Fighting a ticket - who can accompany me when I stand in front of judge?

[keechee1]

I am fighting a ticket - running a red camera light, and have plead not guilty. This is in Van Nuys, CA., division 109.

My trial is coming up and I would like to know who can accompany me in front of the judge? I am over 21 but am nervous. I have various material to present to state my innocence and questions to ask the officer. Can my father stand by my side to help assist with my handling evidence/paperwork? Can he say anything? Please knowledgeable responses only! Thank you very much for your help.

 

[asiny]

Do they have a photograph from the camera of your vehicle running a red light?
What evidence do you have to counter that your vehicle did not run a red light?

 

[TheGeekess]

I am fighting a ticket - running a red camera light, and have plead not guilty. This is in Van Nuys, CA., division 109.

My trial is coming up and I would like to know who can accompany me in front of the judge? I am over 21 but am nervous. I have various material to present to state my innocence and questions to ask the officer. Can my father stand by my side to help assist with my handling evidence/paperwork? Can he say anything? Please knowledgeable responses only! Thank you very much for your help.

Is Dad an attorney?

If not, you'll be standing there by yourself. Welcome to the adult world.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Welcome to the adult world indeed!

No, he can't say anything, not likely that he'll be allowed to stand next to you or hold your hand, and there's even a slight chance that if the courtroom is either small or packed, he maybe asked to wait outside!

I have various material to present to state my innocence....

You mean you came up with something other that what was discussed in your other thread?
Good for you!

 

[keechee1]

Fighting a ticket - who can accompany me when I stand in front of the judge?

I_Got_Banned,

Thank you for remembering my previous thread and being a part of this adventure. Believe it or not, your replies were very helpful and put me to work.

Needless to say, with the material I received from LADOT, coupled with analysis of previous case law, and other research in general, feel very confident about this now. Have sufficient legitimate and reasonable material to mount a defense on about 3 to 5 different points (throw enough stuff at the wall and something has to stick - yes?, provided it is done in a succint, methodical, yet timely fashion).

Just wish Pops was up there with me since he was very instrumental in developing my scripts to follow (a really good idea to maintian focus), questions to ask, etc., and would certainly aid on keeping me on point.

In any event, what is the specific reason he can't accompany me? "Not a lawyer" does not really answer the question. Thanks again and by the way what did you get banned from?

 

[Just Blue]

I_Got_Banned,

Thank you for remembering my previous thread and being a part of this adventure. Believe it or not, your replies were very helpful and put me to work.

Needless to say, with the material I received from LADOT, coupled with analysis of previous case law, and other research in general, feel very confident about this now. Have sufficient legitimate and reasonable material to mount a defense on about 3 to 5 different points (throw enough stuff at the wall and something has to stick - yes?, provided it is done in a succint, methodical, yet timely fashion).

Just wish Pops was up there with me since he was very instrumental in developing my scripts to follow (a really good idea to maintian focus), questions to ask, etc., and would certainly aid on keeping me on point.

In any event, what is the specific reason he can't accompany me? "Not a lawyer" does not really answer the question. Thanks again and by the way what did you get banned from?

A Defendant can go ProSe. Or have an attorney. A defendant can not have any other person "stand" with them.

 

[justalayman]

In any event, what is the specific reason he can't accompany me? "Not a lawyer" does not really answer the question.

actually, it does answer the question. The defendants table is for the defendant and, if he has any, legal counsel. The seating behind the tables is for observers, cheerleading squad, supporters, and anybody else that is not actually involved in the case.

 

[Free_Advice]

I am fighting a ticket - running a red camera light, and have plead not guilty. This is in Van Nuys, CA., division 109.

My trial is coming up and I would like to know who can accompany me in front of the judge? I am over 21 but am nervous. I have various material to present to state my innocence and questions to ask the officer. Can my father stand by my side to help assist with my handling evidence/paperwork? Can he say anything? Please knowledgeable responses only! Thank you very much for your help.

Only you can be at the podium or table. Recommend you practice. And remember : you do not have to prove your innocence -- they have to prove your guilt.

