Complex case -- officer lied

[cdfstl]

What is the name of your state? CA

I had my trial for "running a red light" -- not photo enforced, on Friday. Before the trial began the Judge advised me and the 3 other defendants in the court that he had been involved in boxing (the sport) with the officer and that we could choose to see a different Judge. I chose to proceed with my trial.

In the officers case against me he made 2 statements that were obvious lies, but I could not prove other wise. Of course, I was completely blindsided. In his opening statement (case) he said that he had 18 years experience in traffic enforcement... . The lies pretty much destroyed my defense, but I somehow managed to retain just enough composure to carry on with a convoluted defense. I asked the officer many questions -- including asking him several times if he was sure about his "facts". He responded yes, and in one case he provided more information to support his statement, which may prove to be his downfall.

At one point early on, I asked the Judge if I could approach (him). I wanted to tell him that the officer's recall was either severely impaired or that he was lying under oath. He said that anything I said had to be said in open court, so I kept quiet. Several times I demonstrated open frustration or bewilderment (facial expressions) when the officer lied.

The Judge was extremely tolerant and only once ask me about the relevancy of one portion of my defense, which I found surprising.

Much to my surprise, the Judge took the case under advisement. I had at least 6 documents/copies of sections of Calif Law and the Calif and Fed Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, that I allowed the Judge to enter as evidence.

On the way home I recalled that a crossing guard at the intersection, on the day that I was there prior to the trial, had very possibly inadvertently given me information that I could now use to prove, without a *doubt*, that the officer lied. (Unless the officer can prove that the crossing guard is for some reason an unreliable witness). I stopped at the intersection on the way home from court, but the regular guard was absent and his substitute could not (or maybe would not) provide the details I needed.


My questions are:

1) My plan is to try and get a statement from the guard on Tuesday which will refute the the officers testimony. The question then becomes: How do I get it entered into court ASAP, so that I won't have to appeal the case should the Judge rule against me ?

2) Will the court handle the officer's perjury without me having to do anything further?

Thanks
What is the name of your state? California

 

[CdwJava]

1) My plan is to try and get a statement from the guard on Tuesday which will refute the the officers testimony. The question then becomes: How do I get it entered into court ASAP, so that I won't have to appeal the case should the Judge rule against me ?

You have already rested your case, you will not be able to submit that information at trial. If it is significant enough, it might be used as grounds for an appeal, though.

Also, as a side note, many courts take submissions under advisement - that is commonplace in my county. Very often, I have found that this bodes well for the defendant ... but, that is just anecdotal experience as i cannot say how it works elsewhere as until I came to THIS county I had never seen that practice. Since then, I have heard many courts do it ... why, I don't know - never thought to ask the local judges.

2) Will the court handle the officer's perjury without me having to do anything further?

Perjury is almost impossible to prove and rarely ever prosecuted because of that. the state has to prove that a person made knowingly and intentionally false statement under oath ... this is nearly impossible to prove. Being mistaken, wrong, incorrect, or confused does not equate to perjury. It would be an easier course to follow to complain to his agency if you believed he lied in court - they do not need the same level of proof to take action. However, an 18 year veteran will be tough to tangle with ... tougher if he has a clean record with no similar accusations.

- Carl

Thanks
What is the name of your state? California[/QUOTE]

 

[cdfstl]

Here's some pertinent information that I left out:

The officer's lie (the one the guard can help me with) was that he was in a different location than where I saw him. 99% of my defense was based on the fact that he was way out of position to see the front of my car relative to its position to the crosswalk when the light changed to green.

When I questioned him, I specifically asked him if he could have been mistaken about where he was parked. He said no, and the added that he NEVER parks where I stated that I saw him. The guard had stated otherwise, but in the heat of court, I couldn't recall that at the time. How could I have proved that the guard had indeed told me such? In other words his lies made it impossible for me to make a case, because I could not anticipate that he would lie.

Although, it doesn't prove that he was there at the time of my alleged violation, it does show that he lied -- because he stated that he NEVER parks there.

Also, he testified that my estimated speed was 35-40 mph. I pointed out that my ticket states 40 mph, which is in excess of the 35 mph limit at the location. I asked him why I wasn't cited for speed also. He replied that he doesn't cite for that difference (5mph).

He also couldn't give me an estimate of what 40 mph was in ft/sec. I had to read it to him from a DOT chart.

It seems to me that if the guard can/is willing to substantiate what I testified to, I couldn't possibly lose an appeal.

Also, how is it that I would get the guards signed statement submitted prior to my possible appeal? Put it in a sealed envelope and request a court clerk to take it under advisement? Then it sits sealed in the courts possession in the event I need it for appeal?

Or was your statement about "under advisement" referring only to the fact that my case was taken under advisement?

