Right to speedy trial apply to traffic citation contested hearings?

[mikeshoe]

What is the name of your state?Washington State

I thought I saw something that says you have to receive a trial within 45 days?

I received a citation 31July2005
Date of the filing for contested hearing is 10Feb05
Court Date is 30Mar2005

What are the rules for a speedy trial?





In case anyone is following my citation history:

Got a ticket for Failure to Yield to Pedestrian.
Citation has one 'technical error' (Invalid/Wrong Statute Cited)
The officer's statement contains a couple of embarrassing errors that combined with the technical error should help to show that the officer made several errors. By themselves the errors have a low chance of getting the citation dismissed. This set of errors is only important in my opinion to help discredit the officer's version enough help dispute his other claims.
Regardless of the officer's version, the pedestrian was standing in a median, not in the crosswalk and not on my side of the roadway.

 

[cmre]

Well, I'm a newby researching for myself, but yesterday I read about some thing called "state of mind," being a legal term. The gist of it was that if you can show enough errors by the officer, you can claim that she wasn't in a proper state of mind at the time of the citation. (maybe tired, distracted by personal problems, etc., none of which you have to prove. The errors themselves are the proof.) Supposedy, even though none of the errors in themselves would be fatal to the prosecution, the state of mind of the officer would call into doubt her recollection of anything else. That was supposed to be a valid defense, but not a sure thing, depending on the judge. Good luck.

 

[lwpat]

You need to consider whether to subponea the officer. In Washington State they do not have to appear for trial unless you do.

 

[seniorjudge]

Speedy trial does not apply to traffic violations.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=450301maj&searchval&invol=1

cmre Well, I'm a newby researching for myself, but yesterday I read about some thing called "state of mind," being a legal term. The gist of it was that if you can show enough errors by the officer, you can claim that she wasn't in a proper state of mind at the time of the citation. (maybe tired, distracted by personal problems, etc., none of which you have to prove. The errors themselves are the proof.) Supposedy, even though none of the errors in themselves would be fatal to the prosecution, the state of mind of the officer would call into doubt her recollection of anything else. That was supposed to be a valid defense, but not a sure thing, depending on the judge. Good luck.

cmre, if you paid anything for this research, you need to demand your money back since nothing in your statement is correct.