Drag my wife into this?

[lawyer]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? OH

I am preparing a vigorous defense for a speeding ticket. At the time of citation, the officer made a comment about the overall speed of traffic. That comment could be useful in one area of my defense.

I don't expect him to remember word for word what he said, but if under questioning I were to ask him if he remembers saying "blah, blah, blah" and he says that he doesn't - well, my wife was in the car, and she heard the comment.

Would her testimony carry less weight because she is my wife, is it even admissible?

Is there a way that she could enter a 'sworn statement' that would only be her recollection of what the Highway Patrol Trooper said, without actually taking the stand? The trial will be out of town and she would like to be home with our daughter.

This statement would be useful at best, my defense has will be several layers, but as I'm new to this I want to explore every possible defense to the fullest extent, but if it means I'd have to bring her to court, have her take the stand, be open for cross-examination...well, then it's just not worth it and I'll have to hope the Trooper remembers what he said and is honest about it.

Originally Posted by lawyer

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? OH

I am preparing a vigorous defense for a speeding ticket. At the time of citation, the officer made a comment about the overall speed of traffic. That comment could be useful in one area of my defense.

I don't expect him to remember word for word what he said, but if under questioning I were to ask him if he remembers saying "blah, blah, blah" and he says that he doesn't - well, my wife was in the car, and she heard the comment.

Would her testimony carry less weight because she is my wife, is it even admissible?

Is there a way that she could enter a 'sworn statement' that would only be her recollection of what the Highway Patrol Trooper said, without actually taking the stand? The trial will be out of town and she would like to be home with our daughter.

This statement would be useful at best, my defense has will be several layers, but as I'm new to this I want to explore every possible defense to the fullest extent, but if it means I'd have to bring her to court, have her take the stand, be open for cross-examination...well, then it's just not worth it and I'll have to hope the Trooper remembers what he said and is honest about it.

There is one and only one defense to speeding: You weren't speeding.

The judge does not give a rip about what the cop said about anything.

[lawyer]

Thanks for the reply @$$hole, did I say I was speeding?

The prosecutor is going to try his best to prove that I was speeding, and he will most certainly use statements from the S.H.P. trooper to do so.

If I had made the a comment "Officer, I know I was speeding, but..." that comment would certainly be used against me.

The comment, when combined with other facts, will show that it is entirely possible that I was not speeding.

[kathrynne]

Originally Posted by lawyer

Thanks for the reply @$$hole, did I say I was speeding?

Wow! That attitude is likely to get you into further trouble!

Lessee ... you ask for FREE advice and an expert--with JUDGE in his name, no less--tells you in no uncertain terms what is and is not relevant and HOW do you react? By calling him a WHAT?! Brilliant.

Gotta love it.

Originally Posted by lawyer

Thanks for the reply @$$hole, did I say I was speeding?

The prosecutor is going to try his best to prove that I was speeding, and he will most certainly use statements from the S.H.P. trooper to do so.

If I had made the a comment "Officer, I know I was speeding, but..." that comment would certainly be used against me.

The comment, when combined with other facts, will show that it is entirely possible that I was not speeding.

....ok....

[lawyer]

Originally Posted by kathrynne

Wow! That attitude is likely to get you into further trouble!

Lessee ... you ask for FREE advice and an expert--with JUDGE in his name, no less--tells you in no uncertain terms what is and is not relevant and HOW do you react? By calling him a WHAT?! Brilliant.

Gotta love it.

No Kathrynne, I asked specific questions, which were not answered. Instead, there was only a condescending, irrelevant reply. Answer my question, don't answer my question - I don't care, but if you find my behavior more troubling than that of an 'expert' who is supposedly a senior here - well, yes, then you and I might not get along. Sorry.

I called him an @$$hole. I didn't even use the real alphebetical characters. If that's the worst he or I am ever called...

So, if anyone else would like an attempt at actually answering the question - please feel free, I truly would be appreciative at an honest, thoughtful reply and not a condescending sound-bite.

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by lawyer

I am preparing a vigorous defense for a speeding ticket. At the time of citation, the officer made a comment about the overall speed of traffic. That comment could be useful in one area of my defense.

I predict there will be two phrases heard repeatedly during your defense:

Prosecutor- "Objection... relevance"
Judge- "Objection sustained... Next question"

Seniorjudge did answer your questions. And he is absolutely correct. Testimony will be limited to the elements of the offense:

The posted speed limit on the road you were traveling.
The speed your vehicle was actually moving.
The officer's observation of your speed.
How your speed was determined. (radar/pace/lidar)
The officer's training in the use of the measuring device.
The maintenance / certification of accuracy of the device.
How the officer identified you. (valid picture DL)

The officer's comments on the overall speed of traffic are irrelevant. The actual speeds of surrounding traffic will be irrelevant. If the speed limit is 55, and other traffic is going 65, you can't use that as a defense if you're doing 70 or 75. Saying that 'everyone was speeding' will not be seen as a viable defense.

