Fighting a Ticket Issued after an Accident

What is the name of your state? Michigan

I was in an accident where I rear-ended a vehicle in front of me. The two cars behind me stopped in time, but a third car was unable to stop in time and caused a second accident. My car was then rear-ended as a result of the second accident. My car was not pushed into the car in front of me as a result of the accident.

Unfortunately for me I made the decision to admit responsibility for my accident at the scene. I therefore was issued a ticket for "Failure to Stop in an Assured Clear Distance."

I plan on fighting the ticket, but am looking for advice on what approach to take. I see a couple of options:

1. Plead Not Guilty - State that my statement at the scene was inaccurate or misunderstood or something to this affect, and that I was rear-ended and pushed into the car in front of me.

2. Plead Guilty with an explanation and hope for a reduction to a lesser charge (i.e. Impeding Traffic) based on completion of a Traffic School course

Any advice would be appreciated...thanks.

watson said:

What is the name of your state? Michigan

I was in an accident where I rear-ended a vehicle in front of me. The two cars behind me stopped in time, but a third car was unable to stop in time and caused a second accident. My car was then rear-ended as a result of the second accident. My car was not pushed into the car in front of me as a result of the accident.

Unfortunately for me I made the decision to admit responsibility for my accident at the scene. I therefore was issued a ticket for "Failure to Stop in an Assured Clear Distance."

I plan on fighting the ticket, but am looking for advice on what approach to take. I see a couple of options:

1. Plead Not Guilty - State that my statement at the scene was inaccurate or misunderstood or something to this affect, and that I was rear-ended and pushed into the car in front of me.

2. Plead Guilty with an explanation and hope for a reduction to a lesser charge (i.e. Impeding Traffic) based on completion of a Traffic School course

Any advice would be appreciated...thanks.

Click to expand...

How can you fight the ticket (except for Option #1, which is a lie - perjurers won't get help from this board)?

You are guilty of what you were charged with...sure, you can ask for a lesser charge, but it makes me sick that you want to squirm out of taking responsibility for this.

watson said:

1. Plead Not Guilty - State that my statement at the scene was inaccurate or misunderstood or something to this affect, and that I was rear-ended and pushed into the car in front of me.

Click to expand...

Of course you can plead not guilty... but using a LIE as your defense??

Plead Guilty with an explanation and hope for a reduction to a lesser charge (i.e. Impeding Traffic) based on completion of a Traffic School course

Click to expand...

See, the truth is always best, isn't it??

Zigner said:

How can you fight the ticket (except for Option #1, which is a lie - perjurers won't get help from this board)?

You are guilty of what you were charged with...sure, you can ask for a lesser charge, but it makes me sick that you want to squirm out of taking responsibility for this.

Click to expand...

If the OP perjures himself, that's his decision. (And if that makes you sick, you must be sick often. Every day in countless courtrooms across the country people are perjuring themselves to suit their own ends, including law enforcement officers.)

OP, if you go in with a fabricated story about how the fifth car in line pushed your second car into the first, you'd need to have other evidence besides your recanted testimony. The evidence that is likely available is (1) the officer and his/her citation, (2) your original testimony, and (3) insurance claim records. The claims information would probably not support your new story. If you can even get those records, the damage to the car you hit is probably more than the damage to the car behind you. (Not necessarily in dollar amount, but in what was damaged and how severely.) If the insurance companies have pictures of the damage, that's probably even worse for you.

Between the claims info, your original testimony at the scene, and the officer backing it all up, you might learn why perjury is not recommended (aside from it being immoral, unethical, and illegal). The state could decide you've so blatantly perjured yourself that they charge you, and also subpoena the driver of the first car as additional evidence against you. I don't think it's likely, but is that a risk you want to take? Do you want to be the case that a freshly minted associate DA wants to make his or her bones on? I can't recommend it.

Now I don't know Michigan's procedures, but it could be useful to contest the ticket. If the officer is required to appear and doesn't, it might be dismissed. You might also be able to bargain with the prosecutor to plead to a different charge or get the fine reduced. Since you caused an accident (and indirectly caused another) they probably won't be too generous, but who knows?

Smiles said:

If the OP perjures himself, that's his decision. (And if that makes you sick, you must be sick often. Every day in countless courtrooms across the country people are perjuring themselves to suit their own ends, including law enforcement officers.)

Click to expand...

This is a LEGAL advice site. That means that RESPONSIBLE members don't endorse someone committing perjury.

Unless all the other parties have amnesia, they WILL remember who was hit when. The first driver will remember they got whacked once then again after you got whacked. Perjury is a serious criminal offense ... to commit perjury and risk turning a nothing traffic offense into possible jail time is just silly!

- Carl

JETX said:

This is a LEGAL advice site. That means that RESPONSIBLE members don't endorse someone committing perjury.

Click to expand...

I didn't endorse it.

Zigner said:

How can you fight the ticket (except for Option #1, which is a lie - perjurers won't get help from this board)?

You are guilty of what you were charged with...sure, you can ask for a lesser charge, but it makes me sick that you want to squirm out of taking responsibility for this.

Click to expand...

Do LEO's committing perjury on the stand make you jsut as sick???

I had one actually change his mind as he blurted out "testimony" he first staed he was using radar then came to the reality that he had no credible radar evidence so he changed his story on the stand to "i was running laser"

The fact that this particular LEO was not a witness seems to make it self evident that the charges should be dismissed - the damages are to the other car owner -not to the state.

Perhaps the road was not properly brushed or had oil on it and the coefficient of friction was not adequate.

CdwJava said:

Unless all the other parties have amnesia, they WILL remember who was hit when. The first driver will remember they got whacked once then again after you got whacked. Perjury is a serious criminal offense ... to commit perjury and risk turning a nothing traffic offense into possible jail time is just silly!

- Carl

Click to expand...

Again, does that not apply to your fellow LEO's Carl? - I guess the ones writing 50 citations a day remember each and everyone so clearly on the stand four months later and of course never simply make a measurement mistake opr target the wrong vehicle in their barn sized radar beam.....

Smiles, thanks for the advice. I suppose the root of my question is, will a judge (actually a magistrate in this case) believe recanted testimony? Keep in mind that I was very nervous at the scene of the accident and two of the other people involved were very assertive and interrupted my testimony to the officer multiple times.

The insurance information would likely support my case as the vehicle in front of me was only slightly damaged (cracked bumper, no body damage).

Sorry to rile the rest of you up with my "squirming". I appreciate everyone's input and your recommendations against perjury.

CdwJava said:

Unless all the other parties have amnesia, they WILL remember who was hit when. The first driver will remember they got whacked once then again after you got whacked. Perjury is a serious criminal offense ... to commit perjury and risk turning a nothing traffic offense into possible jail time is just silly!

- Carl

Click to expand...

I only hit the car in front of me once. It is impossible for the driver of the first car to determine what caused my car hit theirs.

watson said:

I only hit the car in front of me once. It is impossible for the driver of the first car to determine what caused my car hit theirs.

Click to expand...

Ok, let's make it clear. DON'T LIE!

Smiles said:

I didn't endorse it.

Click to expand...

Your even suggesting, or even worse, justifying it ("If the OP perjures himself, that's his decision. (And if that makes you sick, you must be sick often. Every day in countless courtrooms across the country people are perjuring themselves to suit their own ends, including law enforcement officers.)").... IS endorsing it.

cepe10 said:

The fact that this particular LEO was not a witness seems to make it self evident that the charges should be dismissed - the damages are to the other car owner -not to the state.

Perhaps the road was not properly brushed or had oil on it and the coefficient of friction was not adequate.

Click to expand...

Perhaps ... but, the driver is still responsible to drive at a speed and manner that is safe for conditions. And since he mentions nothing about the road being freshly coated with oil (which would be an issue to raise for reasonable doubt) we can safely assume this was not the case.

And the officer IS a witness. His investigation led to the conclusion that the particular crime was committed. We also do not witness assaults, thefts and murders yet we testify in these cases all the time.

- Carl

cepe10 said:

Again, does that not apply to your fellow LEO's Carl? - I guess the ones writing 50 citations a day remember each and everyone so clearly on the stand four months later and of course never simply make a measurement mistake opr target the wrong vehicle in their barn sized radar beam.....

Click to expand...

First, NO officer writes 50 citations a day.

Second, the radar beam is not the size of a barn.

Third, if you radar a field of cars and the beam is indicating 60 miles an hour and a car is pulling away from the 60 MPH pack, it is safe to assume that the car is exceeding that 60 MPH.

Fourth, radar trained officers are trained in visual estimation and the radar is simply a tool to confirm the officer's visual estimation of speed.

And, yes, with proper documentation on the citation and the notes we CAN remember the pertinent details of all those stops three months later.

- Carl