most other cases where the Judge deciding that the offense was committed but he reduced the expenses and that was regardless of the "choice" the defendant made at the beginning (deferral, contest, etc.) It seemed that most speeding tickets, for example, were decided to be "offense committed" and he would reduce a speeding ticket from ~$150 to ~$100 based on "what they (defendant) learned that day" and I would say that was the average. One person had a cell phone violation that was found "not committed" because he produced cell phone records that showed no calls or texting during that time and his defense was that it was an MP3 player that looked like a cell phone. There was a defendant that had a ticket for several offenses (no insurance, loud stereo, loud exhaust, speeding, defective equipment) and the Judge reduced some of the offenses but left loud stereo and loud exhaust for example. There were a few "driving without insurance" infractions that the judge reduced to $25 "court costs" after the defendant produced proof they had insurance at the time they were stopped. In the (fairly few) cases where it came down to simply the "word" of the officer vs. the "word" of the defendant, the Judge always found in favor of the officer as he found the infraction committed. He justified it by saying basically the officer has no reason to lie but he always reduced the "bail." I can say that I don't recall anyone walking in there and paying face value of their infraction. I think every single one was at least reduced regardless. I also think that regardless, I would always choose "Contested" because it didn't seem to matter much from where I was sitting what option the defendant chose (Contested, Mitigated, Deferred) but contested was the only option where you could potentially be let off with no expense. Of course this is assuming you didn't commit the infraction.
There is another thing I have to say and this might come off as wrong to some people but I have to say it. I can’t believe how unprepared some people are when they go to court. When I went in I read the cell-phone policy and the dress code and I went in prepared to defend myself. I think of the 20 or so other cases I saw today, there was only one other person anywhere close to as prepared as I was and that person was dismissed from a Reckless Driving 2nd Degree ($600+). The vast majority of people walked in there with ripped clothes, smelling like smoke, unshaven, ineligible for deferral due to their record, and with absolutely zero paperwork in their hands. Most had not even requested discovery let alone had a copy of it with them. Most had absolutely zero defense prepared and were probably guilty of whatever they were accused of in my opinion. Many did not even know what they would choose among Mitigation, Contest, and Defer as they had given it no thought. Still, the Judge took the time to listen to their “defense” (excuses) and gave them the benefit of the doubt. It was amazing to me how disrespectful most of the people were, not only to the Judge and courtroom, but to the whole process.
When it was my turn the Judge read my infraction which was “fail to stop at stop sign.” I think he was reading the officer sworn statement while I was talking but he was not reading it out loud so I am not sure. He said I had a perfect record (which I do) and asked me if I would like to contest, defer, or mitigate. I said “contest.” He said “Are you sure, you have a perfect record” (implying he would defer if I asked him to.) I told him I was sure and he read the officer statement.
To make a long story short I think the Judge was actually a little harder on me than he was on the other defendants that day. I don’t know why. I assume it was because the officer’s sworn statement made me look so “evil” (with the “high rate of speed” business) and that it was just a simple mistake the officer made by citing the wrong RCW. He asked me what I thought happened and I honestly told him that I think the officer made an honest mistake. I told him honestly that when I was stopped the officer said I was speeding and I didn’t realize the ticket was for a stop sign until I got home as the officer didn’t say anything about a stop sign or a traffic signal when I was stopped. I told him when I requested discovery I was surprised to read that it was a stop light issue and not a stop sign as the infraction was written. I told him I never saw the officer until he raced up behind me with his lights on 3300 feet away from where the alleged infraction occurred. I told him I do not know where the officer was or which direction he thought I was going and the statement didn’t clarify. I told him I had a picture of the intersection to show there was no stop sign, but instead it was a traffic signal. He asked to see the picture which I showed him. When he looked at the picture he said “The court finds this picture relevant.” He held up the picture and asked if I took it and I told him yes, I took it yesterday. He said that he finds “Infraction not committed” and “Have a good afternoon.” I thanked him and walked out of the courtroom.
The lesson I learned from this (if any) is that if you committed the infraction, just pay the ticket (as I did 10 years ago with my only other ticket.) If you did not commit the infraction then contest. You have nothing to lose by contesting vs Mitigate or Defer (other than your time and stress.) Never mitigate as there is no advantage to that over contesting.
Thank you very much to those that helped and offered advice. I really appreciate it.
WOW! Thanks for the narrative. I'm sure it will help MANY folks who come here and read it. Good job, BTW. It feels pretty good when you do your homework, you're prepared, and you walk out a winner, doesn't it? Congrats, again.
Barry