1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

%$#%$# cop and judge

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Sir Joseph, Jan 2, 2003.

  1. Sir Joseph

    Sir Joseph Registered User

    I just received the transcript from my hearing in the kangaroo traffic court. Reading it over, I'm even more mad than when I left the court.
    What definition of doubt did this dolt use? And to top off, he didn't even let me finish. Several times, the judge stopped me and didn't let me question the cop.
    I don't know what I'm going to do if the appeal comes back guilty. :(
  2. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    NYC ALJs are a special breed. Upon what basis was your appeal, and who was the judge?
  3. Sir Joseph

    Sir Joseph Registered User

    The judge was His Honor :rolleyes: Alan S. Abish. I gave them a three or four part defense and that those defenses together is clearly a reasonable doubt.
    Firstly, as testified by both myself and the officer, I did not pull over right away. I stopped a block away thinking that the cop wanted to pass me so I pulled to the side to let him pass and only later did I realize that it's for me.
    Secondly, when I approached the stop sign, I saw the cop and he saw me. Furthermore, we both saw that we saw each other. So why would I run a stop sign.
    Then I also added for kicks, that I volunteer at my college's EMS and I drive the ambulance. I took a safety course from the National Safety Council and I know that you're not supposed to go through stop signs. (duh)
    Then as I testified, I did come to a complete stop, just according to the cop it wasn't long enough. Although, he lied and said that he never said that. And I said under oath after the judge asked if I came to a complete stop, "Yes, I did."
    I know there's no hope as they need the money now. I guess I'll have to wait for the appeal verdict.
  4. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Dear Sir J,
    The standard of proof in a traffic court, is not, however, reasonable doubt, but the preponderance of evidence. Thus, the judge, and Abish is not a judge, but an ALJ, needs only to guess if it is more likely than not that you did not stop long enough.
    The problem is the lack of earnestness is oaths. You say 'under oath" as do I, meaning your word is withou question. To the officer, with no ill will, it is a hackneyed catch phrase. Look at a parking ticket. It is a sworn statement. Who really takes that seriously?
    Administrative Law judges are lawyers picking up extra cash, and, with some noticeable and remarkable exceptions, are there not because they are so brilliant that Wilke, or the federal courts are begging them to work or sit on the bench.
  5. Sir Joseph

    Sir Joseph Registered User

    This is my first time that I got pulled over, so if I'm found guilty it's only two points I think. Although, my insurance will probably skyrocket. Oh well, that's the cost of living in NYS.

    Regarding parking tickets, I usually win. There was only one time I actually had to pay and that was because I parked at a broken hydrant. I argued that a hydrant is something that water comes out of and this was merely street furniture. The "judge" wrote that it didn't matter if it's broken or not. Until it's removed, you can't park there. The city gets $110 for a ticket and only $.25 for a meter so I don't think they would be converting the broken hydrant to a meter.
  6. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    Martin, its a preponderance of evidence? That is interesting. I did not know that.

    Sir Joseph, if you don't already know, what that means is if all the evidence were to be weighed on a balance scale, which ever side the scale dips to, guilty or not guilty, that is the verdict. In percentages it is commonly stated that if one believes the chances are at least 51 percent in favor of one side then that is the way of the verdict. Preponderance of evidence is the lowest standard of proof. (In civil court a good plaintiff's attorney's dream.) Next up ladder of burden of proof is clear and convincing and then the highest, beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In your circumstances absent any witness or physical evidence and where it is your word against the police officer is will always be the court's verdict that there is at least a 51 percent chance the policeman is correct and too bad for you. (No sarcasm intended.)

    Sorry. Really.
  7. Sir Joseph

    Sir Joseph Registered User

    I know but it's always worth a shot. I'll just keep my fingers crossed until I receive the verdict.
  8. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    I would be curious as to why SJ was not allowed to question the officer? It would seem a likely possibility if SJ believes in his innocence that there may have been a number of things that could have precluded the officer from seeing all there was to see at the scene.
  9. Sam

    Sam Cute and cuddly!

    I am by no means saying this is what happened in SJ's case... But the majority of people I have seen in traffic court don't actually question the officer when there time to do so is presented. Rather they try to use their cross questioning time as their time to state their version of the events that took place. Every time I see this the Judge stops them in there tracks. The judge in our court always gives them a second chance by reminding them that they are suppose to be asking questions of the officer not making their statement at that time.
  10. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    This is true. It usually works like -

    "Do you have any questions for the officer?"


    "Go ahead."

    "First of all, he was not at the place he said..."

    "HOLD IT RIGHT THERE. That's not a question, that's a statement. Do you have any QUESTIONS to ask the officer?"

    "Uhmmm... Yes."

    "Go ahead."

    "When we stopped, he would not provide me with copy of the radar..."

    "STOP! These are not questions. Do you have ANY QUESTIONS for the officer."

    "Ummm... I don't guess so."

    "We're done with the witness"

    "Officer, you're excused."

    "NOW you can make a statement."

    All this happens so fast, the person winds up feeling <STRIKE>disenfranchised</STRIKE> <SMALL>(I hate that word)</SMALL> screwed, when the reality is the person is simply unfamiliar with court proceedings and would have benefitted from having representation.
  11. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Wow, Copzilla, for you to state the above, it sounds like a problem.

    I know I would be a little confused with that type of a relay back and forth.
  12. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    Certainly... As would anyone.

    People can defend themselves successfully; I have seen in done on occasion. But most people come into court unorganized and completely unfamiliar, just wanting to argue and not understanding what's admissible and what isn't. Their arguments are frequently halted and the person left confused due to a simple "Objection, your honor, calls for speculation!" The person then is standing there going "Huh?" They typically try to rephrase the question, re-objection, the judge having to balance the person's right to a defense with proper courtroom procedure. Most judges give a person defending themself a lot of lattitude and try to be caring and explainatory, but in the end, there's still rules of evidence that must be followed.

    I could defend myself in traffic court, since I've obviously obtained more exposure than the average Joe, but most people really need counsel if they want to give it a serious shot.
  13. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    Hey lets stop bashing the posters.....and I ....uh, oh damn.....this is the wrong thread!


Share This Page