Request of Discovery, misled

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Hey There

11-16-07

To JiminCA
Thanks for pointing out that the resource I mentioned has excellent
information on how to file for discovery.
*********************************************************
To Others reading this post please note:
_________________________________
Jim inCA said :
His discovery request wasn't provided for TWO of his citations and that when he asked to have each of his TWO cases dismissed at trial because the D.A. had failed to provide discovery His TWO citations were dismissed.
He didn't give a time frame for these TWO citations which could have occurred days OR years apart.
TWO OTHER DRIVERS filed for Discovery which wasn't provided and their cases were also dismissed at trial because Discovery wasn't provided.
ONE OTHER DRIVER is in the process of doing the same.
So JIMinCA didn't get cited FIVE Times,. He was cited TWO times which ended in dismissal.

Hey There

Thanks dude... I have read several of your posts. You seem to be one of the only people here that has an interest in actually helping someone with a question. Most people here either want to give some lecture on morality or they want you to be impressed with how smart they think they are. Guys like you are what make boards like this work.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

How does this have ANYTHING to do with helping the OP???

Not much.

But, I am constantly amazed at how much energy some people put into getting out of situations that could have been simply avoided to begin with. Most of us have never HAD to waste time with motions, discovery, court, etc., because we have managed to behave appropriately.

- Carl

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Not much.

But, I am constantly amazed at how much energy some people put into getting out of situations that could have been simply avoided to begin with. Most of us have never HAD to waste time with motions, discovery, court, etc., because we have managed to behave appropriately.

- Carl

Well... aren't you just Mary Poppins. If that is your attitude, then why are you here in the first place? This is a place where people come to for help when they need to "get out of a situation that could have simply been avoided". If you are so "amazed" by such irresponsible behavior, then maybe you should spend your time on the 700 club website. People here don't need a lecture... they need help.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Well... aren't you just Mary Poppins.

Well, golly gee ... how horrible to be compared to Mary Poppins.

If that is your attitude, then why are you here in the first place?

For the same reason most people are - to help others. A review of my posting history will find ample evidence of that.

However, along with advice also comes a little scolding at times. Why? Because sometimes a little shame or a little swat on the forehead is what can make the difference between effecting future behavior or continuing aberrant or unlawful behavior.

Part of our society's problem is that we no longer seem to believe in shame or seek to follow the rules. Since everything is someone else's fault, and many say that we should all try to get away with everything we can, perhaps it is about time to try and bring a little ethical guidance into the mix.

This is a place where people come to for help when they need to "get out of a situation that could have simply been avoided".

But, the simple fact is that it COULD have been avoided. Learning from one's mistakes is fine. Repeating them over and over because you have found a way out of responsibility is inexcusable.

If you are so "amazed" by such irresponsible behavior, then maybe you should spend your time on the 700 club website.

I don't think I have ever been to that website.

People here don't need a lecture... they need help.

They are welcome to both.

- Carl

[The Occultist]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

So, what is your point?? That the OP should just plead guilty? How is anything you have said supposed to be helpful to the OP? I guess you probably have heard a lot of judges start yelling because you aren't the kind of guy that brings out the best of people. BTW... you obviously are not a lawyer... why are you spending so much time in court?

I am not saying that the OP should plead guilty, I just don't want you giving the OP some false hope that the case will be thrown out. Yes, there is a chance the judge will be lenient and grant ANOTHER continuance for the same reason that first continuance was given, but until that happens, you should not be preaching about how easily the case is going to be thrown out. I gave what I believe to be the best advice in this situation: the OP needs to find an attorney, that knows what the courts want to hear, to represent her to request another continuance.
I've only been to court on account of myself once, the rest of the time I'm there to sit in on cases because I have a huge interest in the law. I have never had a judge yell at me, he yells at the idiots who try to play lawyer without any knowledge of the law or court proceedings.

I have been helpful to the OP with good advice (I don't see how "find a lawyer" can be construed as poor advice), and my negativity towards you is for the false hope you're trying to give to the OP by applying "knowledge" that doesn't quite fit with the OP's situation.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by The Occultist

I am not saying that the OP should plead guilty, I just don't want you giving the OP some false hope that the case will be thrown out. Yes, there is a chance the judge will be lenient and grant ANOTHER continuance for the same reason that first continuance was given, but until that happens, you should not be preaching about how easily the case is going to be thrown out. I gave what I believe to be the best advice in this situation: the OP needs to find an attorney, that knows what the courts want to hear, to represent her to request another continuance.
I've only been to court on account of myself once, the rest of the time I'm there to sit in on cases because I have a huge interest in the law. I have never had a judge yell at me, he yells at the idiots who try to play lawyer without any knowledge of the law or court proceedings.

I have been helpful to the OP with good advice (I don't see how "find a lawyer" can be construed as poor advice), and my negativity towards you is for the false hope you're trying to give to the OP by applying "knowledge" that doesn't quite fit with the OP's situation.

1. I have offered no false hope. I have simply suggested a defense that is viable and that I have used with great success. The OP is free to take the advice or leave it. I really don't see how that is any of your business.
2. I never suggested, nor did the OP, that a continuance was needed. There hasn't been one granted yet from what I read. After arraignment, the Court has to give a trial date within 45 days. That is PLENTY of time for discovery.
3. The OP stated that he had already made the discovery request. Didn't you read that?
4. This isn't a murder trial... it is a speeding ticket. It's not the end of the world. I would agree that Courts become frustrated with defendants who don't know what they are doing. But that is why they come here, to get pointed in the right direction so they can be an informed defendant. What's wrong with that?

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Well, golly gee ... how horrible to be compared to Mary Poppins.


For the same reason most people are - to help others. A review of my posting history will find ample evidence of that.

However, along with advice also comes a little scolding at times. Why? Because sometimes a little shame or a little swat on the forehead is what can make the difference between effecting future behavior or continuing aberrant or unlawful behavior.

Part of our society's problem is that we no longer seem to believe in shame or seek to follow the rules. Since everything is someone else's fault, and many say that we should all try to get away with everything we can, perhaps it is about time to try and bring a little ethical guidance into the mix.


But, the simple fact is that it COULD have been avoided. Learning from one's mistakes is fine. Repeating them over and over because you have found a way out of responsibility is inexcusable.


I don't think I have ever been to that website.


They are welcome to both.

- Carl

I was hoping that the Mary Poppins thing would go over well!

I have read many of your posts and I do respect the fact that you have spent much time in an effort to help people. Your advice/opinion is also pretty sound. I do however think that you are not going to cure society's lack of shame here on this site. I also think that "cop mentality" does come out in your posts as a pretty strong bias. I would say that I am nearly the opposite of you. I think my opinions are as well founded as yours, but I am quite biased to forcing the state to meet its burden for conviction and follow its own rules. I am clearly for the motorists who have a run-in with the law. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, we just see the same issues from different perspectives.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

I do however think that you are not going to cure society's lack of shame here on this site.

Of course not. But, if I based everything I do on whether I am going to cure society's ills, I might as well curl up in a ball on the couch and not even try anything.

We all have the ability to effect our small portion of the world for the better. I live that as best I can. The big picture is beyond the scope of direct action by me. But, the small snapshot is not.

I also think that "cop mentality" does come out in your posts as a pretty strong bias.

Of course. But it is also a good counter for the many people that come here seeking agreement with their contention that the officer was evil or unfair. What I often try to offer is another perspective as to why the officer may have made the decision he did, or why the state is taking the action it is in a matter.

I would say that I am nearly the opposite of you. I think my opinions are as well founded as yours, but I am quite biased to forcing the state to meet its burden for conviction and follow its own rules.

I guess I do not like to live life in a constant conflict. Due process is fine, but following the rules is oh so much earlier.

- Carl

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

I guess I do not like to live life in a constant conflict. Due process is fine, but following the rules is oh so much earlier.

l

Due process is MORE than fine. It is the foundation of our entire legal system!!! I agree about following the rules, however, just from a different perspective. From my perspective, the State of California consistently and habitually does not follow its own rules. I would argue that of every 100 speeding tickets written in CA, 95 of them could be easily defended against simply because the state does not follow its own rules. So, being a cop and representing the State, I'd say that you could forward that opinion and advice to the agency you represent as well as the rest of the State agencies.

[CdwJava]

So, you like to break the rules because there is a procedural loophole that allows you to do so?

Niiiice ...

No thanks. I prefer law and order, and safety.

- Carl

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

So, you like to break the rules because there is a procedural loophole that allows you to do so?

Niiiice ...

No thanks. I prefer law and order, and safety.

- Carl

I said nothing about procedural loopholes. That was your biased interpretation. However, it appears that you feel that the cops, courts and the State should be able to break their own rules at random.

The OP stated that he went to the DA's office, got the proper forms and filed a request for Discovery which was ignored. Providing discovery is NOT an option for the DA's office. So, should the OP just accept responsibilty for an alleged offense while the DA's office ignores the rules and deprives him of his constitutionally garunteed due process? I suppose that this would meet your definition of "law, order and safety"???

[>Charlotte<]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

The OP stated that he went to the DA's office, got the proper forms and filed a request for Discovery which was ignored.

Actually, he stated that he found "forms". My question relates to whether he did, in fact, find the proper form. Are there different types of requests for discovery? Criminal cases vs. traffic cases, for instance? Perhaps not, it's just something that occurred to me so I thought I might as well ask.

More to the point, the OP stated that when he followed up with the DA's office he was told they don't handle requests for discovery in traffic cases, CHP does. It was his right to file a request for discovery, but it was his responsibility to file it properly. He can represent himself, but he can't use his ignorance of procedure as a defense.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Clt747

Actually, he stated that he found "forms". My question relates to whether he did, in fact, find the proper form. Are there different types of requests for discovery? Criminal cases vs. traffic cases, for instance? Perhaps not, it's just something that occurred to me so I thought I might as well ask.

More to the point, the OP stated that when he followed up with the DA's office he was told they don't handle requests for discovery in traffic cases, CHP does. It was his right to file a request for discovery, but it was his responsibility to file it properly. He can represent himself, but he can't use his ignorance of procedure as a defense.

It is a common mistake (at least that's what I have found) that some DA's offices think that a discovery request should be filed with the ticketing agency. There is also the incorrect belief that the ticketing agency actually prosecutes the case. These are both very wrong. The DA's office is the prosecutor. The cop is a witness... nothing more, nothing less. Discovery is a requirement of the prosecutor. The Penal Code states:

1054.1. The prosecuting attorney shall disclose to the defendant or his or her attorney all of the following materials and information, if it is in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or if the prosecuting attorney knows it to be in the possession of the investigating agencies:
(a) The names and addresses of persons the prosecutor intends to call as witnesses at trial.
(b) Statements of all defendants.
(c) All relevant real evidence seized or obtained as a part of the investigation of the offenses charged.
(d) The existence of a felony conviction of any material witness whose credibility is likely to be critical to the outcome of the trial.
(e) Any exculpatory evidence.
(f) Relevant written or recorded statements of witnesses or reports of the statements of witnesses whom the prosecutor intends to call at the trial, including any reports or statements or experts made in conjunction with the case, including the results of physical or mental examinations, scientific test, experiments, or comparisons which the prosecutor intends to offer in evidence at the trial.


Notice the words PROSECUTING ATTORNEY SHALL. It doesn't say the cop, the judge, or anyone else. And, it doesn't say maybe... it says SHALL.

According to cops like Carl, we wouldn't want anyone to get away with a procedural loophole. Therefore, I'm sure the prosecutor wouldn't deny discovery simply because the request was not in the proper format... would he? Hhhhhmmmm.....

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

According to cops like Carl, we wouldn't want anyone to get away with a procedural loophole.

Wow ... WHERE did I say anything like that?

What I said was that intentionally disobeying the law with the intent to use whatever loophole or maneuver available to avoid the consequences is reprehensible. Doing something that is wrong, intentionally, just because you can get away with it is immoral.

It is one thing to apply due process, it is quite another to commit intentional wrongdoing.

That is why most of us never have to go to court more than once, if at all ... we try NOT to break the rules.


- Carl

[>Charlotte<]

Carl is one of the most respected members of this site. The accusation of his "bias" is easily refuted by posts of his that encourage the OP when there has clearly been a procedural error, the links to which I'll be happy to find if you want me to go to the trouble.

The valuable advice Carl offers on this site is based on his vast professional experience, and anyone that comes to this site is fortunate to have the benefit of his knowledge of California law. He is often argued with, and rarely proven incorrect.

In addition to offering his practical advice, he also encourages accountability and responsibilty, and there's not a damn thing wrong with that. I don't know why you seem to have a problem with him including his personal opinions, when you apparently have no problem availing yourself of that privilege.