Advise needed on Incorrect Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence (CA)

I'll try to make this long story short. I got a ticket for passing on the shoulder (I'm a motorcyclist). I am innocent. This CHP officer had ticketed me before under false accusations. This time, I tried to fight it in court but lost.

I feel I lost because although the judge allowed the Officer to testify to my prior ticket, the judge would not allow me to present my evidence and Proof that I was innocent of that previous charge the whole time. In a case like this where neither parties had hard evidence and it's basically "he said/she said" - where credibility is practically the sole evidence...wouldn't the fact that I have proof that he's bold-facedly lying in court - under oath - prove that he has no credibility?

In a case where it's "he said/she said" - I lost to a liar because the judge would not allow me to present my proof, saying all info on a previous ticket is irrelevant. So the judge took his word over mine based on the fact that he has a badge and I have a record.

Is this justice?
Is there anything I can do about it? I wanted to file for an appeal based on "Incorrect Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence" - but I've been told by a lawyer that basically I was beating a dead horse and just live with it...

Any thoughts?

Vyshtia said:

I'll try to make this long story short. I got a ticket for passing on the shoulder (I'm a motorcyclist). I am innocent. This CHP officer had ticketed me before under false accusations. This time, I tried to fight it in court but lost.

I feel I lost because although the judge allowed the Officer to testify to my prior ticket, the judge would not allow me to present my evidence and Proof that I was innocent of that previous charge the whole time. In a case like this where neither parties had hard evidence and it's basically "he said/she said" - where credibility is practically the sole evidence...wouldn't the fact that I have proof that he's bold-facedly lying in court - under oath - prove that he has no credibility?

In a case where it's "he said/she said" - I lost to a liar because the judge would not allow me to present my proof, saying all info on a previous ticket is irrelevant. So the judge took his word over mine based on the fact that he has a badge and I have a record.

Is this justice?
Is there anything I can do about it? I wanted to file for an appeal based on "Incorrect Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence" - but I've been told by a lawyer that basically I was beating a dead horse and just live with it...

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

**A: no**************....

Vyshtia said:

I feel I lost because although the judge allowed the Officer to testify to my prior ticket, the judge would not allow me to present my evidence and Proof that I was innocent of that previous charge the whole time.

Click to expand...

But you weren't found innocent, were you? Were you found guilty of the previous offense?

It MAY have been improper for the officer to use your prior offense as evidence in this matter, but unless YOU object to it, the court may be under no obligation to object on your behalf.

In a case like this where neither parties had hard evidence and it's basically "he said/she said" - where credibility is practically the sole evidence...wouldn't the fact that I have proof that he's bold-facedly lying in court - under oath - prove that he has no credibility?

Click to expand...

And what, exactly, is this "proof"? You have a video or audio tape of something?

In a case where it's "he said/she said" - I lost to a liar because the judge would not allow me to present my proof, saying all info on a previous ticket is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

He is right. It IS irrelevant. He is there to argue the current citation, not a past one. If you had evidence to cast doubt on the officer's credibility for this incident - even based on a previous one - it would require something more than calling the officer a liar.

What is this compelling evidence?

And if it is so compelling, you can always appeal the verdict.

So the judge took his word over mine based on the fact that he has a badge and I have a record.

Click to expand...

It sometimes works that way.

Is there anything I can do about it? I wanted to file for an appeal based on "Incorrect Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence" - but I've been told by a lawyer that basically I was beating a dead horse and just live with it...

Click to expand...

Then he's probably right. You can look for another attorney ... I'm sure if you pay one enough money he'll file an appeal. This by no means guarantees an appearance in court, but you would at least get the appeal filed.


- Carl

CdwJava said:

But you weren't found innocent, were you? Were you found guilty of the previous offense?

Click to expand...

In the previous offense, he charged me with crossing over the double yellows in the HOV lane. I told him to turn around and look at the freeway. Because there is NO HOV lane or Double Yellows on that stretch of freeway. He got mad and charged me with "improperly mounted license plate" instead, but wrote on the back of that citation that he gave me a verbal warning for the other charges. I have picture proof, testimony from CHP, and testimony from the CHP officer who signed off this correctable offense.

