Trial De Novo Advice

[Fuzaki]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Greetings,

I recently filed a trial de novo after I lost my TWBD and was wondering about the best options to approach it.
This is my first traffic violation and I was wondering about my chances for traffic school, since I know that I have a slim chance against the officer. What are the most efficient methods to attain this, as in should I try to ask immediately or during (or after) the trial, if I lose, etc.

1) Do they ask for a reason behind my request? In this case this would by my offense so I could use the reasoning that I think it would help me greatly to attend traffic school since it is my first offense.

2) Should I try to postpone the date as I heard that this gives a higher chance of the officer failing to appear, which is also agreeable. Any other advice would be helpful.

3) It also notes, "Officer statement of facts not received", does this mean that the officer did not file statements?

Btw, the offense was a VC 22450(A), I could try to fight it further but from what I've read, unless you have possess strong evidence it won't really help. The only reasons that I think I could use are that it was dark at the time and that the officer was behind my vehicle, therefore he likely made a mistake when deciding that I was past the limit line. Also, when he cited me, he did not say anything about the limit lines, he just said that I was driving a bit "frantic", so to speak. I believe that he thought that I did not make a complete stop, or had not stopped long enough. The intersection was a T-intersection, so the period of time that I needed to scan my surroundings was less than a regular intersection, but I did stop and make sure that my surroundings were clear (could this be used as a possible argument?).

P.S. How long is the period in which an officer can cite an offense? When he pulled me over he said that my brake light was not functioning, but he said that he would let that one slide, so would he still be able to cite me 2+ months after the incident?

 

[FlyingRon]

The answers won't be any different here than in the other forum.

You should do some research on the court you appear in. While it's not supported by state law, many will decline to offer traffic school to you if you start the trial. It may be on the table at the beginning of the session when your trial will take place.

If you continue the case, it will be rescheduled to the next day the officer is scheduled to appear. There's no greater odds that he will no show on the rescheduled date than not. Further, if it's something he can foresee, nothing will prevent him from obtaining his own continuance. So your banking on him missing a scheduled day of work (that he is getting paid for, possibly overtime) and that he failed to call in to say he won't make.

The officer is not obliged to make any report in California. At best you typically will get the reverse side of his copy of the citation where such are typically made. Even if you don't get discovery, it's not an automatic dismissal either.

You've not said anything exculpatory. Darkness doesn't preclude him seeing you blow the stop. The fact that he testifiied that he did is enough to counter any random illusions of doubt you invent to rebut. He's not required to say anything to you at the time of the citation other than "sign this."

Your defense is that you said you "did stop" (if you do this, you need to state that you came to a complete cessation of motion prior to the limit line)...provided that that is what you did. We don't advocate perjury. Of course, your testimony as the accused rather than his as an expert witness won't likely mean much.

Technically they can cite you for a year after they observe the infraction. However, if they didn't cite you for the equipment violation at the time (or shortly thereafter) they're unlikely to do so now.

 

[CdwJava]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I recently filed a trial de novo after I lost my TWBD and was wondering about the best options to approach it.
This is my first traffic violation and I was wondering about my chances for traffic school, since I know that I have a slim chance against the officer. What are the most efficient methods to attain this, as in should I try to ask immediately or during (or after) the trial, if I lose, etc.

Most often, this option is announced prior to the commencement of that day's trials. if you are otherwise eligible, the court may be happy to accept your "guilty" or "no contest" plea at that time.

1) Do they ask for a reason behind my request? In this case this would by my offense so I could use the reasoning that I think it would help me greatly to attend traffic school since it is my first offense.

The court might ask this, but I have never heard of one doing so.

2) Should I try to postpone the date as I heard that this gives a higher chance of the officer failing to appear, which is also agreeable. Any other advice would be helpful.

The officer will get another subpoena like he did for the date you have your trial on. Nothing would change. Any day is as good as the next. Unless you KNEW when the officer was going to be out of town and somehow knew he would not ask for a continuance himself because of this, delaying tactics are not likely to work.

3) It also notes, "Officer statement of facts not received", does this mean that the officer did not file statements?

That's what it appears to mean.

Btw, the offense was a VC 22450(A), I could try to fight it further but from what I've read, unless you have possess strong evidence it won't really help. The only reasons that I think I could use are that it was dark at the time and that the officer was behind my vehicle, therefore he likely made a mistake when deciding that I was past the limit line.

If he knows where the line is, he doesn't have to see it, only yor car. And if it was dark, I imagine you had headlights on, and if you kept rolling and never came to a stop at all, then you certainly did not comply. If you actually did stop, and did so AT the limit line, then you might be able to make a case by arguing his position, the darkness, etc. But, if you never stopped moving at all (and tapping the brakes doesn't count as a stop), then all he has to say is that you never stopped.

Also, when he cited me, he did not say anything about the limit lines, he just said that I was driving a bit "frantic", so to speak.

That might imply that he never saw you stop at all.

I believe that he thought that I did not make a complete stop, or had not stopped long enough. The intersection was a T-intersection, so the period of time that I needed to scan my surroundings was less than a regular intersection, but I did stop and make sure that my surroundings were clear (could this be used as a possible argument?).

Sure. Assuming you stopped at the limit line and not well before or after it.

P.S. How long is the period in which an officer can cite an offense? When he pulled me over he said that my brake light was not functioning, but he said that he would let that one slide, so would he still be able to cite me 2+ months after the incident?

The officer is not going to be able to add charges to this offense at this late date.

 

[Fuzaki]

The answers won't be any different here than in the other forum.

You should do some research on the court you appear in. While it's not supported by state law, many will decline to offer traffic school to you if you start the trial. It may be on the table at the beginning of the session when your trial will take place.

If you continue the case, it will be rescheduled to the next day the officer is scheduled to appear. There's no greater odds that he will no show on the rescheduled date than not. Further, if it's something he can foresee, nothing will prevent him from obtaining his own continuance. So your banking on him missing a scheduled day of work (that he is getting paid for, possibly overtime) and that he failed to call in to say he won't make.

The officer is not obliged to make any report in California. At best you typically will get the reverse side of his copy of the citation where such are typically made. Even if you don't get discovery, it's not an automatic dismissal either.

You've not said anything exculpatory. Darkness doesn't preclude him seeing you blow the stop. The fact that he testifiied that he did is enough to counter any random illusions of doubt you invent to rebut. He's not required to say anything to you at the time of the citation other than "sign this."

Your defense is that you said you "did stop" (if you do this, you need to state that you came to a complete cessation of motion prior to the limit line)...provided that that is what you did. We don't advocate perjury. Of course, your testimony as the accused rather than his as an expert witness won't likely mean much.

Technically they can cite you for a year after they observe the infraction. However, if they didn't cite you for the equipment violation at the time (or shortly thereafter) they're unlikely to do so now.

Hello there again Ron . Just trying my luck in other places as it seemed like the other forum was slowing down, the more input the better I say.
I know that I am unlikely to win, as it is the officer's word against mine. I just like to cover all my bases, even though I know that my argument is not very strong, especially without more concrete circumventing evidence.
So this means that the initial court appearance is not a trial per say?

Most often, this option is announced prior to the commencement of that day's trials. if you are otherwise eligible, the court may be happy to accept your "guilty" or "no contest" plea at that time.


The court might ask this, but I have never heard of one doing so.


The officer will get another subpoena like he did for the date you have your trial on. Nothing would change. Any day is as good as the next. Unless you KNEW when the officer was going to be out of town and somehow knew he would not ask for a continuance himself because of this, delaying tactics are not likely to work.


That's what it appears to mean.


If he knows where the line is, he doesn't have to see it, only yor car. And if it was dark, I imagine you had headlights on, and if you kept rolling and never came to a stop at all, then you certainly did not comply. If you actually did stop, and did so AT the limit line, then you might be able to make a case by arguing his position, the darkness, etc. But, if you never stopped moving at all (and tapping the brakes doesn't count as a stop), then all he has to say is that you never stopped.


That might imply that he never saw you stop at all.


Sure. Assuming you stopped at the limit line and not well before or after it.


The officer is not going to be able to add charges to this offense at this late date.

Thank you Java. I have read that it is advised to plead "guilty" in situations/cases as this. Would there be any benefit to a "no contest" in such a case as this?
It is his word against mine, so I know that I am unlikely to win unless I had video evidence or something. I just left the details out there for comments/analysis.
What would be the preferred way to go about asking for traffic school. Should I simply say "Your Honor, before we begin, I would like to request traffic school", or should it be something like "Your Honor, is the option for traffic school still available?". The court is at the Carol Miller Justice Center if anyone has any experience with this.

Edit: I also read that some have written letters requesting traffic school, would it be possible to call the court for a similar effect? Anyone have experience with letters and any advice about how to go on requesting/writing it?

 

[FlyingRon]

In California, the results to no contest and guilty will be the same. You'll be found guilty, fined, and the DMV will assign a point (or points), same as if you plead not guilty and are subsequently found guilty.

If you plead guilty but take the traffic school option, then the fine still happens, but the DMV won't charge you the point.

 

[Fuzaki]

In California, the results to no contest and guilty will be the same. You'll be found guilty, fined, and the DMV will assign a point (or points), same as if you plead not guilty and are subsequently found guilty.

If you plead guilty but take the traffic school option, then the fine still happens, but the DMV won't charge you the point.

Alright thank you again. I'm wondering, does requesting for traffic school imply a guilty plead though?

 

[CdwJava]

Alright thank you again. I'm wondering, does requesting for traffic school imply a guilty plead though?

To get traffic school you have to either be found guilty by the court, or, plead "guilty" or "no contest." If you were found "not guilty" there would be no point in it.

Requesting it should not necessarily imply guilt, but many people do ask for it after they are found guilty or in the text of a TBWD where they say something to the effect of, "If found guilty, I respectfully request traffic school."

 

[Fuzaki]

To get traffic school you have to either be found guilty by the court, or, plead "guilty" or "no contest." If you were found "not guilty" there would be no point in it.

Requesting it should not necessarily imply guilt, but many people do ask for it after they are found guilty or in the text of a TBWD where they say something to the effect of, "If found guilty, I respectfully request traffic school."

I did so in my TBWD, but was not granted it, would this impair on my chances in a TDN?

 

[FlyingRon]

Probably because the pencil pusher processing your TBD only has one of two buttons to push:

BAIL RETURNED HAVE A NICE DAY

GUILTY, BAIL FORFEITED.

 

[CdwJava]

I did so in my TBWD, but was not granted it, would this impair on my chances in a TDN?

I don't see how it would. Asking for leniency or even traffic school if found guilty is not the same as saying you did it and then offering an explanation. You should be on a level playing field ... assuming you did not admit to the offense in your declaration.

However, the option of traffic school may not be made available should you lose the TDN. It might be, but it doesn't have to be even if you are otherwise eligible.

 

[Fuzaki]

I don't see how it would. Asking for leniency or even traffic school if found guilty is not the same as saying you did it and then offering an explanation. You should be on a level playing field ... assuming you did not admit to the offense in your declaration.

However, the option of traffic school may not be made available should you lose the TDN. It might be, but it doesn't have to be even if you are otherwise eligible.

I just went to court and was granted traffic school thankfully. It was at Carol Miller Justice Center at Dept. 87 if anyone wants to reference, although I don't know how much this will help. I forgot the judge's name, but he was an older man, but not exceedingly far into his age. He said if I would like to change my plea to "no contest" and said that there was no difference between the former and a "guilty" plea. From what I read, I thought judges disliked "no contest" pleas? Also, it was rather strange as only 2 officers showed up (including mines) while there were 6-7 defendants. I was the second to last called while everyone before me got their cases dismissed. It was sure a coincidence, makes me speculate that they did something before the court trial.

Anyways thank you both for the advice.

 

[Zigner]

I just went to court and was granted traffic school thankfully. It was at Carol Miller Justice Center at Dept. 87 if anyone wants to reference, although I don't know how much this will help. I forgot the judge's name, but he was an older man, but not exceedingly far into his age. He said if I would like to change my plea to "no contest" and said that there was no difference between the former and a "guilty" plea. From what I read, I thought judges disliked "no contest" pleas? Also, it was rather strange as only 2 officers showed up (including mines) while there were 6-7 defendants. I was the second to last called while everyone before me got their cases dismissed. It was sure a coincidence, makes me speculate that they did something before the court trial.

Anyways thank you both for the advice.

Some call it a conspiracy, some call it bad luck.

 

[Fuzaki]

Some call it a conspiracy, some call it bad luck.

Haha, I'll try to keep that in mind.