The cop is called to the stand and gives the usual canned answers to the prosecutor's questions. When and where he stopped me, calibration of radar and the patrol car's speedometer, tuning fork chain of custody, etc. The Prosecution rests, but not before the prosecutor states, "Your Honor, if the defendant would still like to accept my offer of a reduced charge, The State has no objection."
Me: I would like to proceed with trial, Judge.
Judge: Are you sure?
Me: Yes.
Judge: The prosecutor is making you a very generous offer at this time. I see you are without counsel, but were you my client I would strongly recommend that you take her up on it.
Me: Thank you for your concern Judge, but I would like to proceed.
Judge: You may question the witness.
Me: May I approach the bench, Judge?
Judge: You may.
I hand the judge and prosecutor 14 copies of case laws from the State Supreme Court. The judge laughs and jokingly asks the prosecutor if she's sure that she doesn't want to dismiss the case outright.
Me: Judge, there is no Judicial Notice of the use of moving radar in this jurisdiction. I motion for this this matter to be dismissed.
Judge: Motion denied.
Me: I motion for dismissal, as the officer never testified that he calibrated the radar device AFTER he pulled me over. If is established and recognized scientific method that is you calibrate an instrument before and.......
Judge. Denied. You may question the officer about any subsequent calibration if you so wish.
Me: Judge, the State has rested and has failed to establish that the radar unit was working accurately AFTER the officer stopped me.
Judge: You may question the officer about that...
Me: It is not the defense's burden to solicit facts which are essential to the prosecution's case.
Judge: Denied. Please move on.
I begin questioning the cop.
Me: Officer, can you please tell the Court why you decided to lock your radar onto the vehicle?
Officer: I observed you traveling at a high rate of speed.
Me: I had never met you before I was pulled over. How did you know it was me?
Officer: I observed your vehicle.
Me: Can you describe the vehicle that you observed and subsequently locked your radar onto?
Officer: It was a black Porsche Cayenne.
Me: You stated it was traveling at a high rate of speed. Can You tell me how fast you estimated the vehicle to be going before you clocked the vehicle on radar?
Officer: 67 MPH
Me: How were you able to determine the speed to such accuracy just by observation.
Officer: I have completed <insert jibberish here> training course.
Me: Judge, there is no Judicial Notice in any jurisdiction of anyone being able to accurately ascertain speed by observation. I motion for dismissal.
Judge: He clocked you on radar. I am not not relying on his eyeball estimation of speed to make my determination. Motion denied.
Me: Officer, in your training, have you ever been instructed that accuracy is important in police work?
Officer: Yes
Me: Were you distracted, tired, or was anything other than your police duties on your mind on the night you pulled me over.
Officer: No
Me: Are you absolutely sure of that?
Prosecutor: Objection!
Judge: The officer answered your question.
Me: Judge, I would like to introduce this photograph into evidence. <legal BS as the photo is marked> (photo is side view of Black Porsche Cayenne)
Me: Officer, can you identify the vehicle in the photograph as the one you stiopped?
Officer: No. I have no way of knowing whether it is the same vehicle or just a similar vehicle.
Me: Exactly, officer. But is it possible that is a photograph of the vehicle that you pulled over?
Officer: Yes.
Me: Officer, please examine the Ticket/Summons. Would you please read the what you marked as color ir the vehicle.
Officer: B-K
Me: I am not familiar with a color called "B-K". Can you ex.....
Officer: Black.
Me: Officer, can you please read the expiration date of my driver's license as it appears on the ticket.
Officer: 3-05
Me: Please read the expiration date of my vehicle registration as it appears on the ticket.
Officer: 3-05
Me: Officer, are you color blind?
Officer: No.
Me: Do you have any visual impairments?
Officer: No.
Me: Any difficulty reading?
Officer: No.
Me: Judge, I would like to enter another photograph into evidence. A photo of my Cayenne.< More legal BS as it's maked> (Photo is front view of two Porsche Cayenne's parked next to each other. One is Black, on is Titanium Grey)
Me: Officer, would you please read the license plate nuber of my vehicle.
