What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ
I was stopped for a speeding ticket by a police officer who moved in the opposite lane. I demanded discovery and found that the officer did not check his speed per speedometer against his speed per the radar. This is required as per the radar manual, in fact it is mentioned there twice
There is nothing about the check in his ticket notes.
Now, I have two options.
1. I can specifically ask this question during the trial with various degrees of indirection. "What was your speed? How did you measure it? Did you use any other method to measure your speed? Did you look at the radar patrol window?" Etc. If his answer is negative ("I did not look", "I don't remember") it should be a clear cut win, or at least grounds for appeal. However, there is always a chance that he will just make it up and say he did check and his speed was, say, 25 mph. Since the court automatically believes everything the officer has to say, I will be convicted.
2. I can keep silence about this matter during the cross examination and let him forget to mention anything about it. Then I can raise the subject in the closing statement: prosecution failed to prove that all required steps were taken. This step is mentioned as required in the radar user manual - twice
Approach #2 seems like a safer strategy, but it is based on omission, not specific statement from the officer that he did not do the check. It should be enough by law, but I am not sure how well it will fly in a relatively small municipal court. I heard scary stories about people been unable to convince the judge about much more simple and self-evident things.
There is also a theoretical chance I may be denied closing statement ("except as may be otherwise ordered by the court, the parties may make closing statements", NJ court rule 1.7-1(b)), but I don't think this really happens in practice.
Thank you for reading through this. Any ideas?
I was stopped for a speeding ticket by a police officer who moved in the opposite lane. I demanded discovery and found that the officer did not check his speed per speedometer against his speed per the radar. This is required as per the radar manual, in fact it is mentioned there twice
There is nothing about the check in his ticket notes.Now, I have two options.
1. I can specifically ask this question during the trial with various degrees of indirection. "What was your speed? How did you measure it? Did you use any other method to measure your speed? Did you look at the radar patrol window?" Etc. If his answer is negative ("I did not look", "I don't remember") it should be a clear cut win, or at least grounds for appeal. However, there is always a chance that he will just make it up and say he did check and his speed was, say, 25 mph. Since the court automatically believes everything the officer has to say, I will be convicted.
2. I can keep silence about this matter during the cross examination and let him forget to mention anything about it. Then I can raise the subject in the closing statement: prosecution failed to prove that all required steps were taken. This step is mentioned as required in the radar user manual - twice
Approach #2 seems like a safer strategy, but it is based on omission, not specific statement from the officer that he did not do the check. It should be enough by law, but I am not sure how well it will fly in a relatively small municipal court. I heard scary stories about people been unable to convince the judge about much more simple and self-evident things.
There is also a theoretical chance I may be denied closing statement ("except as may be otherwise ordered by the court, the parties may make closing statements", NJ court rule 1.7-1(b)), but I don't think this really happens in practice.
Thank you for reading through this. Any ideas?