Is this a viable defense?

[longboat]

What is the name of your state? Massachusetts.

I was pulled over a few weeks ago for doing 61 mph in a 35 mph zone. I decided to contest, intially based on the knowledge that sometimes officers do not appear and the case is automatically dismissed.

I have been reading up on the function of radar guns, and I recall that the night I was pulled over, a car passed me going the other way shortly before I saw the police car. I know that it's possible the officer radared the wrong car, so the other guy may have been going 61. I KNOW I wasn't -- for a number of reasons.

If I have to testify, is it enough to call the accuracy of the gun into question, or do I need certificates and such? My plan is simply to say "I know I wasn't speeding for these four or five reasons, and it's possible the officer mistakenly radared the wrong car."

Does reasonable doubt apply in traffic cases?

 

[The Occultist]

With traffic violations, you are guilty until proven innocent. In order to show that the radar device was not calibrated, you will need to request logs of such via Discovery and use those in court to prove it.

If you don't mind my asking, just what are your reasons for KNOWING that you weren't going that quickly?

 

[poppakeith]

What is the name of your state? Massachusetts.

Does reasonable doubt apply in traffic cases?

The judge's reasonable doubt applies. That's why a defense must inspire it. Trouble is (for a defendant), it generally boils down to a judge having to calculate the cop, a presumably objective and professional type person, was unreasonable in his accusation, and that does not often happen, even when the cop is pulling a scam. What do you have that inspires reaonable doubt?

 

[lwpat]

based on the knowledge that sometimes officers do not appear and the case is automatically dismissed.

I may be wrong but I do not think the officer has to appear in MA.