Recommend you have the questions you want to ask written down on a paper .. note: do not ask questions that allow the officer to clarify points that he was vague on his initial testimony or answers to your question (you don't want to help the state's case, right?)

You are 21 years old, thats plenty old enough. Nerves or not, its all you.

Go to court and watch if you are that nervous.

If you have cases to cite or quote from, have the case opinion printed out (perhaps 3 copies in case the judge will take, most just want the citation though, -- 1 for you, 1 for the state , 1 for the judge).

Heck, you can read from any script you prepare..

My recommendation is to have a practice trial(s) ... have someone be the DA ( or officer in this case), one to be the judge, and one to be the defendant. Rotate the people around. I usually do this and I will play all three parts -- I have found issues with my defense strategies sometimes and it makes me feel more comfortable with my case presentation.

Never lost a traffic case.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Needless to say, with the material I received from LADOT, coupled with analysis of previous case law, and other research in general, feel very confident about this now.

Confident but not enough to tell us what you've received? No pressure, its your call!

Have sufficient legitimate and reasonable material to mount a defense on about 3 to 5 different points

OK, so if you were to sit there and rehearse all 5 points, how much time do you think you'll take? Here is why I ask:
The judge/commissioner has probably heard every excuse in the book and then some. So keep in mind that the judge is bound to cut you off at some point either due to the fact that you presented a case that convinced him/her that the case should be dismissed, or because you began to drift off into desperado land and you're presenting known RLC issues (like the ones you brought up in your other thread) which have long since been resolved, corrected, banished or are of no legal consequence on your guilt or innocence, and it became clear that its a waste of time.

And no, I'm not saying you will or should be restricted to a certain time limit. Realistically though, you should only need 1 defense. The fact that you have 5, or felt the need to develop that many, in addition to your statement about throwing a few to see which will stick, leaves me wondering how many of the issue we've already determined to be irrelevant are you rehashing!

(throw enough stuff at the wall and something has to stick - yes?

No!!! What happened to "very confident"... And why did it turn into "desperate"?

...provided it is done in a succint, methodical, yet timely fashion).

Yes, succinct, methodical , timely.... Amongst a few others. But you forgot an important one, "relevant"!!! Again, don't expect the judge/commissioner is going to allow you all the time you think you can have.

In any event, what is the specific reason he can't accompany me? "Not a lawyer" does not really answer the question. Thanks again and by the way what did you get banned from?

Actually, him "not being a lawyer" in and of itself, presents a number of different reasons why he cannot/should not represent you!

First and foremost, (and with all due respect to you & your dad, and not to questions his character or integrity) but "ethics" would be one major reason. An attorney has taken an oath to uphold the laws and is bound by certain ethical standards which do not apply to your dad. An attorney is aware of all of your rights, is quite familiar with the laws (related to your case/his area of specialty) the court's rules, policies ad procedures and can advise you on how to proceed further all while having your best interest at heart (and maybe his/her billable hours in mind ) ; whereas your dad's representation may potentially cause you some undue harm if he commits a certain error or is unaware of a certain consequence. An attorney is bound by a certain standard of care and diligence in his representation of you, whereas your dad could simply say "ooops, didn't know/forgot about that part, sorry son"! An attorney is an officer of the court and can be sanctioned in a different, more severe manner and would have much more to risk than your dad. And last but not least, judges are/were attorneys too and they don't want some stranger crashing their party !!!!!

And on, and on, and on...

..... by the way what did you get banned from?

Which time?

 

[cyjeff]

Realize,too, that your case is the most important case in the world... but only to you.

Your case will get about 3 minutes in front of the judge. The moment you start producing graphs, photographs and other evidence, you are annoying the court.

Why? Because you aren't an attorney and don't really understand what is and is not evidence... and what does and doesn't help YOUR case.

My daughter when she was 17 got a ticket. We went to court. I wasn't allowed to say a word.

If she can do it, so can you.

 

[keechee1]

I_Got_Banned,

"Confident but not enough to tell us what you've received? No pressure, its your call!"

With all due respect [and truth be told, you have been most helpful], the time has now come for me to take a cautious approach with the information I share since trial date is coming up, this is a real case not theory, and I am not sure who reads these threads so do not wish to provide free discovery information to the other guys since I have provided information somewhat referenceable back to me. Let's just say there is evidence casting doubt on the accuracy or reliability of the photographs and the Violation Information contained therein from LADOT certified copies.

Since I do not have to prove my innocence (they have to prove my guilt), very confident not desperate as you mention.

However, will be happy to share after the trial outcome or if your in the neighborhood of the court, listen as events unfold at the circus. Thanks again for all your help. I have learned mucho since that first Post a month ago. Amazing what you can accomplish if you apply yourself, and do not give in to the negative, as opposed to those others who just cave in and pay up. Unfortunately, all told with the time spent on this, cash outlays for records [not advice], etc. is about $1,500 (mostly the value of my pops time). But it is all worth it to pursue justice, when the justice is legitimate and right, as opposed to turning around and manipulating obvious guilt into what it is not - innocence.

And the last time you were banned as opposed to the first time was because?

 

[Zigner]

I_Got_Banned,

"Confident but not enough to tell us what you've received? No pressure, its your call!"

With all due respect [and truth be told, you have been most helpful], the time has now come for me to take a cautious approach with the information I share since trial date is coming up, this is a real case not theory, and I am not sure who reads these threads so do not wish to provide free discovery information to the other guys since I have provided information somewhat referenceable back to me. Let's just say there is evidence casting doubt on the accuracy or reliability of the photographs and the Violation Information contained therein from LADOT certified copies.

Since I do not have to prove my innocence (they have to prove my guilt), very confident not desperate as you mention.

However, will be happy to share after the trial outcome or if your in the neighborhood of the court, listen as events unfold at the circus. Thanks again for all your help. I have learned mucho since that first Post a month ago. Amazing what you can accomplish if you apply yourself, and do not give in to the negative, as opposed to those others who just cave in and pay up. Unfortunately, all told with the time spent on this, cash outlays for records [not advice], etc. is about $1,500 (mostly the value of my pops time). But it is all worth it to pursue justice, when the justice is legitimate and right, as opposed to turning around and manipulating obvious guilt into what it is not - innocence.

And the last time you were banned as opposed to the first time was because?

Oh BROTHER

 

[cyjeff]

And the last time you were banned as opposed to the first time was because?

Have you ever been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder?

What say we focus on your issues, huh?

 

[Zigner]

I find it amusing that the OP is SO confident in the merits of his case...yet he has to ask if daddy can stand next to him.

 

[keechee1]

Replies to:

cyjeff: The banned comment was not directed at you - it was referring to screen name I_Got_Banned as to why he is using this name and the last time he was banned - just curious background banter. Sorry you took it out of context - again - ongoing dialogue with that person, review the complete thread. My sincere apologies if misinterpreted. Thank you for your input though.

Zigner: Your 'oh brother' and 'find it amusing' comments really need to be put into the appropriate context of the issue. Please elaborate on the 'oh brother' comment? Should I share absolutely every conceivable defense strategy on this board not knowing who will read, based on potential to reference back to my particular pending case? You appear to be a busy, helpful person, based soley on the number of your posts, but your replies to me indicate otherwise. I am just a regular guy not a former Attorney General. Again, please elaborate - be helpful and constructive.

Regarding the 'finding it amusing' - ok, be amused - fine. But in the context of the issue, Pops is a skilled speaker and organizer of details, and the presentation of details. Is it so wrong to have someone more skillful than yourself there to help? Of course, this is a moot point as I will be alone so more work on me to prepare, but I did not want to overlook your negative comment.

I hope you high number of post guys get it. I'm not on this site to meet new friends, but am seeking help and assistance. So far, comments from I_Got_Banned and cyjeff have been helpful - thank you. Zigner on the other hand, based on the high number of Posts, I would have expected more, and not the useless comments shown.

cyjeff - again my apologies for misinterpreted, out of context entry.