Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39
  1. #1

    Default Appealing a Traffic Court Conviction Based on Errors of Law

    As some of you know, I was sited for speeding in WA (40 in a 30), asked for a contested hearing, asked for discovery, and got a lot of great help in this forum for how to prepare my defense. The key point in my defense was that there was not sufficient foundation for using the moving radar reading as evidence against me, since the officer did not say in his statement that the SMD speed window matched his patrol car speed. The moving radar only knows how fast someone else is going, if you first correctly tell it how fast *you* are going. In addition, there was quite a bit of discussion on the forums about the officer submitting his statement six weeks after the fact, and including new information that was not mentioned on the ticket or his notes. One creative argument was that the officer could not submit two different statements, another that it spoke to recall and was suspicious.

    Thus armed with a little knowledge (and a lot of notes) I showed up to court, ready to defend my case. The judge asked me to raise my right hand. I politely stated I had some preliminary motions. Then I apologized for my lack of legal knowledge, and said that I hoped the court would forgive my making some arguments in plain English. I then made motions to suppress the officers statement for the reasons above, and motions to dismiss, but the judge was clearly not in the mood to listen.

    In days previous to my hearing I took the time to come in to court just to watch the proceedings, and I observed in his courtroom that lawyers and people representing themselves were treated completely differently. The lawyers with respect, the people with disdain... as if they were criminals. I observed when a lawyer brought up "a technicality" with the client not present, the ticket would be dismissed with a 'good job' wink, and followed by friendly small talk with the judge and prosecutor, but a person representing themselves trying to speak like a normal person and be honest, would be scorned and convicted - as admitting to going even one mile over the posted speed limit is breaking the letter of the law.

    So I knew "my word against the officer" would not help me, and I attempted to do what the lawyers were doing, by focusing on the technical points. However when I did that (and in three days I was the only defendant representing themselves who had any kind of legal points as a defense) the judge got really angry, as if I was 'acting above my station' or something. When I got to my third and final line of defense with a motion to dismiss based on the SMD speed window argument, he interrupted me to say something to the effect of, "You need to stop making motions and just testify. It doesn't matter what motion you make to dismiss, I will uphold the officers statement." And later he also rebuked me by saying "You came in here trying to make all sorts of technical arguments, when you should have just testified and been honest... I find the infraction committed."

    Now, I understand the judge has the right to find me guilty of the infraction, even if I have the best defense in the world, and a superior court will not care about the "facts" of the case or the verdict. HOWEVER - I am considering an appeal based on "errors of law" and I wonder if I am correct in suspecting that when the judge told me he would deny any other motions to dismiss (regardless of what I had to say) so I might as well stop making motions, and two, when he stopped to chastise me from the bench about my defense, he was making a legal error or breaking the judicial code of conduct.

    It seems to me the judge can not, before finding you guilty, state his displeasure with your defense strategy, nor tell you how you should have defended yourself. It also seems to me that a judge can not interrupt me to say he will refuse any other motions regardless of what they are, because he's angry. Then chewing me out for using "technicalities" as he puts it, is my legal right - and it is inappropriate for him to dissuade me from a valid defense.

    Lastly it was insulting that he presumed I was not being honest in my testimony. I wasn't sure how much to say, so I just made a very brief statement. Then he asked if I had anything more to add, and I said no. Then he started talking about stuff in the officers notes, and when I tried to respond to those points he would just interrupt me and say "You already said you had nothing more to add. You're done testifying." What am I supposed to do, recall myself as a witness? Plead the 5th? What a way to trample on people with no legal knowledge by tricking them with procedures. Is he the judge or the prosecutor? Hmpf.

    But anyway, I am concerned that if out of the entire hearing transcript, perhaps two or three lines show inappropriate conduct or prejudice (or whatever other legal error applies, if I understand correctly) if that would be enough to win the appeal, or if it would just make a bunch of rural county judges laugh about my protests and legal ignorance.

    Thanks for your feedback everyone!

    ~Oceangirl

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    3,577

    Default Re: Possible Errors of Law in a Contested Hearing for Speeding Ticket - Should I Appe

    OK -- I'm done with you. Granted, I was so pissed at MoMoney for convincing you of his argument that I couldn't think straight -- at least not with the time I had. So, I just spewed venom. That was a mistake and I appologize. However, when I went back the next day to explain in more detail, I saw you had already taken his side, calling me "harsh" -- and that just pissed me off more. So, I decided to let you learn your own lesson. Don't ask me why I've even tried to help you now -- maybe I just felt guilty about the whole mess.

