I have to echo what the counselor just above me has said.
God, is it worth it to avoid a speeding ticket to smirch your honor by lying in court? Wouldn’t you be the first to complain loudly and longly if the police officer did that?
By all means use whatever legitimate technical defenses you may have. But don’t prove yourself pond scum by lying.
-Melin
Johnny, ditto on DSYoungESQ and Melin.
Weeks ago when you brought this issue up, I said (IIRC) that it is a legitimate use of the court to force the State to prove their case. In a criminal case (which apparently this is…boy, is TX backward), the State is obligated to at least provide a prima facie case, and you are encouraged to attempt to poke holes in their evidence.
I’ve appeared in court many times and have never took offense at the defense making me prove my case, including having all my ducks in a row (RADAR logs, etc.). But I would never counsel someone to perjure themselves.
“Paratroopers are good to the last drop”
Who said anything about perjury? I’m not going to take the stand, so I’m not going to be sworn, so how would I committ perjury?
I will try and avoid saying anything that admits to guilt and I will also do my best not to say “I wasn’t speeding.” But isn’t that implicit in the not-guilty plea anyway?
When you say something like that, after telling us that you were guilty – and YOU are the one who put it in quotation marks – you make it sound like that was your plan to say it in court.
No, “innocence” is not necessarily presumed in “not guilty.” There are lots of reasons why you might be “not guilty” legally, yet factually not innocent. The British system, IIRC, allows for the jury to come back with “not proven” or “innocent” verdicts; in the American system all you get is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Rarely – very rarely – a defendant who has been found “not guilty” can get a declaration by the judge that s/he is “innocent.”
-Melin
Siamese attack puppet – California
Still neglecting and overprotecting my children
A valid point, Johnny, but you will probably be placed under oath. I haven’t been to a TX trial, but in FL in traffic court they do a mass-swearing in. You said you attended some of the traffic trials in Houston, so you probably had the opportunity to notice whether they were or were not sworn. “Taking the stand”, physically, is irrelevent.
Even if you aren’t specifically sworn in, there may be provisions in the perjury statutes that cover statements made before a judge or in a certain proceeding…don’t know for sure.
From a practical standpoint, it would be extremely unlikely the State would try to bring a perjury case, and even then it would be pretty much impossible for them to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
But I think what Melin and DS and others are saying is: actual consequences aside, lying in court is not the right thing to do.
I said in an earlier post that you shouldn’t be required to be a witness against yourself; that doesn’t mean the judge won’t flat-out ask you: “were you speeding?”
“Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.” - Homer
In your topic, you forgot “executioner”. 
The word is no. I am therefore going anyway.
Could I get some clarification about lying in court, please? Sometimes folks will plea guilty to a lessor offense while facing a serious charge, even if they know they are innocent.
Is this perjury? Is this being “pond scum”?
Pleading guilty or not guilty, despite factual innocence, is different from making an untrue factual statement. As I tried to explain in my previous post, “not guilty” doesn’t necessarily mean “I’m innocent.” Stating “I was not speeding” when you know you were doing 51 in a 35 mile an hour zone is a lie. If it is a lie made while under oath, it is perjury. Saying “I am not guilty of speeding” means that the state hasn’t proven its case against you, at least in a legal sense. Certainly if it were used in casual conversation it might lead to the conclusion that the speaker was not only not guilty, he was innocent.
Look at O.J., for heaven’s sake. He’s “not guilty” of murder, but does anybody really think he’s “innocent”?
Pleading guilty to a lesser offense is an interesting question as you’ve phrased it. Of course, one is not usually under oath when making that plea, so that would obviate perjury concerns. It usually simply reflects the realities that the state probably could prove its case, even though you know you are factually innocent. THAT opens up a whole lot of other issues which we often toss around in Great Debates.
-Melin
Now you’ve really got me confused, Melin.
Suppose I’m standing in court in 60 days, and the judge asks me, “Johnnyharvard, were you speeding that night?”. So I answer, “Your Honor, I am not guilty of speeding.”