CdwJava said:

It MAY have been improper for the officer to use your prior offense as evidence in this matter, but unless YOU object to it, the court may be under no obligation to object on your behalf.

Click to expand...

I did not know this...I was told and was under the impression that I was not allowed to interrupt the Officer when he was giving his testimony...and that I would have my turn to speak and rebutt.

CdwJava said:

And what, exactly, is this "proof"? You have a video or audio tape of something?

Click to expand...

In addition to the "proof" above (which is as strong a proof as I could get) - I have a letter from Caltrans stating very specifically that that no HOV or Double Yellows existed on that portion of freeway from 2001 until January 27, 2005. On the night of Jan 26-27 2005, the #1 mixed flow lane was changed to an HOV lane, complete with new Double Yellows, and I have the project number. He testified to have given me a verbal for that offense October 2004.

The Officer testified to my previous offense to make the case that I do this all the time and he had already given me a verbal warning, yet I refuse to take heed, so therefore I needed to be found guilty. My defense to that was to show that I was innocent the whole time because what he charged me for didn't even exist. It's so rare that you can truely PROVE something like this, and this time I had the proof, yet was not allowed to use it. Yet he was able to strengthen his case with his version of the story.

Vyshtia said:

I have picture proof, testimony from CHP, and testimony from the CHP officer who signed off this correctable offense.

Click to expand...

The CHP officer is not a witness, and unless he was subpoenaed to court on that day his testimony would not have been admitted even if he HAD been a witness.

A picture of the area only has value if it is substantiated and even that could be arguable. And the officer being wrong does not mean that he was a liar. I do not think that anything you mentioned would have been sufficient to show that he lied in this matter.

I did not know this...I was told and was under the impression that I was not allowed to interrupt the Officer when he was giving his testimony...and that I would have my turn to speak and rebutt.

Click to expand...

I have seen some traffic courts that would not allow defendants to object. This is unfortunate, but is sometimes a necessary flexing of the normal rules to prevent traffic court from becoming a circus. Most people do not think of objections in traffic court, but they ARE permissable.

In addition to the "proof" above (which is as strong a proof as I could get) - I have a letter from Caltrans stating very specifically that that no HOV or Double Yellows existed on that portion of freeway from 2001 until January 27, 2005.

Click to expand...

Once again, irrelevant. You were not charged with this offense so it is wholly irrelevant. He could just as easily written that he also verbally advised you not to eat a steak with the salad fork - and it would have been equally irrelevant.

I have to agree with the judge in this case that your "defense" for a crime with which you were never charged is not admissable.

The Officer testified to my previous offense to make the case that I do this all the time and he had already given me a verbal warning, yet I refuse to take heed, so therefore I needed to be found guilty.

Click to expand...

Okay, then he set the foundation in order to present it. Given that, in my opinion, you should have been permitted to rebut the allegation. But, I am not an attorney.

Howver, since an attorney said that you had no case, then you probably don't. But, as I mentioned, with enough money you might be able to find an attorney to file an appeal ... but you may not ever see a courtroom.

- Carl

Thank you, Carl - I see your points.

Question then -

In a case like this then, where it's based not on facts, but pure testimony - How does the Judge judge?

It's basically his story against mine, right? So then, I would think that the Judge would have to rely solely on which testimony sounded more credible and which person seems most credible.

I was not allowed to prove that this Officer was extremely "non-credible". Yet he used the incident to "prove" that I was not credible. Then the Judge looked at my driving record and saw that I had been cited for the same offense a year ago. So therefore - I must be guilty of it again. Yet, this is not the case...are such assumptions acceptable? And if their logic of - "nothing but the facts relating to THIS case is relevant" - then how is my driving record relevant? I would think that if I can be judged by my driving record, then I should be able to present a case to show that Officer's "lying record" as well.

What do you think?