Would her testimony carry less weight because she is my wife, is it even admissible?

Her testimony could only be used to rebutt the officer's denial. If he admits to saying it, what would she testify to? Even if she were allowed to, her testimony will still be seen as biased.

All that aside, the basic issue is still relevance.

Is there a way that she could enter a 'sworn statement' that would only be her recollection of what the Highway Patrol Trooper said

No.

This statement would be useful at best, my defense has will be several layers, but as I'm new to this I want to explore every possible defense to the fullest extent

Sounds like the court staff will be in for a long, boring afternoon. If you insist on pursuing irrelevant lines of questioning, you'll be in for ostrich-sized egg on your face.

I suggest bringing one of two things to court. A competent attorney specializing in speeding cases, or your checkbook.

While you're exploring your multi-defensive layer, in-depth battle Stragedy (spelling intentional), keep two things in the back of your mind...

1. You'll be taking a day off of work for this legal "cage match", costing you money.

2. The Trooper will most likely be paid beaucoup overtime to appear, making him money.

Who actually wins... even if you're found not guilty?

[kathrynne]

Originally Posted by lawyer

No Kathrynne, I asked specific questions, which were not answered. Instead, there was only a condescending, irrelevant reply. Answer my question, don't answer my question - I don't care, but if you find my behavior more troubling than that of an 'expert' who is supposedly a senior here - well, yes, then you and I might not get along. Sorry.

I called him an @$$hole. I didn't even use the real alphebetical characters. If that's the worst he or I am ever called...

So, if anyone else would like an attempt at actually answering the question - please feel free, I truly would be appreciative at an honest, thoughtful reply and not a condescending sound-bite.

Seniorjudge answered your questions succinctly. All of your questions are correctly answered with the single word: IRRELEVANT. Period. If you happen to prefer Curt581's more extended answer, which says pretty much the same thing but using a great deal more verbiage, fine.

You're right. We will NOT get along here. I don't much like folks who resort to namecalling and expletives when someone's VOLUNTEERING to help, and I especially don't like people who can't even spell "alphAbetical." Please don't try calling that a tpyo, either, because E and A are not tpyographically interchangeable on a QWERTY keyboard.

[lawyer]

Originally Posted by Curt581

I predict there will be two phrases heard repeatedly during your defense:

Prosecutor- "Objection... relevance"
Judge- "Objection sustained... Next question"

You may be correct.

Seniorjudge did answer your questions. And he is absolutely correct. Testimony will be limited to the elements of the offense:

The posted speed limit on the road you were traveling.
The speed your vehicle was actually moving.
The officer's observation of your speed.
How your speed was determined. (radar/pace/lidar)
The officer's training in the use of the measuring device.
The maintenance / certification of accuracy of the device.
How the officer identified you. (valid picture DL)

While I agree with you entirely that the scope of testimony will be limited, Seniorjudge did not, in fact, answer the questions.

The officer's comments on the overall speed of traffic are irrelevant. The actual speeds of surrounding traffic will be irrelevant. If the speed limit is 55, and other traffic is going 65, you can't use that as a defense if you're doing 70 or 75. Saying that 'everyone was speeding' will not be seen as a viable defense.

Curt581, I want you to know that I really do appreciate the time you put into this post - but it really would be easier on everyone if you had simply answered the questions. "Going with the flow..." has never been a viable speeding defense - and that's not the direction I wish to take this testimony. Perhaps you, and Seniorjudge as well, see the same questions over and over - I can easilly see becoming jaded, but it doesn't serve this board to assume facts that you don't know.

Her testimony could only be used to rebutt the officer's denial. If he admits to saying it, what would she testify to? Even if she were allowed to, her testimony will still be seen as biased.

Thank you. That's what I call answering the question. Not so hard, eh?

All that aside, the basic issue is still relevance.

No.

Sounds like the court staff will be in for a long, boring afternoon. If you insist on pursuing irrelevant lines of questioning, you'll be in for ostrich-sized egg on your face.

The questions will be relevant, and I don't see the egg in trying and failing. If the People meet the burden of proof in this matter I will accept that judgement gracefully. It may be long, but believe this or don't - it won't be boring.

I suggest bringing one of two things to court. A competent attorney specializing in speeding cases, or your checkbook.

I will bring neither. The fine is small, the court costs are not extravegant, and the 2 points won't impact my insurance rate. This is just me refusing to pay a random tax upon the lazy without a fight.

Oh, and they don't take checks.

