judge or jury?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

In the everlasting saga of my speeding ticket, I am being arraigned tomorrow night on the charges of traveling 51 in a 35. I have seen recommendations either way, and I think both sides have good arguments, so I’m going to throw the question to the dopers:

For my trial, do I ask for the jury or the judge?

Judge: Should I make my case, I suspect that the judge, in his/her legal training and judicial experience would be better able to appreciate my arguments. At the same time, the judge is a part of “the system” and might not be impartial.

Jury: The jury is not part of “the system” and, unlike the police, prosecutor, and sometimes, the judge, doesn’t have any interest in whether or not the city gets my money. However, I would also suspect that it’s a crapshoot with juries in municipal court and I could end up with a random group of folks who would neither appreciate my argument nor be sympathetic to a dirty lawbreaker such as myself.

Dopers, please enlighten me!

2

Here’s something I dredged up from some long-unused memory neurons:

The innocent love one; the guilty, a dozen. (Referring to a judge as opposed to a jury)

I don’t remember who said it nor when it was said.

I’m glad I could be of such immense assistance.

3

The Judge works with the prosecutor and the police week in and week out. He or she will continue to deal with those folks long after your case is over. You can bet that in any factual dispute where it is your word against a police officer’s, and the judge is making the call, you are going to lose.

4

Where are you entitled to a jury on a speeding ticket??

-Melin

5

I would be amazed to find a jurisdiction that allows you a jury on a speeding ticket. Unless there’s a more serious charge, and if a fine is the only possibility, you generally are entitled only to a bench trial. Now, it may be that there are jurisdictions where this is not so. But I don’t know of any…

  • Rick
6

If you really do have a choice avoid any judge with a nickname like “Hangin’ John”

7

I’m in Houston, Texas.

In Texas, traffic violations are still considered criminal offenses. They haven’t been modified yet as in other states, so offenders in traffic court still have the right to a trial by jury. After “How do you plead?” that’s gonna be the second question that I get asked tomorrow night - “Judge or jury?”

8

I’m in Ohio. I do not routinely practice traffic law, but I helped out a friend with a speeding ticket in municipal court in late '99, and we had the right to ask for a jury trial. The catch, however (as the judge, to her credit, very painstakingly explained to everyone in the room who did not have a lawyer), was that a defendant who opted for a jury and lost would have to pay vastly increased court costs, to the tune of several hundred dollars. So, JH, I don’t know how Texas works, but I would check into whether this kind of procedure applies to you before making any big decisions.

9

I used to live in Bellaire TX, a small town in the Houston area.

Tuesday is jury day for traffic offenses. The jury is six people.

The prosecutor has plenty of experience at trials and always comes out sounding better than the guy with the ticket.

You need facts and/or witnesses to back up your story. Don’t look for sympathy from the jury. They are stuck in court because of you. If you did something wrong, you will pay.

In Bellaire, the jury sets the fine. We have no idea what the standard fine is. You get lawyers serving on the jury who like to “practice” on the other jurors by getting them to convict and give a big fine.

I would go with the judge.

10

If you’re innocent, johnnyharvard, I would be inclined to go with a judge. In my experience with Indiana judges, they generally ignore most BS and try to rule according to the law. However, spoke is right, they naturally tend to favor the prosecution and police officers. Still, I have seen and heard of cases where judges severely rebuked prosecutors for sham cases. If you are truly innocent and can prove it, I think most judges will let you walk.

If you’re guilty, get a jury. Twelve suckers off the street are much easier to hoodwink than an experienced trial judge who has probably heard every excuse under the sun. Bear in mind ScottyMo’s caveat, tho’.

Only you know whether you are guilty or innocent. (I am not criticizing you, either; with my own driving record I cannot afford to throw stones at others).

Best of luck.

11

I’m guilty, but there’s no way that the cop could have clocked my speed in accordance with the many rules he has to follow. In preparing for this, I’ve obtained my own copies of these rules from the state and local police and compared them to the facts of my case and I’ve come to the conclusion that many of the citations issued today could be reversed if people just understood the rules better and stood up to the cops.

To wit:
[ul][li]The cop was on a stretch of road between a curve (obsured by trees) and a bridge. He was a maximum of 400 feet away when he saw me. If I were traveling 51mph, he wouldn’t have had enough time to properly operate the gun and pick me out of traffic (do the math - 5.34 seconds MAX). He was probably even closer than that, IIRC. I need to ask him and find out ;)[/li][li]This also occurred on a freeway access road with freeway traffic in the background.[/li][li]This occurred at night. The cop’s car was facing backwards and aiming into an oncoming group of headlights. I doubt he was turned around in the front seat and aiming the gun through the window, so he was probably sitting in the front seat operating the rear antenna by looking through the rear view or side mirror. Seems a little inaccurate given the circumstances.[/li][li]And to top it all off, his car was illegally parked. The state police have a rule that officers must be legally parked when operating a RADAR gun. Now, this was a city cop, but it still begs the question as to why the city would allow its officers to do something that the state police can’t even do.[/ul][/li]
All I’m trying to do here is establish reasonable doubt that the state’s evidence proves I was going 51. This is why I’m worried about whether a jury would appreciate my arguments or whether the judge would just ignore the facts and side with his/her pals on the prosecution.

Hope this helps… I’m leaning towards the judge myself.

12

Don’t forget to tell us how you fare.
The police officer is going to say why he thinks you were speeding. You’re going to say that if he were a state police officer he would have had to do something different and that a certified peace officer was illegally parked. Arguments like these are better flown past a jury. Maybe you could convince a judge that the officer would have had a tough time determining your speed while facing the other way.
Your better bet is to get one of those traffic ticket lawyers and hope like the blazes that Houston gives out deals.

