Motion for new trial?

[newyorkchris]

Texas
Ticket

I went to court for a changing lanes not in safety - accident

Before the trial started the judge informed me that her decision would be final and that I would not be able to appeal the decision. Halfway through the trial the judge picked up a paper and asked me if it had been given to me or had I seen it. It was the complaint form listing the action code description and the description:

In the name and by the authority of the state of texas
I, the undersigned affiant, do solemnly swear that I have good reason to believe, and do believe that XXXX XXXXXX, hereinafter called defendant, heretofore, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, and before making and filing of this compliant, within the territorial limited of …………

The judge told me that she was supposed to give the complaint to me before the trial started. At the end of the trial, I lost, she told me that I could appeal the decision. And the judge offered a deferred payment order for three months.

I would like to submit a motion for a new trial, would that be a valid reason for the motion?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[efflandt]

If you appeal for a new trial, what will you present differently as a defense to result in a different verdict? In other words, what evidence will you present to show that your lane change was not unsafe, if it resulted in an accident?

[newyorkchris]

Originally Posted by efflandt

If you appeal for a new trial, what will you present differently as a defense to result in a different verdict? In other words, what evidence will you present to show that your lane change was not unsafe, if it resulted in an accident?

Hear is why I would like a new trial:

The witness committed perjury and the police officer did not appear at the date of the trial, so I couldn’t prove it without his testimony. I agreed to the trial without the police officer being present, but I didn’t expect the witness to lie about the events that took place on that day.

Quick outline of what happened:

Driving eastbound on the freeway, I had a sudden emergency (treadmill falls out of the truck in front of me). I take evasive action (serve to miss the treadmill), I fully expected to hit the car to the left of me, but I didn’t, there was no contact. The car to the left of me also swerves and loses control and crashes the passenger front corner of the bumper into the driver’s side door and driver’s side quarter panel of my car.

Of course the driver of the truck that dropped the treadmill never stops and I didn’t get the plate.

The police report states that there was a treadmill in the road, the witness (who also happens to be the person who hit me) wrote in her testimony at the scene of the accident in the police report that there was debris on the road and signed her name to the report, but she testified that there was nothing on the road under oath.

Also, she stated that when I swerved, my car contacted hers, yet the damage was to the front of her car and the side of mine.

In the complaint it states:

Fail to drive the said motor vehicle as nearly as practical within a single lane.

The evidence I would present is the police report, if she tells the same story, it would prove that she committed perjury.

Any help would be appreciated!!!!

[You Are Guilty]

The police report is inadmissible hearsay (for that purpose). Gonna need a better basis to appeal.

[newyorkchris]

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

The police report is inadmissible hearsay (for that purpose). Gonna need a better basis to appeal.

I understand that, my thought for the motion for a new trial would be two points.

First, the judge did not provide complaint form to me at the beginning of the trial. She said to me when she showed it to me during the trial that she was suppose to give it to me prior to the start of the trial.

Second, the witness perjured herself and the police officer was not available to testify to show the perjury.

What is the purpose of the police report and why would it be hearsay? Isn't the police report considered a legal document?

What normally is the basis of appeal?

Not 100% certain, but knowing Texas is a lot more reasonable in keeping most traffic offenses civil and not criminal. Example:

The Failure to Appear/Failure to Pay (FTA/FTP) Program, Transportation Code, Chapter 706, authorizes the Department to contract with political subdivisions to deny the renewal of driver licenses for failure to appear or failure to pay or satisfy a judgment ordering payment of a fine or cost in the manner ordered by the court.

Criminal appeals and getting a new trial, is easier cause of the whole restricting liberty and pursuit of happiness aspect. The reason due process is mentioned 2 times in the Constitution to ensure people are not erronous denied rights . For traffic citations, the appeal process is likely a higher court reviewing the "trial" you had with no new information accepted or needed. Traffic tickets in most states only need reasonable suspicion. Tickets require less evidence than probable cause, because the legal requirement for arrests and warrants is not really present! The Police and witnesses only need back their reasonable suspicion. In criminal the reasonable suspicion has the burden to support probable cause.

[newyorkchris]

Originally Posted by newyorkchris

Texas
Before the trial started the judge informed me that her decision would be final and that I would not be able to appeal the decision. Halfway through the trial the judge picked up a paper and asked me if it had been given to me or had I seen it.

The police officer was not present, I agreed to that and the trial started. The deposition of the police officer was never shown to me until after the trial. That is why the judge had asked if I received it prior to trial. Could I get a new trial based on proceedure error on the part of the court?