    I've always felt that one of the biggest mistakes a pro se can make it to get into statutory construction and legislative intent. Few things piss a judge off faster than having some "farmer", who just fell off the turnip truck, try to tell him how he should interpret the law. Especially if that interpretation is "novel", as in this case -- "any" means only ONE! Someone tried to explain to him that "any" can also be interpreted as "every" -- but he wouldn't listen. Nor would you!

    Now, I've tried to explain that "manifest abuse of discretion" is your ONLY appeal, based on what you've said here. But, you insist of this "errors of law" fantasy. I tried to warn you that Mo was leading you toward disaster -- you wouldn't listen. But, feel free to tell me how "harsh" I'm being ... it's not my money or insurance rates. Oh, and I'm not saying you can't win this -- I probably could -- but, since you don't wish to listen to me, you'll do it without my help.

    Bye,
    Barry
    Where am I going? And why am I in this handbasket?

  3. #3

    Default Re: Possible Errors of Law in a Contested Hearing for Speeding Ticket - Should I Appe

    Quote Quoting blewis
    View Post
    OK -- I'm done with you. Granted, I was so pissed at MoMoney for convincing you of his argument that I couldn't think straight -- at least not with the time I had. So, I just spewed venom. That was a mistake and I appologize. However, when I went back the next day to explain in more detail, I saw you had already taken his side, calling me "harsh" -- and that just pissed me off more. So, I decided to let you learn your own lesson. Don't ask me why I've even tried to help you now -- maybe I just felt guilty about the whole mess.

    I've always felt that one of the biggest mistakes a pro se can make it to get into statutory construction and legislative intent. Few things piss a judge off faster than having some "farmer", who just fell off the turnip truck, try to tell him how he should interpret the law. Especially if that interpretation is "novel", as in this case -- "any" means only ONE! Someone tried to explain to him that "any" can also be interpreted as "every" -- but he wouldn't listen. Nor would you!

    Now, I've tried to explain that "manifest abuse of discretion" is your ONLY appeal, based on what you've said here. But, you insist of this "errors of law" fantasy. I tried to warn you that Mo was leading you toward disaster -- you wouldn't listen. But, feel free to tell me how "harsh" I'm being ... it's not my money or insurance rates. Oh, and I'm not saying you can't win this -- I probably could -- but, since you don't wish to listen to me, you'll do it without my help.

    Bye,
    Barry

    Wow Barry, I'm sorry for whatever happened that made you so angry with me and anyone else who has offended you. It was never my goal to "take sides" or slight you in the least. You admit that on the previous thread you "spewed venom" at MoMoney, and I was just trying to keep things civil when I said that was "harsh". I'm sorry if that was taken the wrong way. In that post I added that I thought he was only trying to help because he spent a lot of time replying to my questions and I appreciated it. If it wasn't for the people on this forum listening and trying to help me navigate the legal system, I probably would never have even gone through with the contested hearing - because I didn't know how to read the discovery documents. :/

    But it wasn't just one person's opinion... there were several members who were curious to hear how the plural-statements defense would work (unfortunately for me). No one put up a giant red flag and said "this will only anger the judge." And yes, now my perfect driving record is smudged, and my good-driver discount goes away, unless I somehow become a law expert in 30 days and go for the appeal. Unlikely

    Being in that court room was a horrible experience... I worked so hard to be prepared, to have my notes, to take advice from everyone here, dress well. And five minutes into it, I can't remember the last time I felt so unfairly humiliated and helpless. NO ONE deserves that over a stupid speeding ticket. Not a "farmer", not someone clueless about the law, not someone making dumb mistakes.... no one. I was nearly in tears leaving the courtroom. I believe everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect in a court of law - to not be interrupted, glared at, or told their rights don't apply anymore when the judge is mad. If what I argued was ridiculous, fine... the judge can tell the story as a joke at cocktail parties later, or roll his eyes in private, or shake his head wearily as he listens... but it doesn't give him license to publicly humiliate me and be a bully.

    Yes Barry, I have no clue what "errors of law" actually means, which is exactly why I'm here asking for help. I have Googled every page I could find, I have watched youtube law school videos, but to really understand how it would apply to a traffic ticket, I have no idea. In my last post I specifically asked for what errors of law meant, and the best answer I got is, "it's what it sounds like." :P Not much help.

