File Subpoenas before "contested hearing" date is scheduled?

[pditty8811]

I live in a state where a police officer doesn't have to appear in court for a traffic violation. But they must appear if subpoenaed.

My question is this, I just got the speeding ticket. I do not have an assigned contested hearing date yet. Should I file my subpoenas now, even though I have no date for document or witness appearance yet? Do I need a specific court date to subpoena?

I'm going to subpoena officer and some documents.

Note: its a minor speeding ticket.

 

[Zigner]

I live in a state where a police officer doesn't have to appear in court for a traffic violation. But they must appear if subpoenaed.

My question is this, I just got the speeding ticket. I do not have an assigned contested hearing date yet. Should I file my subpoenas now, even though I have no date for document or witness appearance yet? Do I need a specific court date to subpoena?

I'm going to subpoena officer and some documents.

Note: its a minor speeding ticket.

What state?

 

[pditty8811]

What state?

Washington State

 

[FlyingRon]

Why do you want to subpoena the officer? You should file for discovery and read the sworn statement. If that statement lacks the elements needed to convict, you probably will dodge the conviction. If you bring the officer into court, the statement is out the window and he is free to testify to anything he wants.

 

[latigo]

I live in a state where a police officer doesn't have to appear in court for a traffic violation. But they must appear if subpoenaed.

My question is this, I just got the speeding ticket. I do not have an assigned contested hearing date yet. Should I file my subpoenas now, even though I have no date for document or witness appearance yet? Do I need a specific court date to subpoena? I'm going to subpoena officer and some documents. Note: its a minor speeding ticket.

You intend to subpoena an adverse witness?! Did you over indulge on holiday fruit cake?

What do you intend to do with the officer when he shows up for the trial? Call him as a witness?

If so, are you aware that you cannot ask him leading questions as if he were under cross-examination? That you cannot impeach your own witness's testimony with other evidence even though it may exist, including your own testimony?

That his testimony will support the charges against you and carry more weight than yours? And that it won't bury you?
____________

Now about these "documents".

Regardless of what they may contain, relevant or not, how do you intend to obtain them? Where and are they kept and in whose custody? Is it you intention to do a subpoena duces tecum on the officer directing that he produce in court some specifically described document or documents?

What if he shows up and explains that they are not within is custody and control? Do you think the judge is going to send him back to the station and gather them up?

And suppose that somehow the officer does produce the wanted documents. How do you intend to have them authenticated and submit into the record and getting around the hearsay evidence rule without having some individual that is charge of them testify as to their accuracy, where and how they are maintained, when they were prepared and done so in the normal course of business?

And if you are thinking of the police report, forget that. It is inadmissible hearsay.

Pay the bloody ticket!

 

[FlyingRon]

What do you intend to do with the officer when he shows up for the trial? Call him as a witness?

If he subpoenas him as a witness, the state will call him as a witness at that point.

If so, are you aware that you cannot ask him leading questions as if he were under cross-examination?

You can't ask leading questions even if it was cross-examination.

But otherwise, I agree with the folly of having him appear in court.

And if you are thinking of the police report, forget that. It is inadmissible hearsay.

In a Washington State contested hearing when the officer is not present, the sworn statement of the officer (along with the ticket) is perfectly admissible. In fact, it's the sum total of the state's case for all practical purposes.

 

[pditty8811]

You intend to subpoena an adverse witness?! Did you over indulge on holiday fruit cake?

What do you intend to do with the officer when he shows up for the trial? Call him as a witness?

If so, are you aware that you cannot ask him leading questions as if he were under cross-examination? That you cannot impeach your own witness's testimony with other evidence even though it may exist, including your own testimony?

That his testimony will support the charges against you and carry more weight than yours? And that it won't bury you?
____________

Now about these "documents".

Regardless of what they may contain, relevant or not, how do you intend to obtain them? Where and are they kept and in whose custody? Is it you intention to do a subpoena duces tecum on the officer directing that he produce in court some specifically described document or documents?

What if he shows up and explains that they are not within is custody and control? Do you think the judge is going to send him back to the station and gather them up?

And suppose that somehow the officer does produce the wanted documents. How do you intend to have them authenticated and submit into the record and getting around the hearsay evidence rule without having some individual that is charge of them testify as to their accuracy, where and how they are maintained, when they were prepared and done so in the normal course of business?

And if you are thinking of the police report, forget that. It is inadmissible hearsay.

Pay the bloody ticket!

Is it Ok if I PM my response to you?

 

[pditty8811]

In a Washington State contested hearing when the officer is not present, the sworn statement of the officer (along with the ticket) is perfectly admissible. In fact, it's the sum total of the state's case for all practical purposes.

However, a subpoena to have him appear in court supersedes the sworn statement.

As IRLJ 3.3 (c) reads:
“(c) Rules of Evidence. The Rules of Evidence and statutes that relate to evidence in infraction cases shall apply to contested hearings. The court may consider the notice of infraction and any other written report made under oath submitted by the officer who issued the notice or whose written statement was the basis for the issuance of the notice in lieu of the officer's personal appearance at the hearing, unless the defendant has caused the officer to be served with a subpoena to appear in accordance with instructions from the court issued pursuant to rule 2.6(a)(2).”

 

[pditty8811]

You intend to subpoena an adverse witness?! Did you over indulge on holiday fruit cake?

What do you intend to do with the officer when he shows up for the trial? Call him as a witness?

If so, are you aware that you cannot ask him leading questions as if he were under cross-examination? That you cannot impeach your own witness's testimony with other evidence even though it may exist, including your own testimony?

That his testimony will support the charges against you and carry more weight than yours? And that it won't bury you?
____________

Now about these "documents".

Regardless of what they may contain, relevant or not, how do you intend to obtain them? Where and are they kept and in whose custody? Is it you intention to do a subpoena duces tecum on the officer directing that he produce in court some specifically described document or documents?

What if he shows up and explains that they are not within is custody and control? Do you think the judge is going to send him back to the station and gather them up?

And suppose that somehow the officer does produce the wanted documents. How do you intend to have them authenticated and submit into the record and getting around the hearsay evidence rule without having some individual that is charge of them testify as to their accuracy, where and how they are maintained, when they were prepared and done so in the normal course of business?

And if you are thinking of the police report, forget that. It is inadmissible hearsay.

Pay the bloody ticket!

However, before I PM you. I'd like to know what Prosecutor's office your work for?

 

[FlyingRon]

However, a subpoena to have him appear in court supersedes the sworn statement.

Of course, I even said that TWICE. Thanks for stating the obvious.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Was there an issue with the ticket, or were you speeding and you want to play amateur lawyer?

 

[pditty8811]

Of course, I even said that TWICE. Thanks for stating the obvious.

You've just claimed to have said "TWICE" that you stated prior in this thread that a subpoena supersedes the officer's absence with use of a written statement.

Where did you state that?

Because I'm about to subpoena your ornery self for being frivolous..

 

[pditty8811]

Was there an issue with the ticket, or were you speeding and you want to play amateur lawyer?

The former. However, I'm curious to know what you think of "amateur lawyers".

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

The former. However, I'm curious to know what you think of "amateur lawyers".

I think Mr. Lincoln was spot on.

 

[pditty8811]

I think Mr. Lincoln was spot on.

Nothing constructive to add?