While you're exploring your multi-defensive layer, in-depth battle Stragedy (spelling intentional), keep two things in the back of your mind...

OH NOS, DID I MAKE A TYPO??

1. You'll be taking a day off of work for this legal "cage match", costing you money.

Again you put the ass in assumption. I have 3 weeks vacation to burn and nowhere better to go. This has been interesting, exciting and educational for me. The gleeful bonus comes from the fact that even if I lose *completely*, the county will have overwhelmingly spent more money doing so than I will end up paying them. They can have their Pyrric victory, I'll pay my fine, thank the court for their time, apologize to the prosecution, go home and have no trouble sleeping at night.

2. The Trooper will most likely be paid beaucoup overtime to appear, making him money.

My quarrel with the Trooper is minimal. He's a small cog ofa big machine. If he bothers to show up he gets time and a half, good for him.

Who actually wins... even if you're found not guilty?

Win, lose; sometimes it's just how you play the game.

Originally Posted by lawyer

...Seniorjudge did not, in fact, answer the questions....

Actually, I did answer the question 100% correctly and 100% legally:

There is one and only one defense to speeding: You weren't speeding.

The judge does not give a rip about what the cop said about anything.


Here's what will happen in your case. The cop testifies that you were speeding. The judge will then say to you (in essence): "Do you have any evidence to prove you were not speeding?"

What will be your evidence?

(Hint: There will be no long boring trial; it will be over quickly. And I do wish you would post back with results.)

[ENASNI]

Do me a favor will ya?
Call the Judge presiding over the case an @$$hole.. please! I would like to see you spend those 3 weeks of vacation in jail for contempt!

Oh and another favor... post back the results...

Oh nevermind... you will be one of those buttcheese guys that post back that it came back favorably.







Hrrummmmmphhhh call my Judge a name .. well we will just SEE about that!

[lawyer]

Originally Posted by kathrynne

Seniorjudge answered your questions succinctly.

No he didn't.

All of your questions are correctly answered with the single word: IRRELEVANT.

I'm sorry, you're wrong.

Period.

Exclamtion point.

If you happen to prefer Curt581's more extended answer, which says pretty much the same thing but using a great deal more verbiage, fine.

I do prefer it. While he also made false assumptions that made his post about 8 times longer than it needed to be, I can tell that he is a man of thought, willing to put more than 5 seconds into a reply. Believe me or don't, but I do respect that quite a bit.

You're right. We will NOT get along here.

And I had such high hopes for us.

I don't much like folks who resort to namecalling and expletives when someone's VOLUNTEERING to help...

Wait a minute, name calling - OK, guilty as charged. Warranted, in my opinion, but expletives? I can't be charged twice for the same crime.

...and I especially don't like people who can't even spell "alphAbetical." Please don't try calling that a tpyo, either, because E and A are not tpyographically interchangeable on a QWERTY keyboard.

Objection - speculation. Kathrynne has no way of knowing that this is not a DVORAK keyboard.

[lawyer]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Actually, I did answer the question 100% correctly and 100% legally:

There is one and only one defense to speeding: You weren't speeding.

The judge does not give a rip about what the cop said about anything.

Hey, look who came back! Seniorjudge, thank you for this reply, and if it will in anyway bring me back in the good graces of Kathrynne, please accept my apology for calling you an @$$hole.

But please explain, was your answer 90% legal and 10% correct, or 50% legal and 50% correct - or was it just a 200% answer?

Thankfully, the one defense is my defense.

Here's what will happen in your case. The cop testifies that you were speeding. The judge will then say to you (in essence): "Do you have any evidence to prove you were not speeding?"

What will be your evidence?

(Hint: There will be no long boring trial; it will be over quickly. And I do wish you would post back with results.)

Thank you Seniorjudge-Nostradamus for seeing into my future. I really, really would love to stay but I have to get to work. Back later.

Originally Posted by lawyer

...Thankfully, the one defense is my defense....

So you are not going to tell us your evidence?

[lawyer]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

So you are not going to tell us your evidence?

Patience, leafhopper; I told you I had to run, was late for work.

Actually, I did answer the question 100% correctly and 100% legally:

A guy is in a hot air balloon, and he's knocked miles off course. He sees a man below and yells out "Excuse me sir, where I am I?" The man on the ground looks up, and yells back "You're in a balloon!"

The man may have answered the question truthfully, but it's a useless answer.

Here's what will happen in your case. The cop testifies that you were speeding. The judge will then say to you (in essence): "Do you have any evidence to prove you were not speeding?"

What will be your evidence?

You want me to tell you what evidence I have that I was not speeding. You want me to prove a negative. You also know that I can't.

Fortunately, the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution, not the defendant.