    I feel really bad about everything already, and now I feel even worse because you're mad at me too. Everyone is mad at me. The judge hates me, you hate me, everyone I know has been asking me "how court went" so I have to keep retelling the whole traumatic story over and over again... it's been a terrible couple of days. I'm sorry I don't remember a post where you talked about "manifest abuse of discretion", so I will search for it. I don't know how I missed it. I'm sorry. Clearly I'm not cut out for law school

    ~ASadOceanGirl

    Edit: Sorry again. Yes I did read your post earlier that mentioned the manifest abuse of discretion, I just forgot to Google the term so it didn't stick in my mind. My brain is mush from everything I've tried to remember the past few weeks... I feel so dumb.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    OH10
    Posts
    17,019

    Default Re: Possible Errors of Law in a Contested Hearing for Speeding Ticket - Should I Appe

    Your perfect record is smudged because you broke the law, not because you did not manage to overcome the judges interpretation of preponderance of the evidence.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Possible Errors of Law in a Contested Hearing for Speeding Ticket - Should I Appe

    Quote Quoting Disagreeable
    View Post
    Your perfect record is smudged because you broke the law, not because you did not manage to overcome the judges interpretation of preponderance of the evidence.
    If you read my post you will see I am far more upset over how I was treated, then the finding that I committed the infraction. Had my points been heard, noted, considered, and the judge said, "well I understand what you're saying about the SMD speed window, but the scale tips more against you, so I'm going to rule that way..." at least I wouldn't be weepy thinking about it all days later.

    Anyone who travels 31 in a 30 is breaking the law. How and to whom the legal system is selectively applied is another matter. Let's not pretend that officers in economically depressed rural counties where 20% of the county budget is "court fines and fees", don't hang out where the limit sharply drops from 60 to 45 to 30 to "catch" people who aren't "slowing down fast enough", or that on the days I observed citizens who were cited but could afford lawyers deserved a different a different interpretation of preponderance of the evidence.

    You don't have to sympathize. But you don't have to kick me when I'm down either.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,344

    Default Re: Possible Errors of Law in a Contested Hearing for Speeding Ticket - Should I Appe

    Here in Florida, traffic cases are heard by non-judge hearing officers who have little knowledge of the law, and even have to resort to looking in their rules of evidence cheat book if you raise any kind of real defense. If you had a real judge in WA, I'm sure s/he is not happy making a living hearing traffic cases. If you want to make a real legal argument my suggestion is that you need to appeal. I objected to photocopy evidence presented by an officer, asking that it not be admitted under my state's "best evicence" rule since the officer had an original document at his disposal, which he admitted to photocopying himself. The hearing officer said, "well, the rules of evidence say it is admissible unless attacked by the defense, so I'm going to allow it." That's how bizarre it can get. I appealed, appeared in front of a real judge, and won.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Possible Errors of Law in a Contested Hearing for Speeding Ticket - Should I Appe

    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    View Post
    As some of you know, I was sited for speeding in WA (40 in a 30), asked for a contested hearing, asked for discovery, and got a lot of great help in this forum for how to prepare my defense. The key point in my defense was that there was not sufficient foundation for using the moving radar reading as evidence against me, since the officer did not say in his statement that the SMD speed window matched his patrol car speed.
    If that was your primary line of defense, why did you make it the third argument you presented to the court, and what were your first two arguments?

    I don't think much of that defense under the circumstances as the officer also indicated that he was traveling at 30 MPH and saw that, due to your higher speed, your vehicle was rapidly approaching his patrol car. That can only happen if your speed is greater than 30 MPH, and if that's the speed limit that testimony alone indicates that you were speeding.
    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    In addition, there was quite a bit of discussion on the forums about the officer submitting his statement six weeks after the fact, and including new information that was not mentioned on the ticket or his notes.
    You went to court and pointed out deficiencies in the officer's initial report. The prosecutor was ordered to correct the deficiencies. Inevitably that means that the officer will be providing additional information.
    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    One creative argument was that the officer could not submit two different statements....
    I will note here: creative and good are not synonyms.
    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    ...another that it spoke to recall and was suspicious.
    You can certainly make the argument that if the officer adds additional material information to a supplemental report that should reasonably have been included in the initial report, it casts a shadow over the credibility of the additional information. However, that's an argument you make based upon the evidence, witness credibility, and the weight the court should assign to the evidence.

