Independent recollection

[Leviticus]

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

I've been to traffic court now several times and all of the officers testify that they have an 'independent recollection' of the case, that they would like to use their notes simply to 'refresh their memories'.

I have several questions on this.
Why do they all say this? What's the legal reason?

Does it not stretch credulity that an officer who has cited 100+ tickets since issuing yours, can remember the case at all, unless something unusual took place at the time?

 

[seniorjudge]

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

I've been to traffic court now several times and all of the officers testify that they have an 'independent recollection' of the case, that they would like to use their notes simply to 'refresh their memories'.

I have several questions on this.
Why do they all say this? What's the legal reason?

Does it not stretch credulity that an officer who has cited 100+ tickets since issuing yours, can remember the case at all, unless something unusual took place at the time?

Q: Does it not stretch credulity that an officer who has cited 100+ tickets since issuing yours, can remember the case at all, unless something unusual took place at the time?

A: Yes.

 

[Leviticus]

Q: Does it not stretch credulity that an officer who has cited 100+ tickets since issuing yours, can remember the case at all, unless something unusual took place at the time?

A: Yes.

Hi seniorjudge,

So if you agree that it stretches credulity that the officer can remember your particular case, why then does the court expect to hear the officer lie and say that they do in fact remember the case?

BTW you haven't answered my first couple of questions which I'd really like to know the answers to.

 

[seniorjudge]

So if you agree that it stretches credulity that the officer can remember your particular case, why then does the court expect to hear the officer lie and say that they do in fact remember the case? Why do they all say this? What's the legal reason?


1. I don't know.

2. I don't know.

3. I don't know.

 

[sukharev]

It's a trick, to avoid motions for dismissal due to lack of independent recollection. You have constitutional right to confront your accuser (witness), and this only works when witness can recall the events. It also makes the ticket automatically "admissible", because it's just to refresh memory, and not serve as narrative or official evidence (which it's not).

The way to fight it is to show lack of recollection, for example when there is a factual error on the ticket (such as wrong color or make of the car), and officer reads it as his testimony. Sorry to say, it did not work for me, so depends on the judge (not the senior one here).

 

[You Are Guilty]

Sorry to say, it did not work for me, so depends on the judge (not the senior one here).

You sort of just breezed past this last point, but it's possibly the most important one in your whole reply. What most people don't seem to understand is that, especially for traffic law, just because the law/statute may purportedly "require" certain things, in the real world courtrooms across the country, its actually quite rare that they are adhered to.

And this is exactly why a local traffic lawyer, who knows the judges and their proclivities, who plays golf with the DAs on the weekends, who knows the name of the judge's law clerk's kids, etc. can be useful. Anyone can read a law textbook. Only someone with a lot of experience in that particular courthouse will be able to sussessfully "practice" law on a regular basis.

That's why the intelligent people here suggest retaining a local guy for problems more serious than a jaywalking ticket. There is a real, tangible benefit from using a lawyer who's "in the loop".

 

[seniorjudge]

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

I've been to traffic court now several times and all of the officers testify that they have an 'independent recollection' of the case, that they would like to use their notes simply to 'refresh their memories'.

I have several questions on this.
Why do they all say this? What's the legal reason?

Does it not stretch credulity that an officer who has cited 100+ tickets since issuing yours, can remember the case at all, unless something unusual took place at the time?

What makes you think ANYONE tells the truth in court?

 

[FloridaPatty]

Pausing for a brief annoucement

I enjoy the bantering between you two. Senior Judge, you are so tongue-in-cheek!

 

[Leviticus]

... What most people don't seem to understand is that, especially for traffic law, just because the law/statute may purportedly "require" certain things, in the real world courtrooms across the country, its actually quite rare that they are adhered to.

...That's why the intelligent people here suggest retaining a local guy for problems more serious than a jaywalking ticket. There is a real, tangible benefit from using a lawyer who's "in the loop".

Thanks for your candidness on this one YAG.
It takes a brave man to step up to the plate and admit this.

 

[Robbie0723]

You sort of just breezed past this last point, but it's possibly the most important one in your whole reply. What most people don't seem to understand is that, especially for traffic law, just because the law/statute may purportedly "require" certain things, in the real world courtrooms across the country, its actually quite rare that they are adhered to.

And this is exactly why a local traffic lawyer, who knows the judges and their proclivities, who plays golf with the DAs on the weekends, who knows the name of the judge's law clerk's kids, etc. can be useful. Anyone can read a law textbook. Only someone with a lot of experience in that particular courthouse will be able to successfully "practice" law on a regular basis.

That's why the intelligent people here suggest retaining a local guy for problems more serious than a jaywalking ticket. There is a real, tangible benefit from using a lawyer who's "in the loop".

Excellent advise.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Thanks for your candidness on this one YAG.
It takes a brave man to step up to the plate and admit this.

Just a simple observation (unfortunately made from the wrong side of a few tickets in my life).

Incidentally, I am not a traffic lawyer; I have never had a traffic law case; and I don't even know any traffic lawyers. My experience in this area is solely a result of amassing probably close to a hundred parking tickets (and a few moving violations) in the last 16 years. So I know first hand just how much you can get railroaded in these cases

 

[Leviticus]

I have a few more basic questions which I hope you folks can answer for me.
They concern the oft-quoted 'Independent Recollection', 'Credible
Witness', and 'Reasonable Doubt'.

Independent Recollection:
If a witness doesn't have an independent recollection of events (as is obvious from their testimony) can
they still provide evidence based solely on notes and would that
evidence alone be sufficient to convict a defendant?

Credible Witness
Would a witness who gives contradictory evidence on a *key* element of
a charge they had previously served, be considered credible?

Reasonable Doubt
I guess this is what it all comes down to.
Would a witness's lack of credibility and/or independent recollection
create reasonable doubt in proving the elements of an offence?

Thanks!