Officer: KLD-243
Me: Officer, directing your attention to the ticket, would you please read the license plate number that you recorded.
Officer: <pause> BEX-984 (I'm not using the REAL number in the photos)
Judge: Have you ever changed he license plates on your vehicle?
Me: Ojection! Judge, you are the finder of fact in this matter. I object to you taking on the role of the prosecution and I motion to .....
Judge: In this Court, I ask questions in order to clarify matters and move thing along.
Me: No Judge, I have never change the license plates on the vehicle, except when the temporaty tags were removed and the permanent plates put on 2 weeks after purchase.
Judge: Continue
Me: I would like to have copies of my vehicle registration and drivers license maked as exhibits. <Judge compared originals to copies, and exhibits were marked>
Me: Officer, drawing your attention to my registration, would you read the license plate number.
Officer: BEX-984
Me: Officer, please look at the second photo, exhibit b, and describe what you see.
Officer: Two Porsche Cayennes.
Me: And what colors are they?
Officer: Black and Grey.
Me: Officer, please read the color of vehicle maked on my registration.
Officer: Grey
Me: Officer, Please read the license plate number of the grey Cayenne in the photo.
Officer: BEX-984
Me: Judge, I motion for dismissal. The officer has incorrently identified my vehicle through his testimony and on his sworn affidavit, the ticket.
Judge: In this jurisdiction an incorrect color recorded on the summons is not a fatal flaw. Denied.
Me: Judge, it goes to the witnesses credibility.
Judge: Yes, it does. <glares at cop> But it not grounds for dismissal.
Me: Officer, Please read the expiration date of my registration as it appears on the registration card.
Officer: 3-05. And that's what it says on the ticket as well.
Me: So it does. Would you please read the expirtion of my drivers license as it appears on my license.
Officer: 6-07
Me: Officer, you are under oath. Moreover, in NJ, when you sign a ticket it is a sworn affadavit. You testified that the expiration date of my license as recorded on the ticket was 3-05. Would you like to look at the ticket again?
Prosecutor: Objection. The officer is well aware that he is under oath. Argumentative.
Me: Judge, this is cross examination.
Judge: There seems to be some discrepancies here. Please continue.
Me: Officer, you testified that the speedometer in your patrol car was accurate. Can you please show me the certified records indicating the last time it was calibrated?
Officer: I don't have the records with me.
Me: Then how do you know the speedometer is accurate?
Officer: THe department routinely checks the the accuracy of the speedometers.
Me: Are you personally involved in the calibration?
Officer: Sometimes.
Me: Prior to the date of this alleged offence, were you the last person to calibrate the speedometer on the patrol car that you were in when I was pulled over?
Officer: Probably.
Me: Probably? Were you or weren't you?
Officer: I would have to check the logs.
Me: The logs you don't have with you. Have you ever recieved any training or completed a certified course in speedometer repair and calibration?
Officer: I didn't say I repaired speedometers.
Me: Please answer the question. Yes or No.
Officer: No.
Me: Judge, I motion for dismissal, as the officer cannot provide dicumentation that the speedometer in the patrol car was accurate.
Prosecutor: The officer has testified that the sppedometer was accurate and that the department routinely calibrates the speedometers.
Me: He also testified that my vehicle was black, and that my license plate number was KLD-243.
Judge: The officer has testified that the speedometer was accutate.
Me: That's hearsay, Judge. He can provide no documentation as to the when the speedometer was last calibrated, and according to his best recollection, he "probably" was involved in the calibration, ...an activity for which he testified he has no training.
Judge: Motion denied. Are you ready to rest your case so I can rule?
Me: I have just started, Judge. I have alot more questions for the officer.
Judge: How much more? We don't have all night.
Me: I imagine, at the rate we're going, I could probably finish in an hour and a half or two hours.
Judge: <Glares at me - but not in a threatening way - almost an eye roll> I think you've made your points. Take a few minutes and finish up your questions.
Me: In the interest of Justice, I need to throughly examine this witness. Should you choose to rule against me in this matter I need to have established a record for appeal.
Judge: <chuckles - Folds his hand behind his head and leans back in his chair> Continue.