    Were those your first two arguments? If so, that would presumably be why the court was impatient.
    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    ...but a person representing themselves trying to speak like a normal person and be honest, would be scorned and convicted - as admitting to going even one mile over the posted speed limit is breaking the letter of the law.
    Yes, when you are sworn in and, in your testimony, confess to the charge, the odds of conviction become very high.

    That brings us to your testimony. When the issue of your actual speed came up, did you confess to speeding? Did you confirm that the speed recited by the officer was more or less accurate in relation to your actual speed? Did you refuse to make any statement about your speed, or claim you did not know or remember how fast you were going? Did you verify telling the officer that you were speeding because you mistakenly believed you were in a 60 MPH zone?
    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    "You came in here trying to make all sorts of technical arguments, when you should have just testified and been honest... I find the infraction committed."
    That suggests that the court didn't find your testimony to be credible.
    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    Lastly it was insulting that he presumed I was not being honest in my testimony.
    When you tell one story and the officer tells another, the court has to find that one or the other of you is more credible.
    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    I wasn't sure how much to say, so I just made a very brief statement. Then he asked if I had anything more to add, and I said no.
    That would be the "close of proofs".
    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    Then he started talking about stuff in the officers notes....
    That would apparently be when he started to make findings in support of his judgment.
    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    and when I tried to respond to those points he would just interrupt me and say "You already said you had nothing more to add. You're done testifying."
    That's because, after the close of proofs, no additional testimony is admitted.
    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    What am I supposed to do, recall myself as a witness? Plead the 5th?
    You can only call witnesses while proofs are open. Pleading the fifth instead of telling the court what happened would leave the officer's version of events unrefuted.
    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    What a way to trample on people with no legal knowledge by tricking them with procedures.
    The question, "Do you have anything more to add?", at the end of your motions and testimony is not a trick question.
    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    But anyway, I am concerned that if out of the entire hearing transcript, perhaps two or three lines show inappropriate conduct or prejudice (or whatever other legal error applies, if I understand correctly) if that would be enough to win the appeal, or if it would just make a bunch of rural county judges laugh about my protests and legal ignorance.
    I'm not going to speculate about what may or may not be shown by a transcript I have never seen. I'm not sure what you believe you will find in the transcript that would show "inappropriate conduct" material to the outcome or "prejudice".

    Alas, if being consistently nice and patient were mandatory for judges, our nation would experience a sudden and severe shortage of judges.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: Possible Errors of Law in a Contested Hearing for Speeding Ticket - Should I Appe

    Quote Quoting Oceangirl17
    View Post
    Yes Barry, I have no clue what "errors of law" actually means, which is exactly why I'm here asking for help. I have Googled every page I could find, I have watched youtube law school videos, but to really understand how it would apply to a traffic ticket, I have no idea. In my last post I specifically asked for what errors of law meant, and the best answer I got is, "it's what it sounds like." :P Not much help.
    "Not much help"? Really? Well, I read Barry's explanation, as well:

    Quote Quoting blewis
    View Post
    An "error of law" is exactly what it sounds like. For example, IRLJ 2.2 (d) states that an NOI must be filed within 5 working days -- absent good cause shown. Well, suppose you go into your hearing and state that the officer filed the ticket after 7 working days -- without ANY excuse. The judge says, "Well, I don't think you were prejudiced by the extra two days, so I'm going to deny your motion for dismissal." The law says, "In the absence of good cause shown, a notice of infraction not filed within the time limits of this section shall, upon motion, be dismissed with prejudice." There is NO leeway, the is no room to exercise discretion -- "shall" is always construed as "must". That is an error of law.
    I think that example is pretty clear -- how much more of an explanation do you want? An "error of law" is when the judge does not follow the law. The problem is that many laws allow a judge to exercise discretion -- as in deciding whether or not to grant a motion, when the law does not specifically state that it MUST be granted, as in Barry's example.

    I will give you one small piece of advice: If you want to win your appeal, GET OVER YOUR ANGER. In fact, put ALL you emotions aside. The more emotion you put into it, the less chance you've got. Now, if you really need an outlet, you can always file a grievance with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. But, you must understand that that has NOTHING to do with your appeal. Even if the judge were to be removed from the bench, it would nothing to do with your appeal.

