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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.