Challenging a traffic ticket--what to expect in court?

[NajaNivea]

I'm in Lane County, Oregon. I'm not asking for legal advice or anything of the sort, just wanted to see if anyone has any knowledge of the proceedings--I have never been involved in any sort of legal issue, have never been inside a courtroom, and have zero idea what to expect.

The gist of it is I was issued a citation and and have a valid legal reason for challenging it. I spoke with an attorney who helped me dig up the relevant statutes and two prior court decisions to support my case. Obviously I'm not hauling legal counsel in with me over a traffic citation, so I'll be delivering this information myself. I know this is a pretty minor issue, but I am a little panicked at the idea and feel like I'm going to look like a total idiot fumbling around with all this fancy-like legal-talk. ;)

Can anyone give me a general idea of what to expect?

[Threadkiller]

I went in once to challenge a moving violation (bicycle). It was very low key and the judge was approachable.

Most people were there to ask for some kink of reduced sentence or a reduction of points. Almost universally they were given something that they wanted—it seemed to me just for showing up.

I was given a suspended sentence (the judge said he had never heard of the specific violation I was charged with either).

My advice, if you have the time (and need the money) give it a shot--YMMV

[Tenar]

I can't guarantee it, but you may be given the opportunity to talk to the town attorney or county attorney (the one who'll be prosecuting you) in hopes of reaching a settlement. It is entirely up to you whether you choose to speak with him/her or not.

[Cyberhwk]

Traffic court is full of people that don't know what they're doing and the judge and the DA know that. For most people this is likely the only time they'll ever be in the court room outside of jury duty.

So don't feel like you need to walk in there and be James Spader.

[lobotomyboy63]

FWIW, I was going to challenge a ticket here in Texas and was told (at court) that if I challenged it and lost, I'd have to pay court costs. That would mean paying the original ticket + about $700, so I grumbled, paid the ticket, left.

[Boyo Jim]

Just talk to the judge respectfully and clearly in plain English, don't try to sound like a lawyer, and you'll be fine. Keep in mind that it won't get any worse than it is now -- the judge won't levy MORE fines or points. In my experience there's a good chance you will get fines or points reduced just by having a good attitude, even if the judge doesn't buy your rationale.

[DrDeth]

It varies widely by location. I dunno about "state of confusion" :rolleyes: but in most CA areas, your mani hope is that the cop is a no-show, for a "not-guilty" verdict. For reducing the fine or getting traffic school, pleading 'guilty with an explanation" often works.

[Gatopescado]

In Nevada, it works like this: You go to court. You can plead not guilty. If you do, they schedual you to go talk to the DA. (see below) If you plead guilty, you pay your fine (often less than the ticket, because the judge lets you give a lame excuse) and leave.

You come back with your story to the DA. Pretty much immediatly, he reduces the fine and tries to badger you into paying. Buck up! He's fresh out of University of Phoenix Law School! Tell em you wanna see Da Judge! He'll go further.....

Usually thats where it ends. They will reduce it to a point where it isn't worth your time to fight it further.

BUT IF YOU DO... They schedual another date, the copper has to show (round here, they always do) and you take your chance. If you have a legitimate beef, you might win, but you usually don't. The court takes the cops word 99% of the time. Your stuck with the original fine, plus maybe more. I don't know for sure, I've never taken them that far.

I always take the DA's low-ball offer. I've done this 3 times, and never paid a cent, no points on the license. The DA eventually offers what they call "delayed prosecution" or something like that, where, if you don't get another ticket in 90 days, they dismiss the ticket. No fines, nothing. Only time spent messin' round. I've got nothing left but time, so it works for me.

Oregon? Who knows what happens in that Pot-haven! Hell! They won't even let you pump yer own damn gas!

[phungi]

My only experience has been in Philadelphia (x3). There, most folks have a fistful of tickets and have been "booted". Showing up with a lone ticket is usually "dismissable". I am 3-3 in fighting various infractions (e.g., expired meters and once parking in a no-parking zone) with no statutes or legal foundations to back me up.

As far as "what to expect", around here, you walk in, are told who the "official is" but you are in an office with one person. The turn on the tape recorder, ask if you promise to be truthful, repeat the offense, and ask you to give your explanation. They then rule on the spot. Be respectful, speak slow and clear (it is being recorded), be truthful, and be prepared to pay if it doesn't go your way.