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by newyorkchris

First, the judge did not provide complaint form to me at the beginning of the trial. She said to me when she showed it to me during the trial that she was suppose to give it to me prior to the start of the trial.

Did you object to the late receipt? Did you accept it and move on? Assuming providing it at all absent a request is required, you may very well have waived your rights by accepting it and continuing on with the hearing.

Originally Posted by newyorkchris

Second, the witness perjured herself and the police officer was not available to testify to show the perjury.

Perjury is not a basis for appeals. The officer's failure to show is not a basis UNLESS you subpoenaed him to appear AND you objected, on the record, to being forced to proceed in the officer's absence.

Originally Posted by newyorkchris

What is the purpose of the police report

Whatever purpose they want it to be. "It can be a brooch, a plane, a pterydactl...."

Originally Posted by newyorkchris

and why would it be hearsay? Isn't the police report considered a legal document?

Google hearsay and you'll understand. And being a document, legal or otherwise, doesn't mean it's admissible. There may be exceptions to the hearsay rule that it falls under (i.e. business record), but you still won't be able to get it in without authentication and more importantly, it's still not a basis to appeal.

What normally is the basis of appeal?

Error of law. New facts can sometimes also be used, but legal error is the big one.

[newyorkchris]

Originally Posted by zudnic

Not 100% certain, but knowing Texas is a lot more reasonable in keeping most traffic offenses civil and not criminal. Example:



Criminal appeals and getting a new trial, is easier cause of the whole restricting liberty and pursuit of happiness aspect. The reason due process is mentioned 2 times in the Constitution to ensure people are not erronous denied rights . For traffic citations, the appeal process is likely a higher court reviewing the "trial" you had with no new information accepted or needed. Traffic tickets in most states only need reasonable suspicion. Tickets require less evidence than probable cause, because the legal requirement for arrests and warrants is not really present! The Police and witnesses only need back their reasonable suspicion. In criminal the reasonable suspicion has the burden to support probable cause.

What does that mean in English?

[newyorkchris]

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

Did you object to the late receipt? Did you accept it and move on? Assuming providing it at all absent a request is required, you may very well have waived your rights by accepting it and continuing on with the hearing.

I didn't object, I didn't know what it was, but the document was not given to me during the trial and I did not get to read it during the trial. I received a copy of it after the trial was over.

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

Error of law. New facts can sometimes also be used, but legal error is the big one.

I guess legal error on my part doesn't count.

Thanks for taking the time to help me.

[newyorkchris]

I went to summit my motion for a new trial on 01/01/2009, I'm happy to say I received a letter from the courts granting me a new trial.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by newyorkchris

I went to summit my motion for a new trial on 01/01/2009, I'm happy to say I received a letter from the courts granting me a new trial.

This time make timely objections to everything you think is wrong.

[Maestro64]

As senior judge pointed out, object to everything, since that puts the court on notice you disagree with their ruling or what is or isn't being allowed. Appeals are heard on legal matters not on the fact you did not like the outcome.

You could have object to the officer being a no show and if they forced you to proceed then that is grounds for an appeal, or you could have object to not being provide all the necessary documentation afforded you, again could be grounds for an appeal.

The fact the judge said you could not appeal their decision (which is a scare tactic and not true) then turned around and gave you the officer testimony and told you to appeal his decision maybe they sided with you and recognized the other person was lying and wanted to help you out since they could not call the person a liar on the stand.

You being found guilt of this means the other person would be resolved of the responsibility of the accident and you are now at fault. Now if you won and the fact their front end hit your car would have put the blame on them. However, I think you already knew this.

Did you get a new trail (A Trial De Novo) or is an appeal, those are two different things, a new trail means everything is at square one, meaning all the witnesses must show again and testified, if it is an appeal then they want to hear what legal issue is at question.

[newyorkchris]

Originally Posted by Maestro64

Did you get a new trail (A Trial De Novo) or is an appeal, those are two different things, a new trail means everything is at square one, meaning all the witnesses must show again and testified, if it is an appeal then they want to hear what legal issue is at question.

The paper work I received stated, the judgement has been set aside and your case has been rescheduled for a Jury trial, the original trial I had was not a jury trial.

[Maestro64]

Originally Posted by newyorkchris

The paper work I received stated, the judgement has been set aside and your case has been rescheduled for a Jury trial, the original trial I had was not a jury trial.

Ah your in TX I missed that the first time through, One of the few states that allow a jury trial for Traffic Violations, You fate will be in the hands of 6 or 12 unsuspecting citizens.