Thanks

 

[CdwJava]

The officer's lie (the one the guard can help me with) was that he was in a different location than where I saw him. 99% of my defense was based on the fact that he was way out of position to see the front of my car relative to its position to the crosswalk when the light changed to green.

Likely that he was mistaken as opposed to lying. That is, if you are the one who is correct.

Also, he testified that my estimated speed was 35-40 mph. I pointed out that my ticket states 40 mph, which is in excess of the 35 mph limit at the location. I asked him why I wasn't cited for speed also. He replied that he doesn't cite for that difference (5mph).

He does no HAVE to cite for the speed. In fact, for 5 MPH and a red light, I can't imagine citing for the speed, either.

He also couldn't give me an estimate of what 40 mph was in ft/sec. I had to read it to him from a DOT chart.

Why should he give such an estimate? It's not something most officers have at their fingertips unless they are accident re-constructionists.

It seems to me that if the guard can/is willing to substantiate what I testified to, I couldn't possibly lose an appeal.

Maybe. You may have nothing to lose by trying for an appeal.

Also, how is it that I would get the guards signed statement submitted prior to my possible appeal? Put it in a sealed envelope and request a court clerk to take it under advisement? Then it sits sealed in the courts possession in the event I need it for appeal?

The case is over. Anything you try to add no will be ex parte and won't be considered. And, I suspect, that this new evidence of the crossing guard's statement might not be admitted for an appeal as it could have been admitted at trial .. failure to submit evidence at trial does no generally give grounds for appeal. However, i in the intervening weeks it was not POSSIBLE for you to have obtained that info, then you might stand a better chance than a roll of the dice.

Or was your statement about "under advisement" referring only to the fact that my case was taken under advisement?

The court already took the matter under advisement - so you said. That means he has heard the evidence and will render a decision by mail at some later date.

- Carl

 

[cdfstl]

Likely that he was mistaken as opposed to lying. That is, if you are the one who is correct.

It's doubtful. The details of the situation make it hard to believe that he's mistaken.

He does no HAVE to cite for the speed. In fact, for 5 MPH and a red light, I can't imagine citing for the speed, either.

That's understandable. I was trying to point out every possible "inconsistency" in his testimony. My ticket read 40 mph, not 35 to 40 in the speed section.

Why should he give such an estimate? It's not something most officers have at their fingertips unless they are accident re-constructionists.

He is an accident re-constructionist. He included a "resume" in his opening.

Maybe. You may have nothing to lose by trying for an appeal.

I will if necessary. I have the time to do so. I'm sort of glad that after the Judge said that he would take my case under advisement, I quickly and politely asked if there was anything that happened in court that would preclude me from making an appeal if I want to (or words to that effect). He said no. The judge has a very good reputation and I found him to be very patient overall.

The case is over. Anything you try to add no will be ex parte and won't be considered. And, I suspect, that this new evidence of the crossing guard's statement might not be admitted for an appeal as it could have been admitted at trial .. failure to submit evidence at trial does no generally give grounds for appeal. However, i in the intervening weeks it was not POSSIBLE for you to have obtained that info, then you might stand a better chance than a roll of the dice.

I had no reason to assume that the officer would lie or be mistaken about his location at which he observed my car, therefore I had no reason to even suspect that I might need the guard as a witness. I talked to him while taking measurements at the intersection for my trial.

The court already took the matter under advisement - so you said. That means he has heard the evidence and will render a decision by mail at some later date.

Any idea of how long it usually takes vs. how long the judge can legally take?

Thanks

 

[CdwJava]

Any idea of how long it usually takes vs. how long the judge can legally take?

Thanks

I am not sure of the legal time frame he has to render a decision, but the ones here are usually made within 2 weeks ... likely less, it's just that I hear about them in about two weeks. A call to the court might find that out.

- Carl

 

[cdfstl]

I am not sure of the legal time frame he has to render a decision, but the ones here are usually made within 2 weeks ... likely less, it's just that I hear about them in about two weeks. A call to the court might find that out.

- Carl

The local courts (maybe all CA courts?) have online case information, so I can check there as often as I wish. I hope it's within 2 weeks, because I just want the entire incident to go away (providing the ruling is in my favor!).

Thank you for all the excellent information you provided.

 

[CdwJava]

The local courts (maybe all CA courts?) have online case information, so I can check there as often as I wish. I hope it's within 2 weeks, because I just want the entire incident to go away (providing the ruling is in my favor!).

Thank you for all the excellent information you provided.

You're lucky if your court results are on line - not all counties are. And, keep in mind that sometimes this on-line information is either not correct or posted in a less than timely manner. Most have a caveat somewhere on their site that says not to rely on it for the official record. So, if you DO see a result there, you might want to call and confirm it if you have not yet been notified by mail. It's better to be safe than sorry.

Good luck, and please keep a close eye on those lights. Too many people try to rush through yellows and tragic accidents sometimes occur.

- Carl