[Green Bean]

As far as "what to expect", around here, you walk in, are told who the "official is" but you are in an office with one person. The turn on the tape recorder, ask if you promise to be truthful, repeat the offense, and ask you to give your explanation. They then rule on the spot. Be respectful, speak slow and clear (it is being recorded), be truthful, and be prepared to pay if it doesn't go your way.That's what my experience in NYC was.

I was fighting a parking ticket. I kept things polite and respectful, but short and to the point. I showed the judge my evidence--I had a photo of the fact that the no parking sign was halfway down the block and hidden by scaffolding. She told me that that was not really a good excuse, but reduced the ticket by half anyway. Yeah, they're really tough on parking issues in NYC, but like others have suggested, she seemed to have given me a break just for showing up and being reasonable.

As someone above said, nobody expected me to know what I was doing. They walked me through it and were all very nice.

[Green Bean]

I forgot to say--I think that the advice I've gotten from attorneys before I've given depositions or, in one case, was interviewed by the federal labor board about alleged payroll abuses by my employer (!) will serve you well in any situation like this: Be truthful. Answer only the question that is asked. Be concise. Stick to the facts. Don't offer opinions unless you are specifically asked, and even then, make sure your opinions are based on things that you have personally observed.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I've read about, and heard from other folks about, negotiating the cost of a ticket downward. Here in NC, my impression is that this all happens before court: you get your lawyer to call the police or DA (or you call them yourself), explain your situation, and everything happens ahead of time. I've never been in the situation, so I'm not sure how it works; does this sound familiar to anyone else?

Daniel

[NajaNivea]

Just talk to the judge respectfully and clearly in plain English, don't try to sound like a lawyer, and you'll be fine. Keep in mind that it won't get any worse than it is now -- the judge won't levy MORE fines or points. In my experience there's a good chance you will get fines or points reduced just by having a good attitude, even if the judge doesn't buy your rationale.

That's sort of what I figured, but it hadn't even occurred to me that I might have to pay court costs. I want to challenge the thing because I didn't do it, and I just don't want the points on my license, but if it's going to cost me an arm and a leg to argue the issue, well... that sucks, but I hate the idea of paying the city $265 and having a record for something I didn't do, even something as stupid as this. I guess I should call the municipal court on Monday and ask what happens if I lose.

It varies widely by location. I dunno about "state of confusion" :rolleyes: but
:rolleyes: yourself, bucko. I stated my exact location in the first sentence of the OP!
in most CA areas, your mani hope is that the cop is a no-show, for a "not-guilty" verdict. For reducing the fine or getting traffic school, pleading 'guilty with an explanation" often works.
BUT IF YOU DO... They schedual another date, the copper has to show (round here, they always do) and you take your chance. If you have a legitimate beef, you might win, but you usually don't. The court takes the cops word 99% of the time. Your stuck with the original fine, plus maybe more. I don't know for sure, I've never taken them that far.

Actually, that's one thing I was concerned about--that no matter what my reasoning, the cop wrote me a ticket and therefore if he shows up, he wins. I do expect him to show up, because the note I got that confirmed the trial date said they arranged trial dates according to the officers' schedules.
As far as reducing the fine goes, I did plead "guilty with (a lame) explanation" to a speeding ticket years ago, having been told that that usually reduces the fine. In my case, and the two others who went before me, we all got a PSA style lecture on the evils and dangers of speeding and a fine reduction of $2.

Oregon? Who knows what happens in that Pot-haven! Hell! They won't even let you pump yer own damn gas! :D

[Loach]

Every court is different. Even within your state and county they may run things a bit different. My advice to you would be to go to the court before your date. You can sit and watch the proceedings and get a feel for how things are run.

In the court in my jurisdiction it goes like this. You plead not guilty by phone and they send you a court date. On the court date you show up and check in. You can get a chance to talk to the prosecutor either before the judge addresses the court or after. The prosecutor gives you a choice of pleading to a lesser charge (no points/more fine), pleading guilty to the original charge (points/lesser fines) or a trial. If it is a busy day he will probably be very abrupt, lots of people behind you. If it is a busy day you may have to come back on another day for a trial. In my jurisdiction you will not get your case dismissed if the officer is not there. I was deployed for a year. My cases were not dismissed.

At the trial it will be you, the judge, the prosecutor and the officer. You can call any witness you want. You have the opportunity to testify but you are not compelled to. If you do testify you can be cross examined. Since there is no lawyer questioning you during your testimony the judge may ask you questions directly. If you believe that you have a point of law that may help your case then just calmly present it to the judge. Don't treat it like an "Aha!" moment on Perry Mason. Don't be too disappointed if you are found guilty. Your arguments may not be valid in your case. I know it is hard to believe but you may actually be guilty. If you don't agree with the judges decision then you can appeal. Just remember that you can't appeal because you don't think he reached the right decision based on the facts of the case. Thats a judgement call and they call them judges for a reason. You can only appeal if you feel he was incorrect on a point of law or procedure.

YMMV blah blah

[NajaNivea]

If you believe that you have a point of law that may help your case then just calmly present it to the judge. Don't treat it like an "Aha!" moment on Perry Mason. Don't be too disappointed if you are found guilty. Your arguments may not be valid in your case. I know it is hard to believe but you may actually be guilty.
Hey, don't talk down to me. I'm not going in there pretending I'm Matlock, and if I'm wrong in my reasoning, I'm wrong. My attorney didn't think so, or I would just take the slap, pay the stupid thing and be done with it. I know police officers believe anything they say and do when it comes to disciplining civilians is the end-all be-all, but sometimes they're wrong, too.


See how offensive it is when someone else assumes they know your motivations?


Anyway, point of snarkiness aside, I really do appreciate your input on the procedure, thanks.

[DrDeth]

:rolleyes: yourself, bucko. I stated my exact location in the first sentence of the OP!



Actually, that's one thing I was concerned about--that no matter what my reasoning, the cop wrote me a ticket and therefore if he shows up, he wins. I do expect him to show up, because the note I got that confirmed the trial date said they arranged trial dates according to the officers' schedules.

Sorry, I know you did, it's just that the whole "joke location" thing annoys me. :smack:

Anyway,it all depends on how they pick their traffic judges. Out here, they are mostly lawyers bucking for a real Judge job, so they bend over for the police.

Still, showing up, being respectful and politely explaining your side gives you a better than even chance of at least a significant reduction in fine.

[Loach]

Hey, don't talk down to me. I'm not going in there pretending I'm Matlock, and if I'm wrong in my reasoning, I'm wrong. My attorney didn't think so, or I would just take the slap, pay the stupid thing and be done with it. I know police officers believe anything they say and do when it comes to disciplining civilians is the end-all be-all, but sometimes they're wrong, too.


See how offensive it is when someone else assumes they know your motivations?


Anyway, point of snarkiness aside, I really do appreciate your input on the procedure, thanks.

Not talking down to you. You asked for advice. I have seen many people go into court thinking they have the one piece of information that will destroy the state's case. They present it with a flourish and expect the judge to bang the gavel and immediately dismiss the charge. When that doesn't happen you can see them deflate. Then they got nothing. I have seen this happen many times. You have not. I am telling you don't do it that way. Since you have decided not to post the particulars of your case or why you believe you are right than there is no reason to assume that you are right or that your lawyer is competent.

[Loach]

Sorry, I know you did, it's just that the whole "joke location" thing annoys me. :smack:

Anyway,it all depends on how they pick their traffic judges. Out here, they are mostly lawyers bucking for a real Judge job, so they bend over for the police.

Still, showing up, being respectful and politely explaining your side gives you a better than even chance of at least a significant reduction in fine.

Wow the cops get to pick your judges? Interesting. Here it has more to do with how much you give the Democratic Party but I guess your system works too.

[DrDeth]

Wow the cops get to pick your judges? Interesting. Here it has more to do with how much you give the Democratic Party but I guess your system works too.

Not literally. But if you don't have the support of the system and the police union, you have no real chance of winning an election or appointment.

[NajaNivea]

Not talking down to you. You asked for advice. I have seen many people go into court thinking they have the one piece of information that will destroy the state's case. They present it with a flourish and expect the judge to bang the gavel and immediately dismiss the charge. When that doesn't happen you can see them deflate. Then they got nothing. I have seen this happen many times. You have not. I am telling you don't do it that way. Since you have decided not to post the particulars of your case or why you believe you are right than there is no reason to assume that you are right or that your lawyer is competent.
Well, thanks for your input. I wouldn't mind posting the particulars if you think I'd get some good feedback--I'd love to hear your input. I just thought I wasn't supposed to!

[jtgain]

As has been said, every state and county is different, but here is my story in Palm Beach County, FL:

June 16, 2006. I was nailed in a notorious speed trap for going 46 in a 30. Also cited for no seat belt. I received two citations and a "three option" spread in a handout. Option One was pay a total of $275 + 3 points on my license. Option Two was pay $300 PLUS attend traffic school (my expense ~$100) and NO points. Option Three plead not guilty and have a trial. I had 30 days to choose.

Well, I was pissed off beyond belief because I usually wear my seat belt, this 30mph limit is ridiculous in that it is a 4 lane divided road and it was a motorcycle trap with enough cars pulled over to look like a parking lot, and that if it had been 45 instead of 46 it would have been about $100 less, but the speed trap cops wanted every drop.

I calmed down, went home and noticed the rules: If I pled not-guilty, then these previous fines were no longer offered. I could get the statutory maximum which was $1000 for the speeding, $500 for the seat belt, PLUS have to go to the $100 traffic school, AND get the 3 points on my license. So, $1600, school, and points, all for IMHO bullshit charges. I got pissed off again, so I decide to budget the money and plead not guilty. Still without a thought about my legal strategy.

So, in October, they set a hearing date. Tell me that this is a mandatory pre-trial hearing and that no cops will be there. Fine. I show up and it looks like a scene from the end of Field of Dreams. Two fully booked courtrooms with traffic offenders. The traffic hearing officer is this beautiful young girl who couldn't have been older than 25. She smiled and was pleasant and said that we had three options, guilty, not guilty, or the "most popular and recommended" no-contest.

One by one, people went up and plead no contest. If the person committed a simple infraction and didn't have a long record, the fines were reduced and adjudication was withheld (no points, no recrod) and she didn't order anyone to traffic school.

I'm watching this thinking this is great, but I wondered what my specific punishment would be. People were expected to plead without knowing the punishment before hand. My name is called and I am asked to plead. I ask what penalties I can expect if I plead no-contest. She tells me that it depends on what kind of excuse I give. I said, "Well suppose I don't have an excuse?"

Then, for some reason, she gets irritated and tells me to enter a plea, as I am wasting time. I told her I would be glad to enter a plea if I knew what was being offered. She told me to enter a plea before she "had to get angry". I said, "Fine. Not guilty." I am again pissed as I thought my question was reasonable.

I come home and get even more pissed off. The "system" tried to discourage me from having a trial by making me think I would have to pay $1600. Nothing could have been further from the truth. A little later I get a new summons for the final hearing: December 18, 2006. I pour over the code looking for angles like a Perry Mason in training. I find one. The code says a final hearing must be no later than six months from the infraction. Read up: June 16 to December 18 is six months PLUS two days.

I go to court. The two officers involved in my citation are there and smiling. I make my motion to dismiss and the hearing officer agrees. Now I smile. I'm glad, because I had nothing else!

Good luck..

[Loach]

Not literally. But if you don't have the support of the system and the police union, you have no real chance of winning an election or appointment.

No elections for judges here. Just who you know. ETA I wasn't making a dig at the Democratic Party in my post. Doesn't matter what they call themselves at a local level. It is one party rule in the area so the Republican Party has no power.

Well, thanks for your input. I wouldn't mind posting the particulars if you think I'd get some good feedback--I'd love to hear your input. I just thought I wasn't supposed to!

Don't see how it would be against the rules. It's been done before. As long as you aren't expecting anyone to act as your lawyer, which you are not. You might be able to find someone who was in a similar situation and find out what their outcome was. Of course allowing for differences in jurisdiction.

[Otto]

In my jurisdiction you will not get your case dismissed if the officer is not there. I was deployed for a year. My cases were not dismissed.
Not to get all constitutional or nothin' but doesn't deferring a trial for a year based on the unavailability of the prosecutor's witness implicate the defendant's right to a speedy trial? I realize that traffic court judges and the like rarely get the chance to weigh in on constitutional law (a muni court judge here got to strike down a sign ordinance and I thought she was going to pee herself she was so excited) but sitting around for a year waiting for the cop to get back into town? Seems unreasonable.

All of which reminds me I have to go dig out the tickets I got for my accident in January. I've been kind of distracted recently.

[NajaNivea]

Don't see how it would be against the rules. It's been done before. As long as you aren't expecting anyone to act as your lawyer, which you are not. You might be able to find someone who was in a similar situation and find out what their outcome was. Of course allowing for differences in jurisdiction.
Well, here's the story.
I was traveling Southbound on a two-lane (one in either direction), two way street, attempting to cross a two-lane, one-way street with traffic moving Eastbound. This particular intersection is right near the university, and here were groups of people just kind of hanging out on both corners of my side of the intersection. I pulled up to the stop sign and stopped. I didn't see any oncoming traffic, but wasn't comfortable with my view of the left lane, nearest to me, because of the pedestrians and several cars parked along the street. I nosed my car out a bit to get a better look, and the other lady hit me. Her front bumper contacted the side of my car about six inches in, smashing the headlight corner from the side. I was only a couple feet forward of the stop line.

She immediately accuses me of totally blowing through the sign and plowing into the intersection without stopping--but she couldn't have seen me stop. I couldn't see her coming when I was stopped, or I wouldn't have moved forward--so how could she have seen me?

She calls for witnesses, and the crowd, mostly homeless folks and panhandlers, scatters. She calls the police, they come out and take statements, and the officer writes me a ticket for "failure to obey a traffic control device".

Now, I understand why he wrote it--I had the stop sign, and was under obligation to yield to her, and I understand that this might make me personally responsible for anything that happens at the intersection and absolves Eastbound traffic of all liability--so if I'm guilty on those grounds, then fine.
The point I want to argue is this: I did obey the traffic control device. I stopped, and was exercising all due diligence in attempting to secure a clear view of oncoming traffic before entering the intersection. She was moving awfully fast with all those pedestrians around for me to not have been able to even catch a glimpse of her before she hit me.
ORS 161.095, "Requirements of culpability" states: "(1) The minimal requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which the person is capable of performing." The court case my attorney advised me to cite is State v. Tippetts.

I didn't voluntarily choose not to yield to her, and I did most certainly voluntarily stop at the stop sign, which neither she or the police officer were present to witness. I did not believe when I crept forward to get a better view, that being hit was a foreseeable consequence to cautious approach.

I'm fine accepting liability in the accident, and like I said--if I'm guilty on the grounds that, no matter what, I had the stop sign and thus the entire onus is on me, then I can't argue against that. All I want to argue is that I did everything I could to prevent the accident from happening in light of the conditions at the intersection, and that I acted appropriately at the stop sign.

[Loach]

Not to get all constitutional or nothin' but doesn't deferring a trial for a year based on the unavailability of the prosecutor's witness implicate the defendant's right to a speedy trial? I realize that traffic court judges and the like rarely get the chance to weigh in on constitutional law (a muni court judge here got to strike down a sign ordinance and I thought she was going to pee herself she was so excited) but sitting around for a year waiting for the cop to get back into town? Seems unreasonable.

Like all tickets, 99% of them were settled with a plea bargain (yes I just made up that number, but it was a lot). But they certainly weren't thrown out because I was not available.

I'm fine accepting liability in the accident, and like I said--if I'm guilty on the grounds that, no matter what, I had the stop sign and thus the entire onus is on me, then I can't argue against that. All I want to argue is that I did everything I could to prevent the accident from happening in light of the conditions at the intersection, and that I acted appropriately at the stop sign.

Good luck with that. Not sure how things are interpreted in your state. Here there are basically two elements to the stop sign statute. 1 Come to a complete stop. 2 yield to traffic on the intersecting street. There was a collision (they are not refered to as accidents any more for a reason), it will be hard to convince a judge that everyone acted appropriately.

[NajaNivea]

it will be hard to convince a judge that everyone acted appropriately.
Okay, am I understanding correctly that the onus is on me to prove my innocence, and absent any witnesses to support me, I'll be assumed guilty?

[phungi]

Okay, am I understanding correctly that the onus is on me to prove my innocence, and absent any witnesses to support me, I'll be assumed guilty?
Hard to say, but look closely at the State driving regulations about stop signs. It seems that you stopped at the "line of the stop sign" and then proceeded with caution towards and across the "line of intersection." It is usually incumbent on a driver to be in control of their vehicle at all times, so you placing yourself in a place that they could hit you is not the same as actively causing an accident.

As for the specific question regarding the onus to prove your innocence, I would ask a lawyer. I don't know how things work in traffic court versus civil arenas, but in my "non-lawyer" opinion, there is (based on my experiences in the Philadelphia area) a range of lee-way in traffic court.

When is the hearing?

[lobotomyboy63]

Well, here's the story.
I was traveling Southbound on a two-lane (one in either direction), two way street, attempting to cross a two-lane, one-way street with traffic moving Eastbound. This particular intersection is right near the university, and here were groups of people just kind of hanging out on both corners of my side of the intersection. I pulled up to the stop sign and stopped. I didn't see any oncoming traffic, but wasn't comfortable with my view of the left lane, nearest to me, because of the pedestrians and several cars parked along the street. I nosed my car out a bit to get a better look, and the other lady hit me. Her front bumper contacted the side of my car about six inches in, smashing the headlight corner from the side. I was only a couple feet forward of the stop line.

She immediately accuses me of totally blowing through the sign and plowing into the intersection without stopping--but she couldn't have seen me stop. I couldn't see her coming when I was stopped, or I wouldn't have moved forward--so how could she have seen me?

She calls for witnesses, and the crowd, mostly homeless folks and panhandlers, scatters. She calls the police, they come out and take statements, and the officer writes me a ticket for "failure to obey a traffic control device".

Now, I understand why he wrote it--I had the stop sign, and was under obligation to yield to her, and I understand that this might make me personally responsible for anything that happens at the intersection and absolves Eastbound traffic of all liability--so if I'm guilty on those grounds, then fine.
The point I want to argue is this: I did obey the traffic control device. I stopped, and was exercising all due diligence in attempting to secure a clear view of oncoming traffic before entering the intersection. She was moving awfully fast with all those pedestrians around for me to not have been able to even catch a glimpse of her before she hit me.
ORS 161.095, "Requirements of culpability" states: "(1) The minimal requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which the person is capable of performing." The court case my attorney advised me to cite is State v. Tippetts.

I didn't voluntarily choose not to yield to her, and I did most certainly voluntarily stop at the stop sign, which neither she or the police officer were present to witness. I did not believe when I crept forward to get a better view, that being hit was a foreseeable consequence to cautious approach.

I'm fine accepting liability in the accident, and like I said--if I'm guilty on the grounds that, no matter what, I had the stop sign and thus the entire onus is on me, then I can't argue against that. All I want to argue is that I did everything I could to prevent the accident from happening in light of the conditions at the intersection, and that I acted appropriately at the stop sign.

I'm not a lawyer or anything, but just reviewing the facts it seems there are potential holes in the theory that you had the stop sign and therefore are automatically at fault.

1) If she was speeding. They must do some sort of calculation to determine whether a stop sign is good enough or whether a four way stop is needed, or a stop light etc.

They know that most cars will take X amount of time to reach the same speed as the cross traffic after starting from a dead stop. Her speeding puts their calculations in the dumpster, which sounds like what happened.

Prove she was speeding (maybe by the amount of damage to your car---did any airbags go off?), because that's a causal factor. She was coming too fast for a normal human to react, and the road signal wasn't designed to protect a driver under *those* circumstances.

2) Obstructed sight. From time to time I end up having to do exactly what you describe, sort of sneaking out because I can't see. Sometimes a business has planted bushes too close to the road (probably a code violation) or large vehicles block your sight.

The pedestrians have scattered but probably everybody knows how the students congregate. You may get some credibility there. Are there any permanent structures, trees, other things you can point to?

Unfortunately, this is probably one of those moments where if you had CSI techs working on your case, you'd prevail...but in this world, you only get justice you can pay for.

[Loach]

Okay, am I understanding correctly that the onus is on me to prove my innocence, and absent any witnesses to support me, I'll be assumed guilty?

No that is never the case, even in traffic court. However, there is some very specific evidence against you that you will have to have an answer for if you wish to prevail. You had the stop sign. You entered the intersection. There was a collision. That is enough for them to prove their case in most instances. You can say that she was going too fast but since you are not trained at speed estimation then that won't go too far. Maybe pictures of the obstructed view?

[NajaNivea]

When is the hearing?
The 28th.

[NajaNivea]

Well, it's done. The officer was there and had called in the other lady to testify against me. She was twenty minutes late but they waited for her, the judge announced that both judges present were personal friends with her, so while I had the option to choose the other judge, it wouldn't change anything.
She testified and got several details about the accident wrong including insisting that I had hit her. I testified and cited the statute. The judge said it was irrelevant and found me guilty but because of my driving record knocked the fine down by half but tacked on a few extra fees that no one seemed able to explain so I ended up paying $175 anyway.
I guess I could have come in prepared with photos of the damage on my car as evidence if I'd known she was going to lie or misremember, but I don't think it would have changed the outcome.
I did actually go to the police department to ask an officer what I should have done in that situation--it's illegal to back up down the street, illegal to enter the intersection to improve my view, and I can't just sit in one spot all day because there are herds of panhandlers around. His suggestion was to roll down the window and honk at the homeless guys.

[Ghanima]

I went to traffic court, pled not guilty on a speeding ticket. The cop went first, and then I explained my angle (I was avoiding an accident). The judge found me guilty of speeding, but then levied the hefty fee of $0. So I got the ticket on my record, but didn't have to pay anything. I wasn't happy at the time, but looking back it could have been worse.