I am not providing a counter argument. I am providing you with facts as to why your plan will not work out, facts that show you will be unpleasently surprised when you go to court.
None of that changes the fact that thew charge can be amended prior to pleas entry or prior to trial.
And it is your opinion that the prosecuting attorney is going to go to trial without reviewing the summons and the supporting deposition and without noticing the discrepancy?
First, the judge will not be correcting anything. The prosecutor will. Second, there is no need to correct both. Only the citation will need to be corrected at which time, it will match what the supporting deposition describes and the trial will proceed.
Again, it is easier to believe that the error was made on the citation and not on the deposition as the latter goes into detail describing events, what happened and why you got cited.
Once the first error is amended to match the offense described in the supporting deposition, there will be no second error.
If you're still not understanding what I am posting , or if you are still "rather confused" by what I have stated here, just re-read that one short line again. It is pretty simple. And I bolded it for easy reference.
Fixated? How about I do this... Leave you to continue believing that there is a second error, thinking that you have a case to argue, and hoping that you will get a dismissal when the entire case is likely to take an opposite turn to all of your beliefs. You are assuming that you can control the proceeding, that you can force the judge to believe what you would like him to believe and that the prosecutor has no say so or control over what happens.
The officer is required to verify his statement. That means he is required to ensure that his statement is representative of the facts of the case, and is descriptive of the events he witnessed. It does not mean that the deposition has to match the citation even if the citation cited an erroneous statute number.
And unless you are suggesting that he made up the events he described in the supporting deposition, then you have no argument that there is a second error.
I am not arguing the elements of the Cobb case. I simply cited Codd because it offers an interpretation of how CPL 170.35, CPL 100.50 and CPL 30.30 work side by side. Unfortunately, even that simplified interpretation is lost on someone who refuses to consider any point of view and instead, would rather proceed on baseless meaningless assumptions that have no basis under the law.
And? Are you suggesting that every New York State case law holding that decided before Hussey is no longer valid just because Hussey defined a supporting deposition as being a document that must be verified by the officer who wrote it?
Is ^^this^^ going to be the last straw you're going to be grasping?
The statute described in the supporting deposition (although you have not indicated what it is), is presumably valid and not unconstitutional; at least thus far, you have not suggested that it is invalid nor unconstitutional. Similarly, the statute in the citation is not unconstitutional, nor is it an invalid statute; it simply does not apply in your case and based on the events described in the supporting deposition. However, once it is amended, it will be applicable. Problem solved.
For your information, the only relevant subsection under 170.35 is subsection (1)(a), and the only relevant subsection under 100.50 is subsection (1)
Now, it would be in your best interest to try and come up with an alternative defense or, judging by the circumstances you described, doing so might be near impossible, you should at least prepare yourself mentally for the possibility that you will lose and be convicted. This shouldn't be much of a surprise as you don't really deny committing the violation. Instead, you've admitted it and made silly excuses. You might want to try and see if the prosecutor would be willing to negotiate some sort of deal, in fact you'd be better off exploring such possibility before you give any indication what your plan is; not because it will give you more bargaining power, quite the contrary, because it simply leaves no doubt that you have no chips to bargain with and that you're in over your head.
At the end of the day, it isn't me you have to convince. If you can convince the powers that be, more power to you...

