Officer Testimony?

[bononos again]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

So they have decided to fight a DUI based on Reasonable Cause for the stop. The Officer gave his testimony in preliminary, recorded and transcripts.

He states the car swerved in the 200 Block of the road 3/4 over the yellow line.

She and I did some research.

The 100 Block is a point where the yellow line ends. The lanes narrow, and the opposing side has cars parked entirely along the side, making the opposing lane 1/2 the size.

The entire lenght of the 200 block has no yellow and cars parked all along the opposing side. If the car had gone over 3/4 it would have hit the opposing parked cars.

The yellow line begins .07 miles into the 300 block.

Would they be able to discredit the Officers testimony based on this?

Thanks

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

So they have decided to fight a DUI based on Reasonable Cause for the stop. The Officer gave his testimony in preliminary, recorded and transcripts.

He states the car swerved in the 200 Block of the road 3/4 over the yellow line.

She and I did some research.

The 100 Block is a point where the yellow line ends. The lanes narrow, and the opposing side has cars parked entirely along the side, making the opposing lane 1/2 the size.

The entire lenght of the 200 block has no yellow and cars parked all along the opposing side. If the car had gone over 3/4 it would have hit the opposing parked cars.

The yellow line begins .07 miles into the 300 block.

Would they be able to discredit the Officers testimony based on this?

Thanks

Ok, so let's say the yellow line had already ended. He still swerved, right?

 

[bononos again]

Ok, so let's say the yellow line had already ended. He still swerved, right?

No, she didn't, as she claims.
But, what the Officer claims to have seen, she would have hit the parked cars and there is no yellow line to have swerved over. So, his testimony is completely inaccurate.
The officer's testimony will come into question.
As this continues, his inaccurate account will come into question.

I'm not asking anything morally, but legally, can the Officer's Testimony be discredited due to this? There is evidence to support this. The road itself, measurements, pictures and the Officer's Testimony recorded and in the transcripts.
Thanks!

 

[Zigner]

No, she didn't, as she claims.
But, what the Officer claims to have seen, she would have hit the parked cars and there is no yellow line to have swerved over. So, his testimony is completely inaccurate.
The officer's testimony will come into question.
As this continues, his inaccurate account will come into question.

I'm not asking anything morally, but legally, can the Officer's Testimony be discredited due to this? There is evidence to support this. The road itself, measurements, pictures and the Officer's Testimony recorded and in the transcripts.
Thanks!

This is a very, VERY thin straw to be grasping at...

 

[bononos again]

This is a very, VERY thin straw to be grasping at...

I think that too, but, then again I think, he was under oath, and he did testify to a play by play of the incident and it can be proven to be impossible and that his under oath testimony is inaccurate. And, it still is something that has is innocent until proven to be guilty.
With that account being able to be proven impossible and untrue, there is now no reasonable cause for the stop.
And, if the Officer tries to change his account in any way, the transcripts will show differently.
So, testimony will be discredited = no reasonable cause????

 

[Zigner]

I think that too, but, then again I think, he was under oath, and he did testify to a play by play of the incident and it can be proven to be impossible and that his under oath testimony is inaccurate. And, it still is something that has is innocent until proven to be guilty.
With that account being able to be proven impossible and untrue, there is now no reasonable cause for the stop.
And, if the Officer tries to change his account in any way, the transcripts will show differently.
So, testimony will be discredited = no reasonable cause????

YOU SWERVED. So what if you swerved 300' past where he says you swerved...perhaps you swerved in two places. This is NOT an "error", rather a misperception - probably on YOUR end.

 

[bononos again]

YOU SWERVED. So what if you swerved 300' past where he says you swerved...perhaps you swerved in two places. This is NOT an "error", rather a misperception - probably on YOUR end.

It is not a misperception when it can be proven, is it?
It is not a misperception when transcripts state an Officer's account, yet, that account can be proven to be impossible, is it?
It is innaccurate testimony regarding the incident.
How can one misperceive what is recorded and written in transcripts that states specifics.
No account of swerving in 2 places in the transcripts.
One specific swerve in one specific place that includes a yellow line that doesn't exist that includes parked cars that would be hit if the account were true.
This is the Officers testimony, this was his deposition.

