Indiana How to Write an Appeal?

What is the name of your state?
Indiana

Yesterday I went to court on a speeding ticket case.

During the trial, I pointed out the following:

1) The radar device had NEVER been laboratory or manufacturer certified or calibrated as far as the proscution could produce from my discovery and trial cross examination.

2) The tuning forks used to perform the daily check had never been certified or calibrated as far as the prosecuter could prove.

3) I succeeded (with an overruled objection from the prosecuter) in getting the officer to admit under oath that he was speeding while he allegedly clocked me.

4) The officer stated that he turned on his radar device only after observing me speeding. This is not true since:
a) The radar device (MPH Python II) is not an instant-on device.
b) The rider in my vehicle and I observed the radar detector in my vehicle went off continuously before I could even see the patrol car.

At the end of the trial the judge found me guilty and maintained that the fine should be paid.

This seems like an easy one to appeal. What do you think?

I fail to see what an officer speeding has to do with anything. That isn't going to affect his radar readings since the device is made to account for his speed.

Maybe you misunderstood what the officer was saying about turning it on. Perhaps he was saying he didn't lock in the numbers until he decided you were speeding.

Traffic court is set up differently than, say, criminal court. (If anything I'm about to say is wrong, PLEASE correct me oh mighty vets). In Traffic Court, the burden does not rely on the prosecution to prove you are guilty, but for you to prove that you are not guilty. The prosecution does not need to prove that their radar devices and tuning forks are calibrated in a timely manner; rather, you must prove that they are not. Through the process of Discovery, you must request that they give you call calibration logs BEFORE you can attempt to use them in any trial. If, using these logs and citing items that state that the logs show they are not calibrated as often as they should be (which most likely isn't as often as you think), then you got nothing. (If any of this is wrong, one of the vets will surely correct me and tell me to stop giving advice, so don't take anything I say as fact until somebody else can confirm it! )

Actually it is up to the prosecution to provide a proper basis for the evidence (the radar reading in this case). This would include the calibration, proper operation etc. I have stated in the past that in PA the officer must come to the hearing with the calibration certificate and provide judicial notice etc. Of course it is up to the OP to point out the lack of the required items and info (As it seems the OP has done in this case).

This is not the case only in PA. I did some quick research and saw that Indiana also has case law supporting calibration, proper operation and testing of the radar.

The issue of the officer speeding is pretty much irrelavant but the other issues (items 1 and 2), from the little research I have done on Indiana, appear to be a basis for appeal.

More information...

Thanks to both of you for your input.

I did request the calibration information in my motion for discovery. The response from the prosecuter was that he was unable to produce any records (including the manufacturer's) that the unit had ever been calibrated or tested to any standard.

Sorry if this was unclear in my initial post.

The issue of the officer's speeding was objected to by the prosecuter in the trial (as I stated) but I argued that the issue was relevant to my case. It speaks to the officer's ability to accurately judge my speed considering his environment. Speeding is defined by the State as traveling at a speed that has been determined by the State to be above a safe speed considering the terain, visibility, and condition of the road. If the officer was exceeding the safe speed then perhaps he was not in the optimum situation to determine who was speeding in the opposing lane of traffic and what speed they were going. The excessive speed would handicap his judgement just as it would anyone else's, which is the basis for a speed limit in the first place.

Twiddler said:

Thanks to both of you for your input.

I did request the calibration information in my motion for discovery. The response from the prosecuter was that he was unable to produce any records (including the manufacturer's) that the unit had ever been calibrated or tested to any standard.

Sorry if this was unclear in my initial post.

The issue of the officer's speeding was objected to by the prosecuter in the trial (as I stated) but I argued that the issue was relevant to my case. It speaks to the officer's ability to accurately judge my speed considering his environment. Speeding is defined by the State as traveling at a speed that has been determined by the State to be above a safe speed considering the terain, visibility, and condition of the road. If the officer was exceeding the safe speed then perhaps he was not in the optimum situation to determine who was speeding in the opposing lane of traffic and what speed they were going. The excessive speed would handicap his judgement just as it would anyone else's, which is the basis for a speed limit in the first place.

Click to expand...

To win an appeal, you have to show that the court made an error (and not just "I really didn't like the evidence.")

Even more information...

During the cross-examination I also asked the trooper if he was sure that his radar device was not transmitting a radar signal until AFTER he determined that I was exceeding the speed limit and he stated that he was certain that it was not.

(He was lying)

I was told by another law enforcement individual that the reason that he said this is because there is some reason in Indiana that this is required. Meaning that it's required that the officer first judge the speed independantly before verifying it with a radar device.

If anyone has more information on this issue, please reply.

Also, if the officer's speed is irrelevent on that highway, at that time, then so was mine and I shouldn't be penalized with a fine.

Reply to Senior Judge

I never stated that I "...really didn't like the evidence". What I believe is that the evidence shows that they officer relied on a device that cannot be relied on for it's accuracy.

The error made by the court is that the prosecuter had no reliable evidence against me and the judge acted with prejudice against me.

Please don't mis-quote me. It's not very productive.

Twiddler said:

I never stated that I "...really didn't like the evidence". What I believe is that the evidence shows that they officer relied on a device that cannot be relied on for it's accuracy.

The error made by the court is that the prosecuter had no reliable evidence against me and the judge acted with prejudice against me.

Please don't mis-quote me. It's not very productive.

Click to expand...

The judge is the one who decides the credibility of the witnesses.

That is rarely (if ever) overturned on appeal.

I also think what is getting lost here is whether or not they proved any of the things you are discussing may mean absolutely nothing...

In order to win the appeal you would have to prove that had this evidence been presented it would have significantly changed the judgment against you.

Thank you for your response.

What evidence is there against me?

When I go to my appeal I will have a deposition from my passenger that not only did the officer misquote me in his testimony, but the radar detector was going off long before we saw the patrol car. These were both lies that the trooper stated under oath. I believe that this would also constitute new evidence in the case and another reson to grant an appeal. Why would the trooper's testimony not be thrown out?

With a new judge on the case and this evidence that the trooper purgered himself to seal the case, why would the ruling not be overturned? Tradition?

Twiddler said:

Thank you for your response.

What evidence is there against me?

When I go to my appeal I will have a deposition from my passenger that not only did the officer misquote me in his testimony, but the radar detector was going off long before we saw the patrol car. These were both lies that the trooper stated under oath. I believe that this would also constitute new evidence in the case and another reson to grant an appeal. Why would the trooper's testimony not be thrown out?

With a new judge on the case and this evidence that the trooper purgered himself to seal the case, why would the ruling not be overturned? Tradition?

Click to expand...

Just saying your friend will testify doesn't mean that the officer's testimony will be thrown out. It comes down to credibility and may come down to reputation also. It becomes sort of a he said/she said thing for one and the judge is forced to decide who to believe.... and then there is the issue that if you are going to attempt to force them to prove their equiptment was working properly... how about you having to prove that your radar detector was working properly?

You have to PROVE beyond everything else that the trooper lied... AND if those lies were not told that you would not have been found guilty.

Lying Trooper

The fact that the radar device (MPH Python II) is not an "instant on" device should be proof enough, shouldn't it?

Does anyone on here have experieince with this device?