    I think you've got a good case for appeal and a fairly good case for a complaint against the judge. But, you need to get rid of the extra baggage. Next time someone asks you about the hearing, try saying, "I lost. But, I think I'm going to appeal -- we'll see". And then drop it. You didn't take my advice about the "any" interpretation. Please take this.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Possible Errors of Law in a Contested Hearing for Speeding Ticket - Should I Appe

    Quote Quoting jojo
    View Post
    I think you've got a good case for appeal and a fairly good case for a complaint against the judge.
    I would like you to explain your thinking on both of those positions.

    We have not actually been told what arguments were presented in court. If we assume that three legal arguments were made, "the officer can only submit one statement", "the second statement had additional details not in the first statement", and the "speed window" argument, the first two seem to be without merit. The third argument is interesting, but if the OP admitted to her speed in court during her testimony it's a moot issue as the SMD output could be suppressed and conviction could still follow. Also, even if we assume that the appellate court would find it to be of concern that the speed from the "speed window" was not included in the officer's statement, the officer's other testimony is sufficient to establish that the OP was speeding - she rapidly closed with his vehicle, which was traveling at the speed limit, and ultimately passed him. As you can't pass a vehicle without exceeding its speed, the record would appear to support conviction even if the appellate court remands based upon it's not being convinced that the OP was exceeding the speed limit by 10 MPH.

    A complaint about the judge isn't going to change the verdict.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Possible Errors of Law in a Contested Hearing for Speeding Ticket - Should I Appe

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    If that was your primary line of defense, why did you make it the third argument you presented to the court, and what were your first two arguments?
    Well there were several possible defenses, and I was advised on this forum that any defense which motions to suppress the officers statement (the multiple statements argument, and the recall argument) should be made before actually addressing the statement itself, such as the SMD speed window issue. Thinking analytically, it seemed there was no harm in trying for the first two defenses, because even if they didn't hold up, I would still have the SMD speed window point to bring up in closing. It never occurred to me that defenses which were too unusual or "creative" or whatever, would make the judge so mad he didn't want to hear anything else regardless of whether it was a valid legal point or not. I thought court was supposed to be an impartial, rational process... guess that shows how little I know. :/

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    I don't think much of that defense under the circumstances as the officer also indicated that he was traveling at 30 MPH and saw that, due to your higher speed, your vehicle was rapidly approaching his patrol car. That can only happen if your speed is greater than 30 MPH, and if that's the speed limit that testimony alone indicates that you were speeding.
    If an officer could simply say "I saw you speeding" and get you convicted, why would a radar even be needed? My problem is that I don't agree with what the officer said in his report because it didn't happen the way he said. At least I certainly remember things differently. I also know that my word against his counts for nothing, so it doesn't matter what I testify too. Therefore only "technicalities" work to dismiss tickets, and testimony, no matter how honest, is useless - the judge will never believe what you say if it doesn't agree with the officer. (Talk about institutionalized prejudice...)

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    You went to court and pointed out deficiencies in the officer's initial report. The prosecutor was ordered to correct the deficiencies. Inevitably that means that the officer will be providing additional information.
    Maybe I'm missing something, but I did not go to court and point out deficiencies in an initial report. The officer first submitted the ticket which had "officers report" on the back of it to the court. Meanwhile I submitted for discovery. When I received the discovery, I saw that another paper had been filed titled "officers report" which was dated 6 weeks after the ticket and the initial report/notes on the ticket. We had not yet had the contested hearing. The prosecutor simply noticed that I was contesting, and told the officer (presumably) "Hey, your notes are crappy, write up more details." However you can't just add more details from memory six weeks later and have that be taken as accurate... at least I don't think that's fair if you are adding new information to your report. There have been hundreds of speeding tickets in that six week gap... how accurate could his memory really be?

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    Yes, when you are sworn in and, in your testimony, confess to the charge, the odds of conviction become very high.

    That brings us to your testimony. When the issue of your actual speed came up, did you confess to speeding? Did you confirm that the speed recited by the officer was more or less accurate in relation to your actual speed? Did you refuse to make any statement about your speed, or claim you did not know or remember how fast you were going? Did you verify telling the officer that you were speeding because you mistakenly believed you were in a 60 MPH zone?
    Well, at least I didn't do that. I stated my perspective, which is that "We were actually in a 45mph zone at mile marker one, not a 30 (as verified by Google maps), and that I was going 45mph. The officer cited me for 51, however if the court would consider the possibility that the SMD speed window may not have been set appropriately to the officers vehicle speed, and the inconsistencies in the report and give me the benefit of the doubt that I was not breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit."