Do you think the Officer can walk in there and be proven that his statements were untrue, inaccurate, and impossible, can then just up and change his story?

 

[bononos again]

Info. On Depositions:


Most jurisdictions provide that depositions may be taken to perpetuate the testimony of a witness, that is, preserve their testimony for trial.


One party can use a deposition to impeach (or contradict) the witness's testimony in open court.



So, the deposition and the facts contradict each other.

To Add:
im⋅peach   /ɪmˈpitʃ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [im-peech] Show IPA
–verb (used with object) 1. to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.
2. Chiefly Law. to challenge the credibility of: to impeach a witness.
3. to bring an accusation against.
4. to call in question; cast an imputation upon: to impeach a person's motives.
5. to call to account.

 

[CdwJava]

Okay ... here ...

CAN it be used to try and discredit the officer? Sure. Will it discredit his testimony? Only a jury can tell.

- Carl

 

[bononos again]

Okay ... here ...

CAN it be used to try and discredit the officer? Sure. Will it discredit his testimony? Only a jury can tell.

- Carl

Short. Sweet. And to the point. Thanks.

May I be so bold as to get your opinion?

If this were you on that jury? What would you thoughts be?
Or
How do you feel your office would look at this?

 

[CdwJava]

Short. Sweet. And to the point. Thanks.

May I be so bold as to get your opinion?

If this were you on that jury? What would you thoughts be?
Or
How do you feel your office would look at this?

If the officer was behind the suspect in the 100 block, then we might just assume he got the hundred blocks wrong. There is a grand difference between being incorrect and lying. If the suspect was observed crossing a yellow line, and the officer was behind the suspect on a road with a yellow line, then that will likely suffice. If they were NEVER on a road with a yellow line, then that should send up red flags.

The DA may well address the discrepancy in this way on redirect.

- Carl

 

[Zigner]

Bononos - you won't be happy because you're not getting the answers you want.

 

[CdwJava]

No one can accurately predict what WILL happen without knowing ALL the relevant data ... even then, the prediction is nothing more than an educated guess because many things can happen at trial that can benefit either side.

- Carl

 

[bononos again]

If the officer was behind the suspect in the 100 block, then we might just assume he got the hundred blocks wrong. There is a grand difference between being incorrect and lying. If the suspect was observed crossing a yellow line, and the officer was behind the suspect on a road with a yellow line, then that will likely suffice. If they were NEVER on a road with a yellow line, then that should send up red flags.

The DA may well address the discrepancy in this way on redirect.

- Carl

This is another reason for the anger over the discrepency in deposition.
It is because the Officer did in fact flat out lie in a portion as to an occurance.
That cannot be proven. So, who's to say if it is an error or lying.

The officers pulled out behind the car in the middle of the 100 Block. Said the came out of a specific side street.
It was .02 Miles to where the yellow line ended from where they pulled out.

The other issue is that this is a tiny municapality. This officer has been there for 4 years. There are so many differences from the 100 Block to the 200 Block then the 300 Block it would be hard to say he didn't know the difference.
I know the difference and I don't live there, but, I live nearby and travel through there often.

It seems hard to confuse these blocks.

100 Block:
yellow line
no cars parked on opposing side
no connected row houses
2 businesses then 3 huge houses

200 Block:
connecting row houses
no yellow line
cars along side of entire block on opposing side

300 Block:
this block begins exactly at the intersection of a huge church
yellow line begins again
no houses
no cars on side
woods on traveling side
then a large bend after the church

I guess it will be in the courts hands.

 

[bononos again]

Bononos - you won't be happy because you're not getting the answers you want.

No.
I am presenting the facts.
I am looking for some education on the subjuct, not opinion.
I am giving my opinion and what I have researched.
I wanted more.
You can never get too much info.
You have given no legal backing to your responses, just opinion.
I am getting what I was looking for from Carl.
Isn't this how court works in a way?
Things are presented, attorney's examine and cross-examine and try to prove the facts.
It's helpful to know what opinions, questions, and/or issues may have a possibility of being brought up. It's best to know in advance.

remember the Boy Scout Modo?