Pre-emptive strike

[Leviticus]

Ultimately, why object to something unrelated such as the broken tail lens? What woudl it matter? It certainly does not go proving the offense of speeding, so why object? How would it bias the case against the defendant when it does nothing to further the prosecution?

- Carl

Carl, as I indicated, the example I gave (broken light) is not the same as the one in my situation. I chose that one because it is as unrelated to my charge as is the item on the officer's list.

The reason I would like it not to be introduced or mentioned in court is on the off chance that the judge reasons one of these ways:

1. Heck, the officer let you off with that charge, so why are you complaining now about this charge?

OR

2. I see here that you have a propensity for breaking the law. That's not good.

 

[CdwJava]

I have never heard a judge say that, and I think you might be a tad paranoid that he will think because you have some equipment violation (or whatever you are afraid of) that he will infer guilt in speeding. I suppose there MIGHT be some judge that will feel that way, but I think it's unlikely.

And, once again, if the violation was cited, your issue won't get off the ground. If it was not cited and was what caught the officer's eye, your issue will not get off the ground. Even if the officer mentioned he "also" observed this other violation, the chances of you succeeding in the objection is also limited.

I have only once had anyone tell me before testimony NOT to mention a particular issue - and that was in a jury trial where the issue of mental illness was a factor. Never in a traffic matter.

But, who knows?

- Carl

 

[Leviticus]

I have never heard a judge say that, and I think you might be a tad paranoid that he will think because you have some equipment violation (or whatever you are afraid of) that he will infer guilt in speeding. I suppose there MIGHT be some judge that will feel that way, but I think it's unlikely.

Well that's somewhat re-assuring.

>> And, once again, if the violation was cited,

It wasn't cited.

To me this is an interesting topic. Your reply made me think of one more question. The question that begs to be asked is...
What reason(s) would the prosecution want to introduce such an additional piece of evidence (some equipment violation) ?

There must be some valid ones or they would immediately comply with my request to leave it out from testimony.

 

[CdwJava]

Chances are it wouldn't be mentioned if it's not relevant anyway.

But, we cops generally recite the same type of structured statement every time and this sometimes includes violations observed but not cited for (I can recite my mantra in my sleep). While the warned off violation is not an element of the offense, it is factually true and might play into the court's overall evaluation of the matter - especially if it was the reason for the officer's observations or contributed to his decision to make the stop.

Whether a judge might preclude it from the outset is questionable. But, so what? I hope you have some defense to the charge in question besides trying to keep some mention of an un-named other violation that you were warned of off the record.

Traffic court judges do not tend to appreciate antics in their courtroom ... I would recommend against making many objections or motions. if you feel this is the onl way to win, then I woudl strongly urge you to hire an attorney who might be less likely to step on his crank in doing so.

- Carl