13

It’s been my experience that the judge will find for the prosecution, regardless. One of the questions he’ll usually ask is, “Are you trying to tell us that the officer was lying?” How can you possibly answer that one?

With a jury, though, you can introduce reasonable doubt. Also, if a jury finds you guilty, it gets to set the fine. That fine can be raised or lowered, depending upon the case you present. Furthermore, it can lower the charge – if you say convincingly, for example, that when you spotted the cop, your speedometer read 41, the jury can lower the charge to 41 in a 35 zone. Or, they can completely dismiss the charge as false.

However, if a jury thinks that you’re wasting their time, they’ll find you guilty regardless. It’s best to at least act like the wronged party.

If you choose a jury, make sure that you poll them first. Ask if any potential juror currently works (or formerly worked) for law enforcement. Also ask if any of them think that the police are always right. It might help to ask if any of them think that radar is infallible. You can ask for a show of hands: take notes on who answers what. It might help to write down your questions first. You’ll be allowed to present a list to the judge of who you’d like to serve, and who you’d prefer to strike. So will the prosecutor: the judge will then select a jury from both lists.

When you go before a jury, expect the prosecution to object to some of the issues you raise. Be prepared to counter the objections with the argument that this pertains to the case, and say why. When you take the stand, be very careful during the cross-examination. Remember, the prosecutor isn’t sworn to oath, and will lie about what you said to further his case. Also, pay attention to the instructions to the jury about setting a fine: if they’re worded as a presumption of guilt, object on those grounds.

And yes, it’s probably best to have a lawyer experienced with traffic court on your side. You alone might get swamped against the forces of government, but a lawyer will know many of the tricks that you otherwise wouldn’t think of.

14

Hmmm. That’s not really a proper question. It’s not for one witness to comment on the credibility of another one; that determination is for the finder of fact to make.

It is permissible to explore a witness’ possible bias, so a question that asks the above in the context of “Does the officer have any reason to lie?” might be OK. Even then, it’s on shaky grounds, unless it’s rebutting the defense’s allegation that the officer lied, as opposed to simply being mistaken (picking the wrong car from the pack, using an improperly configured setup, etc).

  • Rick
15

Rick, I meant that the judge asks that question, not the prosecutor. Sorry for the confusion.

And it’s not always in that exact form, either. “Are you accusing the officer of lying?”, for instance. Or, “Do you think the officer would lie?” I agree that it’s inappropriate, but when a judge asks that question, you know you don’t stand a chance in his court.

16

Even worse for the judge to ask, “Do you think the officer would lie?” He should know that (a) your thoughts about the officer are not relevant to the issue of your speeding charge, and (b) even if they were, it’s HIS job to decide who, if anyone, is lying.

But you’re right – if the judge is asking it anyway, it doesn’t bode well.

If the facts at all support this statement, a good response might be, “Your Honor, I don’t think the officer is lying. But I am sure he is mistaken.”

  • Rick
17

Good point. This also makes me wonder if calling for a mistrial might be justified. By asking such a question, the judge is no longer being impartial, but is instead taking the prosecutor’s side.

Come to think of it, I’ve only heard judges in Texas ask this question. But since johnnyharvard is in Texas, he should be made aware of it.

18

Thanks for the help guys, it’s anecdotes like yours that have made me leery of asking for the judge. I guess my only fear of taking the jury is that I wouldn’t be able to have any say in their qualifications - whereas I know that the judge at least has gone to college and is familiar with the rules of logic and debate. I didn’t know I could parse the jury in traffic court. If that’s the case, then I’m going with the jury.

I’ve gone and watched a few trials lately, I have yet to see a jury trial and in every one the judge has sided with the prosecution. However, I have yet to see anyone present a prepared case - out of the 7 trials I’ve seen, only one defedent had bothered to take pictures of the roadway and then she didn’t even ask enough questions, IMHO, to try and even get the cop to trip up. In all the other cases it was defendent’s word vs cop’s word. Some of these cases were so bad that the judge even laughed a copule of times before giving his verdict.

BTW, as I’ve stated earlier. I am guilty, but I obviously am not going to admit that in court - sorry fot the confusion. I’m certainly not going to stand up and say “Yes, I was speeding, but I want off on a technicality…”.

No, in court I am going to act righteous as I can:

“I am a law abiding citizen. I was not speeding that night. Do I think the officer is lying? No, of course not. I think he made a mistake and did not properly measure my speed because he did not properly follow these departmental procedures in place to ensure the accurate measurement of speed.”

19

Oh yeah - I forgot to ask -

An acquaintance of mine last week - a corporate lawyer - was telling me that he has seen defendents in traffic court get railroaded by the judge because all of their pictures, exhibits, measurements didn’t conform to the rules of evidence. Seems that some prosecutors don’t like for defendents to show up with evidence of their innocence and summarily have it thrown out because it wasn’t prepared by a third party.

Do you guys know anything about this? At some point today I’m going to look these rules up and see what exactly they say, but as always, any help is appreciated.

20

eeeek.

johhny, you know I feel you ought to simply own up and pay, but certainly you are entitled to a trial, and maybe there was reasonable doubt.

But for God’s sake, don’t lie at the trial. Perjury is silly and unnecessary. You don’t have to say whether you were going 35, 51, or 10. You just have to get the officer to show that his reading might have been a mistake. :slight_smile: