Typo on a Speeding Ticket - Should I fight?

[buldag]

What is the name of your state?

VA

hi all,

I got the ill-fated yellow sheet today. - for 49 / 30. (not residential)

The ticket has a typo at 2 (TWO) places - stating that the date of offence is 10/10/06 - instead of 01/10/06 - and its NOT on ONE place... its 2 TWO places.

do I have any chance of fighting it out based on this typo? - should I even bother? how should i start?

thanks

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state?

VA

hi all,

I got the ill-fated yellow sheet today. - for 49 / 30. (not residential)

The ticket has a typo at 2 (TWO) places - stating that the date of offence is 10/10/06 - instead of 01/10/06 - and its NOT on ONE place... its 2 TWO places.

do I have any chance of fighting it out based on this typo? - should I even bother? how should i start?

thanks

The typo is irrelevant.

 

[sukharev]

Typo alone would not get you anywhere. However, you should indeed contest the ticket, using all ammo you can dig up (see advice on this site and elsewhere on the web).

Coupled with other techniques, your typo may work in the following way: officer testifies that he clocked you on ...? He would be reading from the ticket. If he remembers the date, then forget the typo. if he does not, you have a pretty good case to motion for dismissal or at least objecting to officer's testimony because of no independent recollection of events.

 

[justalayman]

It looks like they know where you ae going to be on 10/10/06. I would be sure that they are not right with witnesses so you can prove them wrong.

 

[Leviticus]

Coupled with other techniques, your typo may work in the following way: officer testifies that he clocked you on ...? He would be reading from the ticket. If he remembers the date, then forget the typo. if he does not, you have a pretty good case to motion for dismissal or at least objecting to officer's testimony because of no independent recollection of events.

When is the proper time to make a motion for dismissal based on poor/no independent recollection?

During the defendant's testimony, after the prosecution's closing statements, during defendant's closing statements?

Thanks!

 

[seniorjudge]

When is the proper time to make a motion for dismissal based on poor/no independent recollection?

During the defendant's testimony, after the prosecution's closing statements, during defendant's closing statements?

Thanks!

After the officer's testimony.

Then when it gets overruled, continue with the cross examination of the officer.

 

[Leviticus]

After the officer's testimony.

Then when it gets overruled, continue with the cross examination of the officer.

Sorry but you haven't made yourself clear enough for my impoverished brain.

That's when what gets overruled?

Don't tell me you're implying that a valid attempt to get a dismissal based upon poor independent recollection will be overruled?

Just what are your qualifications anyways?

 

[You Are Guilty]

Sorry but you haven't made yourself clear enough for my impoverished brain.

That's when what gets overruled?

Don't tell me you're implying that a valid attempt to get a dismissal based upon poor independent recollection will be overruled?

Just what are your qualifications anyways?

You haven't seen many pro se traffic trials, huh?

 

[seniorjudge]

Sorry but you haven't made yourself clear enough for my impoverished brain.

That's when what gets overruled?

Don't tell me you're implying that a valid attempt to get a dismissal based upon poor independent recollection will be overruled?

Just what are your qualifications anyways?

Once you object to lack of independent recollection, the prosecutor will ask to be able to lay a foundation for introduction of rehabilitative evidence. It will be granted by the court.

 

[sukharev]

After the officer's testimony.

Then when it gets overruled, continue with the cross examination of the officer.

This is spot on. Your objection can and will (in 99% of the cases) be overruled by the judge, no matter how valid. It's at his discression. You can argue the judge made a mistake, when you appeal. During trial the goal is to derail the prosecution case any way you can, and get this on the record. So, you should make as many VALID objections as you can, see if one of them sticks. There are so many holes in a typical speeding case, a proper court would have thrown it out before it ever began (of course, I am exagerating a bit, but still), unless there were proper witnesses with clear independent recollection, and speed was clearly above the lawfully established speed limit.

In any case, a good judge may reward you for even trying by dismissing a valid objection. A typicall judge would be annoyed that you did not just bend backwards, overrule any objections and find you guilty. The worst judge would not even let you finish. Go figure.

That's why in some states or federal cases where it's a criminal trial, you should always opt for trial by jury. Maybe a waste of everybody's time, but a lot more fair and unbiased. The rules are more strict, and the same judge would be much more careful.

 

[seniorjudge]

This is spot on. Your objection can and will (in 99% of the cases) be overruled by the judge, no matter how valid. It's at his discression. You can argue the judge made a mistake, when you appeal. During trial the goal is to derail the prosecution case any way you can, and get this on the record. So, you should make as many VALID objections as you can, see if one of them sticks. There are so many holes in a typical speeding case, a proper court would have thrown it out before it ever began (of course, I am exagerating a bit, but still), unless there were proper witnesses with clear independent recollection, and speed was clearly above the lawfully established speed limit.

In any case, a good judge may reward you for even trying by dismissing a valid objection. A typicall judge would be annoyed that you did not just bend backwards, overrule any objections and find you guilty. The worst judge would not even let you finish. Go figure.

That's why in some states or federal cases where it's a criminal trial, you should always opt for trial by jury. Maybe a waste of everybody's time, but a lot more fair and unbiased. The rules are more strict, and the same judge would be much more careful.

I have never seen an appeals court overturn a case based solely on evidentiary grounds when it is a trial by the court (meaning a non-jury trial). There may be such a critter; I just have never seen it.

 

[sukharev]

I have never seen an appeals court overturn a case based solely on evidentiary grounds when it is a trial by the court (meaning a non-jury trial). There may be such a critter; I just have never seen it.

What about this one? http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/8/2005/2005-ohio-1662.pdf

 

[seniorjudge]

What about this one? http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/8/2005/2005-ohio-1662.pdf

Good one...sounds like the prosecutor wasn't prepared!

 

[homillerlaw]

Motion to Strike

In Virginia, the proper motion to make at the close of the Commonwealth's case is a "motion to strike the evidence." This is the Virginia equivalent of a motion to dismiss. However, you can not just make the motion, you need to provide an argument as to what elements of the Commonwealth's case were not proven by the evidence.

I also would caution you as to making numerous objections, particularly if you are not familiar with the grounds for making the objections. This practice, while it may disrupt the Commonwealth's case, will certainly annoy the judge if not done properly, and potentially jeopardize your credibility with the court. That is an area best left for a legal professional to handle. You wouldn't go to your doctor's office and begin prescribing medicine to patients because you thought you knew what sickness they had, would you?

 

[sukharev]

In Virginia, the proper motion to make at the close of the Commonwealth's case is a "motion to strike the evidence." This is the Virginia equivalent of a motion to dismiss. However, you can not just make the motion, you need to provide an argument as to what elements of the Commonwealth's case were not proven by the evidence.

I also would caution you as to making numerous objections, particularly if you are not familiar with the grounds for making the objections. This practice, while it may disrupt the Commonwealth's case, will certainly annoy the judge if not done properly, and potentially jeopardize your credibility with the court. That is an area best left for a legal professional to handle. You wouldn't go to your doctor's office and begin prescribing medicine to patients because you thought you knew what sickness they had, would you?

Actually, I always know exactly what the doctor prescribes, and make my choice whether to take the prescription or not. Google Vioxx to find out what happens when you don't do that.

Beside the point, though. Please, don't post your blog URL anymore, it's a solicitation and is considered not appropriate on this forum.