Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Traffic Control Avoid 11-305b

    Quote Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    ...or any real research.

    Of course, in a felony stolen car case they are going to need the owner to say that he/she didn't let the alleged thief borrow the car if the alleged thief is claiming that as a defense.
    Why "of course?"

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Traffic Control Avoid 11-305b

    Because the police officer(s) statement would be hearsay at best. This is not the case when the officer sees a driver cutting through a parking lot.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    326

    Default Re: Traffic Control Avoid 11-305b

    Quote Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    Because the police officer(s) statement would be hearsay at best. This is not the case when the officer sees a driver cutting through a parking lot.
    This is not about cutting through a parking lot.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,006

    Default Re: Traffic Control Avoid 11-305b

    Quote Quoting zeljo
    View Post
    This is not about cutting through a parking lot.
    The original thread this mess spun off from was though. Think of it more as an example in this case.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Traffic Control Avoid 11-305b

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    As I have said before, I get my information from real experiences with the law. Not off the internet.

    Your above statement deserves to be challenged. I once got a car stolen. They caught the perps driving the car, made vehicle chase and then foot chase. The prosecutor called me and more or less demanded that I appear in court and testify that I did not give them permission to drive my car. If I did not, they would have walked all on the the claim that they had permission to drive my car. Point is that if the defense makes a claim that could be true, it the prosecution's job to discredit it. The court can't just say "you are lying."

    This also happened in a murder trial when I wrote a letter to the judge. The prosecution read the letter aloud and addressed each point I made.

    The courts don't call people liars. They discredit their claims. At least in my world they do.
    First, taxing matters is a real attorney, licensed and all. I suspect he has considerable more real life knowledge than you do.

    To your complaining about having to testify in court your car was stolen;

    If you did not attend court to testify you didn’t give permission to use your car, the state could not overcome their they didn’t and they would prevail. Any statement recorded in a police report is not valid testimony.

    Land a person always has a right to confront their accuser. it has nothing to do with their testimony being a lie or not. It goes to the very basis of the requirements of our laws and trials.

    With the situation at hand, the veracity of the person making the statements can be included in whether they are to be believed. Put that issue into the stolen car case and while a jury is likely to not believe the thief, the law still requires a person be allowed to face their accuser and question them. The state is obligated to prove their case so the first thing they have to do is prove a car was stolen. Without your testimony, they can’t do that.

    In the case at hand, the state is the accuser and the defendant has a right to challenge the accuser in court. Is the cop is there, that has been allowed. When it comes down to determining guilt, the verscity of both parties can be used to make the decision if the facts at hand otherwise prove the case and there has been no valid defense proving otherwise. So, if the cop says he saw the person drive through the private property without stopping and it appeared the sole purpose was to avoid the light, unless the defendant can provide a defense that defeats that observation, defendant loses. Saying they were intending to use the air tank alone doesn’t prove the defendant is being truthful. That is why it is important to provide something other than the stated defense. That is why the defendant should have immediately gone back to the air tank and take a picture of the sign stating it was out of order.

    Then, the jury weighs the evidence presented and determines whether the state proved their case beyond any REASONABLE doubt. In the case at hand I can see it going either way and because of that the defendants veracity is important.

    As to your statement about a murder trial;
    There are so many problems with the claim as written it is implausible. I suppose with a complete explanation of the situation it could be reasonable to accept the statement but in the situation inferred, not happening, well, unless it also alllowed the defendant a basis for appeal if they were convicted.


    And yes, courts have called defendant liars but usually it is the prosecutor calling a defendant a liar. If a judge were to do so (prior to the conclusion of the trial) it is likely to be grounds for an appeal.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Traffic Control Avoid 11-305b

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    The courts don't call people liars. They discredit their claims. At least in my world they do.
    Your experience is evidently limited to two cases. I practice law every day. Fact finders (whether jury or judge) do indeed call some witnesses liars (or use the nicer phrase of “not credible.”) It is true that in many instances an unrebutted statement of witness may be taken as true, which is why the opposing side will seek to counter it if the point is important to the case. But there is no rule that says a court MUST assume an unrebutted statement of a witness, and particularly a party to the case, is true. The factfinder might decide the witness is not credible even without his/her testimony being directly rebutted. The witness' demeanor, choice of words, appearance, how likely it is that his/her story rings true in light of everything else presented, etc., all factor in to the fact finder’s determination of how to view the witness and how to regard the testimony that the witness provided.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    326

    Default Re: Traffic Control Avoid 11-305b

    Quote Quoting free9man
    View Post
    The original thread this mess spun off from was though. Think of it more as an example in this case.
    No, it was about cutting through a gas station, and it matters quite a lot. Comparison to a parking lot does not stand. You should read back.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Traffic Control Avoid 11-305b

    Quote Quoting zeljo
    View Post
    No, it was about cutting through a gas station, and it matters quite a lot. Comparison to a parking lot does not stand. You should read back.
    Saying it isn’t comparable because it is a gas station rather than a lot intended for parking is nothing more than semantics.
    Actually it is comparable because the ticket would be the same ticket. What differs is the claimed reason for entering the private property. Other than that the issue is identical.

    If only a parking lot a person may find a store closed that they intended on going to so simply drive through.

    The issue is; was the cited person simply cutting through the gas stations lot or did they enter with a purpose to utilize some service available at the business.

    So, in effect the original question is about cutting through a parking lot.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Traffic Control Avoid 11-305b

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Your experience is evidently limited to two cases. I practice law every day. Fact finders (whether jury or judge) do indeed call some witnesses liars (or use the nicer phrase of “not credible.”) It is true that in many instances an unrebutted statement of witness may be taken as true, which is why the opposing side will seek to counter it if the point is important to the case. But there is no rule that says a court MUST assume an unrebutted statement of a witness, and particularly a party to the case, is true. The factfinder might decide the witness is not credible even without his/her testimony being directly rebutted. The witness' demeanor, choice of words, appearance, how likely it is that his/her story rings true in light of everything else presented, etc., all factor in to the fact finder’s determination of how to view the witness and how to regard the testimony that the witness provided.
    Yes, you can claim that anything is possible in a courtroom just like anything is possible in an operating room all the way up to spontaneous healing the night before. However, if the defendant gives a plausible reason for being in that gas station, it is the officer's job to offer some evidence that it is untrue. Remember, she is assumed innocent until proven guilty.

    Calling her 'not credible' deserves to be followed with an explanation of why.

    When you make a claim to a cop they usually vet it. All the cop would have to do is walk around her car and look for the low tire. Or, ask the lady which tire needed air? Or, go back to the station and verify her claim. If the cop neglected to do any of that then he did not do his job of collecting evidence.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Traffic Control Avoid 11-305b

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    Yes, you can claim that anything is possible in a courtroom just like anything is possible in an operating room all the way up to spontaneous healing the night before. However, if the defendant gives a plausible reason for being in that gas station, it is the officer's job to offer some evidence that it is untrue. Remember, she is assumed innocent until proven guilty.

    Calling her 'not credible' deserves to be followed with an explanation of why.

    When you make a claim to a cop they usually vet it. All the cop would have to do is walk around her car and look for the low tire. Or, ask the lady which tire needed air? Or, go back to the station and verify her claim. If the cop neglected to do any of that then he did not do his job of collecting evidence.
    And all of that may benefit the op but maybe the cop did make an effort to observe the tires. Maybe the cop did glance at the air tank and saw no notice of dysfunction. You are speculating the cop did nothing more than stop the op and issue a ticket. There is no obligation the cop say anything to the driver that he observed this or that.


    as to the cop being obligated to present something to show the defendants plausible statement is untrue;

    nope. While the job you refer to belongs to the prosecutor (you know, the guy charged with prosecuting cases) (the cop is a witness), even the prosecutor doesn’t have to present anything to attempt to show the witness statement isn’t true if they don’t wish to. If the prosecutor has otherwise shown the defendant to be dishonest, maybe he doesn’t feel a need to challenge the statement specifically. The prosecutor determines the strategy used to win their case. How they do it is up to them.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Determination of Fault: Traffic Accidents on Private Property
    By arealelectrician in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-27-2014, 03:44 PM
  2. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Can You Be Ticketed for Traffic Violations on Private Property
    By only1rck in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-17-2014, 12:07 PM
  3. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Disobedience to Traffic Signal
    By COtraffic in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2011, 09:28 PM
  4. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Can the Police Enforce Traffic Law on Private Property
    By itsjustme in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-16-2011, 09:37 AM
  5. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Traffic Stop From Private Property
    By norcalsam in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-01-2005, 06:30 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources