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?
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?