Thread Closed - Discovery Motion Denied

[wheelie]

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

Howdy, just when I had prepared my next, and possibly last post, I noticed the thread got closed, maybe like an hour earlier.

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/speeding-other-moving-violations-13/discovery-motion-denied-489229.html#post2390914[/url]

Can it be reopened or something? One more day before trial, still trying to get in as much advice as possible up to the last minute.

I guess somebody maybe thought there was too much argument and not enough discussion, or who knows?

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by wheelie

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

Howdy, just when I had prepared my next, and possibly last post, I noticed the thread got closed, maybe like an hour earlier.

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/speeding-other-moving-violations-13/discovery-motion-denied-489229.html#post2390914[/url]

Can it be reopened or something? One more day before trial, still trying to get in as much advice as possible up to the last minute.

I guess somebody maybe thought there was too much argument and not enough discussion, or who knows?

I didn't get to post in reply to Jim-bo's post - but he is correct. I was overly restrictive in my post that said that discovery is so you can see all of the information against you. It is actually for you to be able to see all of the evidence held, whether helpful, harmful or benign to your case.

However, the information you requested in your discovery has now been provided. Does that information change your defense plans? Or, was the request for discovery merely a way for you to try to "trip-up" the case against you? If you truly need more time based on the evidence provided to you, then ask for a continuance. If not, then you're out of steam.

[wheelie]

Originally Posted by Zigner

I didn't get to post in reply to Jim-bo's post - but he is correct. I was overly restrictive in my post that said that discovery is so you can see all of the information against you. It is actually for you to be able to see all of the evidence held, whether helpful, harmful or benign to your case.

However, the information you requested in your discovery has now been provided. Does that information change your defense plans? Or, was the request for discovery merely a way for you to try to "trip-up" the case against you? If you truly need more time based on the evidence provided to you, then ask for a continuance. If not, then you're out of steam.

Zigner, thanks for the response. I wasn't trying to "trip-up" the case, but, in a similar vein, if the officer fails to show up and I get my case dismissed, I am not going to cry about it.

I am not totally sure that all that I requested has been provided. The reason I say that is because I had watched other officers testify before my case came up. Not only did they have with them their copy of the ticket, but also what appeared to me to be a narrative they had written possibly when then came back to the office, based on their notes on the back of the ticket. This narrative, many officers either read from verbatim, or winged it if they were pretty good at public speaking, giving many more details and impressions than could possibly be listed on the back of a ticket. This document, if there was one, should have been disclosed to me, I think.

Discovery, in my mind, means I'm going to discover what they have. Like you say, it could be helpful, harmful, or benign. I have no clue until I get it. Not having it could prejudice me, screw up my defense, or put the final nail in my coffin. I don't know until I get it. Discovery is important. Got to turn over everything, judge. A half-hearted attempt at "immediate disclosure" at the last minute is not what I think 1054 says I should get. That's also, I think, why it says it has to be 30 days before trial, just an arbitrary number, although a legal number, because some people only need a few seconds, and others, like me could probably use up that 30 days easy doing research. I'm a pro per, and a neophyte at that. I'm slow. I'm old. If the LEA would have done as 1054 said, turn it over within 15 days of being served, it would have been timely, and I'd have been satisfied. Not happy, of course, because as it turns out, the notes are a good case against me. But it doesn't matter. I have the right to get disclosure in a timely manner. Dead horse?

Anyway, thanks for all your good comments.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by wheelie

Zigner, thanks for the response. I wasn't trying to "trip-up" the case, but, in a similar vein, if the officer fails to show up and I get my case dismissed, I am not going to cry about it.

I am not totally sure that all that I requested has been provided. The reason I say that is because I had watched other officers testify before my case came up. Not only did they have with them their copy of the ticket, but also what appeared to me to be a narrative they had written possibly when then came back to the office, based on their notes on the back of the ticket. This narrative, many officers either read from verbatim, or winged it if they were pretty good at public speaking, giving many more details and impressions than could possibly be listed on the back of a ticket. This document, if there was one, should have been disclosed to me, I think.

Discovery, in my mind, means I'm going to discover what they have. Like you say, it could be helpful, harmful, or benign. I have no clue until I get it. Not having it could prejudice me, screw up my defense, or put the final nail in my coffin. I don't know until I get it. Discovery is important. Got to turn over everything, judge. A half-hearted attempt at "immediate disclosure" at the last minute is not what I think 1054 says I should get. That's also, I think, why it says it has to be 30 days before trial, just an arbitrary number, although a legal number, because some people only need a few seconds, and others, like me could probably use up that 30 days easy doing research. I'm a pro per, and a neophyte at that. I'm slow. I'm old. If the LEA would have done as 1054 said, turn it over within 15 days of being served, it would have been timely, and I'd have been satisfied. Not happy, of course, because as it turns out, the notes are a good case against me. But it doesn't matter. I have the right to get disclosure in a timely manner. Dead horse?

Anyway, thanks for all your good comments.

See, the problem you have is your REMEDY. The REMEDY is to have the judge (among other things) order that the requested information be provided. That has been done.

[wheelie]

Originally Posted by Zigner

See, the problem you have is your REMEDY. The REMEDY is to have the judge (among other things) order that the requested information be provided. That has been done.

Maybe, but I think not everything came my way. And it didn't come timely. Timely counts. Timely is of the essence.

Hey, guess what, my thread is open. Who unclosed it? Weird. Please continue posting, as not only does it exercise your brain, but mine as well. All things good when your hair gets gray.

P.S. Thanks, Zigner

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by wheelie

Maybe, but I think not everything came my way. And it didn't come timely. Timely counts. Timely is of the essence.

Hey, guess what, my thread is open. Who unclosed it? Weird. Please continue posting, as not only does it exercise your brain, but mine as well. All things good when your hair gets gray.

P.S. Thanks, Zigner

The administrator re-opened it.