How do judges convict when the only evidence is officer's testimony?

I've seen several times in traffic court where the defendant and the officer presented conflicting testimony in traffic cases. Even though there is no other evidence or witnesses the judge always finds the defendant guilty. How can a judge simply take the officer's word over the defendant's? It doesn't seem like a "fair" trial. In fact, there's no purpose in having a trial if the officer is considered to be always correct.
Does anyone know what the judge can use to determine your guilt when there's no physical evidence, just officer testimony?

All judges give greater weight to officers testimony when no other evidence is present.To win you must show by cross examination that the officers testimony is flawed or have further evidence to make your case.And yes some officers do lie or forget facts.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I always thought the burden of proof was on the officer.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally posted by plifter
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I always thought the burden of proof was on the officer.

My response:

Since we don't know your State name, and since traffic infractions are treated in some States as "Civil" rather than "Criminal", I'll take a stab that your State treats these matters as Civil in nature.

Therefore, in those jurisdictions where traffic infractions are considered civil in nature. What the state gains from taking traffic citations out of the criminal realm and into the civil realm is a reduced standard of proof. In criminal matters the burden of proof on the state is beyond a reasonable doubt. In most civil matters a mere preponderance of the evidence is sufficient.

If you imagine the scales of justice as an illustration of the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt would pretty much max the scales out at their most extreme positions of departure, one very high and the other very low. A preponderance of the evidence would be illustrated by the slightest tilting of the scales in favor of the prosecution. Expressed in percentages beyond a reasonable doubt could be thought of as a 90% certainty of guilt and preponderance of the evidence could be thought of as a mere 51% certainly of guilt.

IAAL

From some of the cases I've witnessed the officer couldn't have proven that the sky was blue let alone that someone was speeding.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally posted by plifter
From some of the cases I've witnessed the officer couldn't have proven that the sky was blue let alone that someone was speeding.

My response:

. . . and still, no State name.

I guess all you need is generalized, rather than specific information. We don't know if the above even applies to your State.

How difficult is it to type in "Nebraska" ?

IAAL

I'm in WV. I wasn't really asking for specifics. I figured there would be some sort of general procedure that would be similar for judges in all states.

Sometimes a traffic court judge will see the same officers week in and week out and they form an opinion about the officers credibility. Then the Judge will believe the officer over the citizen, or the other way around.
Some temporary judges will dismiss 90% of the cases in front of them.
Guess you didn't have a lucky day.

I got your solution for ya, don't let the judge decide. Get yourself a jury trial next time around then at least you ain't relying on one person to rule on "word vs. word" issue

Originally posted by Mikedani
Guess you didn't have a lucky day.

Why in the **** do you *******s want to flame me? This was a hypothetical question. It does not relate to anything specific that's ever happened to me. I've been to traffic court 11 times and I've won 10 of my cases. I've just seen incidents where there is no possible way for an officer to prove the charge he cited the person for. How can an officer prove someone was driving left of center without a video tape?

Plifter -
Why on earth would you be looking for advice if you've been able to beat the rap 10 out of 11 times?

Here's another question, how bad of a driver are you? Seriously, 11 traffic violations they ought to revoke your drivers license immediately to save others. You are a traffic accident waiting to happen.

Learn how to drive and stop wasting the police dept's time with your driving.

Here's a hint - you're doing something wrong if you've been pulled over 11 times.

Most 'Patrol Cops' haven't been to traffic court 11 times.

Who's the expert here; if you've sat in traffic court that many times then you should be able to draw your own conclusions about what makes the Judge say Yea or Nay.

What worked for you?

Only three of my court cases were for moving violations and this includes my one loss. The rest were for parking violations, expired registration (yes, I beat the rap on that charge), my recent window tinting case (I didn't appear for that one, I had a lawyer do it)

And Elvis, to respond to your question about "why would a cop lie?" All I can say is why would a cop shove a plunger handle up a suspect's rectum? Well guess what? It happened! If cops didn't have badges they'd be criminals.

PLIFTER -

The police RISK their lives EVERY DAY they go to work. They put themselves in harms way to protect the masses. Sure you could find some examples where the police have abused their authority and/or acted illegally - but as whole they should be treated with respect. This is why their statements hold more weight than somone accused.

If we didn't have the police who would protect people from morons like you? OPEN YOUR EYES - The police are not the enemy they SERVE and PROTECT. Who are you going to call when you carjacked from your souped up corolla?

Who else could you demean - the firefighters? Afterall, you could find examples where a fireman has acted poorly, but should ALL OF THEM be categorized in the same way?