    It's true that I told the officer I thought it was a 60 when he asked me what the limit was, but that's not a reflection of the speed I was actually going because I was just moving along with the other cars on a beautiful day on this scenic view, and not looking at my speedometer. The limits change a number of times on this stretch of road close to one another. I don't know what speed I was going, only that I wasn't going faster than anyone else, and I most certainly did not pass the officers car. In fact I remember seeing the officer in front of me and to the left, then slowing down a little just in case (because they always make me nervous) and then keeping behind the officers car, a few car lengths back. Then after a little while he tapped on his breaks to swing in behind me and pull me over. If him hitting the breaks to get behind me is the same as my "passing" him going 30, then I guess officers can say whatever they want in their report. Since I don't actually know how fast I was traveling, I can't actually say whether or not I'm guilty, however I don't believe so, and my best guess is everyone, including the officer was going 45-50 in the 45 zone. He probably waited until the second we crossed into the 30mph zone (1/2 mile past mile marker one) to pull me over for the speed he clocked me going behind him back in the 45 zone.

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    That suggests that the court didn't find your testimony to be credible. When you tell one story and the officer tells another, the court has to find that one or the other of you is more credible.
    And guess who it always is?
    So what stops the police from writing whatever they want in their reports so their "performance goals" are exceeded for the month and they're in line for that promotion? That's my problem. I know the officer is flat out lying about my passing his car. Even if I passed his car without noticing him because he was hidden by another car to the side of me earlier on the road, we were not yet in the 30mph zone until the last moment before he pulled me over. So if I passed his car at some point without noticing, it was back in the 60 or the 45 zone, and my cited speed was reasonable. But from the time I saw him in the 45 zone, I was never in front or to the side of him, only behind, until he hit his breaks to get behind me and give me a ticket. I'd have to be crazy to pass a clearly marked police car on the highway right in front of me... it didn't happen.

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    That's because, after the close of proofs, no additional testimony is admitted.
    These are things that people ignorant of legal procedure are not going to know, and should not be expected to understand without an attorney helping them. If the judge is going to tell me "you did such and such" when I know I didn't (pass the police car), I'm going to say "That's not what happened..." like a normal person. But instead of giving me the chance to explain, he just gets mad I'm talking. Sigh. Maybe shouting "objection!" is what you're supposed to do. I don't know. I don't get the whole ridiculous system... :/

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    The question, "Do you have anything more to add?", at the end of your motions and testimony is not a trick question.
    Well it seems like it if I don't know what else I *should* add, because I don't have an attorney helping me and have no clue about the procedures. And then the judge starts talking like he's "cross-examining" me, or telling me what happened when he wasn't there - of course I'm going to feel trampled on. It's one thing to say, "well the officer states you did this, and I am inclined to believe the officer because you didn't address the point at all." Or just ask me, "What about this point in the officers report, did you do this? Did this happen?" the way you would talk to a normal human being without legal knowledge. But to actually state AS IF it's FACT, you passed the officers car in a 30mph zone! when I know that didn't happen, and I've explained that by Google maps we were not in a 30mph zone, and that the radar reading may not be accurate because of the speed window issue... that sort of ignoring evidence and treating my testimony as if it's worth nothing compared to a guy with a badge, really gets under my skin.

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    Alas, if being consistently nice and patient were mandatory for judges, our nation would experience a sudden and severe shortage of judges.
    I believe you. But I'll add "fair" to your list of qualities that would create a shortage.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Appeals: When is it Worth Appealing a Traffic Ticket Conviction
    By supralover23 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 06-13-2013, 07:55 PM
  2. Appeals: Appealing a Traffic Court Conviction
    By EcoGreenGaia in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-18-2011, 05:34 PM
  3. Appeals: Appealing a Traffic Court Conviction
    By stinut in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-09-2011, 12:43 PM
  4. Appeals: Appealing a Traffic Court Conviction
    By Tiniasa in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-06-2009, 03:36 PM
  5. Post-Conviction Relief: Appealing a Conviction Based on a Plea
    By dunnce in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-14-2009, 09:07 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources