Suppose a person gets a ticket for something unambiguous like not signaling, rolling through a stop sign, etc. LEO writes a ticket and this person decides to fight it. LEO testifies as to what they witnessed. Defendant says no I did not. I see the defendant as being at a HUGE disadvantage (some may be misassumptions) based in some part on fallacies (judges rarely study logic0.
An infraction is not a criminal crime and thus burden of proof is lower.
Cannot prove a negative (unless has a dashcam)
Judges believe LEO is inherently truthful
Consequently the defendant is untruthful
a) a priori he violated the law and is thus dishonest
b) he has a reason to lie, to get out of the ticket
Judges see that particular LEO on a daily basis.
Since judges are pretty free to rule however they want, how much of a chance does a defendant really have if it comes down to no evidence - just the LEO’s word vs the Defendants. Is there any recourse to say the officer didn’t prove their case if the ruling goes against you?
What if you have evidence, the LEO doesn’t and the Judge says fuck it, you’re guilty.
What sort of evidence? The judge is free to find that witness X is credible and witness Y is not, if they disagree. He may not be free to ignore uncontroverted evidence, though.
Blindly accept, no. However, the word of a LEO weighs heavily on the judge’s mind when he rules. LEOs are typically seen as impartial, fair and honest. Defendants are seen as manipulative and not above misrepresenting or omitting facts. If it’s the LEO’s word against the defendants, all things being equal, you’re guilty.
Now, if the LEO is your girlfriend’s father, and he’s threatened to get even with you for knocking up his daughter, and you prove that to the judge, you might walk.
Usually, the LEO has very little reason to lie about routine traffic tickets. It’s not like they have to work too hard to find actual traffic violations, so why bother making one up? On the other hand, the defendant has plenty of motive to lie or obfuscate in order to get out of a fine. That doesn’t mean the LEO is always telling the truth and the defendant isn’t, but it’s why the LEO’s testimony is usually given more weight.
Why do the judges see that particular LEO* on a daily basis? If he’s getting lots and lots of his tickets contested, I imagine that could hurt his credibility.
*Law Enforcement Officer, I assume, CurtC, assuming you were being serious.
To answer the OP, yes, the judge is normally going to take the officer’s word over the citizen. Because the presumption is that the officer is a professional that doesn’t go around handing out tickets willy-nilly.
Traffic court defendants are also put at a disadvantage by the unspoken (but inevitable) question of why they’re wasting everyone’s time fighting a ticket with a piddly little fine. Fairly or not, I definitely have had the feeling that judges’ default assumption is that people who fight tickets are either habitual traffic offenders whose licenses are at risk or just obstinately self-important types who think nothing of wasting the courts’ time fighting what they see as some sort of personal insult.
That’s especially true if you’re in a state where they do actually treat the hearings as real trials, as opposed to the abbreviated hearings. If I were a judge and you got through the omnibus, negotiating with the prosecutor’s office and all that and still got to an actual hearing, you’d better have a really compelling reason why your traffic ticket is different than the other thousands of traffic tickets that get written every year.
What is the burden of proof in a traffic case? I’m pretty sure when I was given a speeding ticket in California I was told that if I took the case to trial, the prosecutor would have to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That seems an impossible burden for the prosecutor in any case that relies on nothing more than police testimony. Though I think I recall Bricker saying in a thread that a jury acting as finder of fact is free within the bounds of their oath and duty to determine that it believes one witness over another, even when it may be reasonable to do otherwise, and then on the basis of that determination, to find that there exists no reasonable doubt about the case. Doesn’t make sense to me, but maybe Bricker or another expert can come in and explain. (Presumably any freedom the jury has would pertain to a judge acting as finder of fact as well.)
This. Case (b) for the OP.
When the testimony conflicts, there’s always the possibility the defendant is lying or stretching things to get off. Presumably, absent a motive like bonus for traffic fines collected or a mandatory quota for tickets, the policeman has no reason to make stuff up.
See, I’ve often heard that if you actually bother to go to traffic court (and have done some homework), you can often get, if not the ticket dismissed, the fine reduced. It depends on the judge and the officer and who knows what else, but if you have the time for it it can be worth it. Maybe the cop can’t come in that day. Maybe you were cited for rear-ending someone and that person can’t be bothered to come in (why should they: no benefit for them. At least the cop’s getting paid to be there). Maybe you have some story saying you did signal and well, the judge might not really believe you, but he’ll knock the fine in half because you showed that you’re taking the process seriously.
I’ve never done that myself. I have read a few websites online about preparing for a traffic court date. I have an uncle who was sometimes a traffic cop, and he would sometimes talk/complain about it. The worst they can do is find you guilty and you have to do whatever was on the ticket anyways (OK, it takes time too, which not everyone has).
That depends on the jurisdiction you’re in. (It has probably changed over time as well.) I know that when I lived in Colorado, you had to show up in court to request anything other than the maximum fine, and would generally be granted a reduced fine in exchange for traffic school and no future violations if you did. In California, it is currently the opposite. If you qualify for traffic school or any similar reduction in fine you can have it applied automatically when you pay the fine, but if you ask to contest it in court, you give up the right to any reduction and guarantee that you’ll either get the maximum or nothing.
In the UK, very few people will challenge a minor motoring ticket because the cost benefit ratio is too low. Typically the ticket will be a £60 or £100 fine if paid promptly, double if not. Got to the magistrates court with a solicitor and you might still lose and have to pay the double fine and also your solicitor’s fees and court costs.
The usual time someone would challenge a ticket is when they stand to lose their licence on the totting up (12 points and you are out) system. Magistrates usually side with the cops unless there is some evidence to the contrary or some technicality like an obscured or missing sign.
The ticket itself may, or may not, be “piddly”, but the concomitant insurance price hike usually isn’t. And if the case depends on a misinterpretation of the law by the LEO, then I have all the rights and reasons I need to fight it.
Lots of cases depend on nothing but testimony. In fact, really every case does- photos, videos and documents almost always need testimony to authenticate them. If I am assaulted there may be photos and medical records describing my injury- but it will be testimony linking those injuries to an assault and testimony that identifies a particular person as my assailant. If the police execute a search warrant and find drugs and guns , testimony is needed about where they were found and about any tests done to determine if that "white powdery substance " was in fact an illegal drug or whether the gun was operable.
The fact finder ( judge or jury) determines the credibility of witnesses. Hereis the relevant portion of instructions for a criminal jury in NY.