Seems to me that if I give any other answer than a flat “no” the jury will be prejudiced into thinking that I am indeed guilty and wasting their time while trying to get off through smoke and mirrors. Of course, that’s the truth, but that shouldn’t affect my right to a fair trial. Not being a lawyer, I might not know for sure, but I would think that the judge can’t do this (even in Texas). Seems mighty unfair on the part of the judge.
I can’t remember for sure, but I don’t think Johnny Cochran dodged such a question in court during the OJ trial. I mean, lawyers always get up in court and say “my client is innocent.” Is that not perjury? Does it really make a difference if I’m acting as my own attorney? I can’t say a non-truth, but my lawyer can? 
I only thought that the things I say in court can only be used against me if I actually testify, and I have a constitutional right to not have to do that.
Would the judge’s asking of this question be grounds for appeal? In that case, I will certainly make sure we have a court reporter on hand…
Clarifying further:
johnny doesn’t have to be sworn if he doesn’t want to testify. Indeed, the 5th Amendment (as applied to states through the 14th Amendment) makes it impossible for the state to force him to testify. All he has to do is sit back, cross-examine the poor officer, offer any evidence that doesn’t require his testimony (gotta be careful about that, 'cause a lot of documents can require verbal testimony to lay a ‘foundation’ for getting them admitted into evidence), and sit back and wait to see if he has raised ‘reasonable doubt’.
Thanks, DS. Now I’m worried about evidence as testimony, but at least I feel I can deal with that.
I can see that if I walk up and say, here is a picture of the road, and there is no proof in the photograph (like a street sign) that the road is indeed the stretch of road I claim it to be, then I have to testify that the evidence is indeed what I claim it to be. To do that, I have to be sworn in and then I could perjure myself if I’m not careful. Hmmm… But if I enter the HPD’s Rules of traffic enforcement as evidence, I don’t need to testify because in that case the evidence speaks for itself.
I can afford that risk, I think. But if I enter testimony like that, am I then obliged to be cross-examined by the prosecution? Could they then feasibly ask me about anything and not just about the evidence or would they be limited only to questions about the evidence?
Geez, I am learning a lot today… Thanks. 
DS, if he “elects to testify”, then isn’t he opening himself up to any questions the prosecution wants to ask?
IOW, if he chooses not to testify in his defense, the prosecution can’t call him; but if he does testify in his defense, is he not only liable for cross, but any new material the prosecution wants to bring up?
The arraignment went like hell tonight. I have come to the conclusion that no one - that is, no one without the benefit of counsel - apparently ever decides to ask for access to the prosecution’s evidence.
So the judge asked me the big question, and I went with the jury. While I was standing up there I asked him what to do with my discovery motion. “Give it to the clerks.” Ok…
So the clerk calls my name. I have been assigned a trial date on March 10. Just three weeks from now. Ok, I ask, so can I file my motion? She doesn’t seem to understand so I show it to her. Actual words “Oh… You’re trying to play real court, ain’t ya?”. Well, she doesn’t do that. I need to go downstairs and talk to the public relations officer (who also happens to be the cashier :confused :).
The public relations officer has no clue. He’s sympathetic to my request, but I don’t think he understands the process - “Oh. This is all stuff that the police will have to provide. You know that this is just municipal court, right? You’ll have to go to the police for this.” I eventually get sent back to the judge at the arraignment.
After I finally get permission to approach the bench, he angrily says “I already told you what to do!” I explain the circumstances and he turns his wrath on the clerk who responds that she has no experience with anyone doing something like this.
Eventually, she talks to someone in the Prosecutor’s office who tells her that I either need to show up in my trial court in person during normal business hours or send a certified letter to the clerk of that court.
I know that this is the right answer, but it irks me a little bit that NO ONE seemed to know. What bothers me even more is that 50% of all of the people who go to those arraignments plead not guilty and get a trial. Does no one ever ask to see the Prosecutor’s evidence? No wonder I have never seen anyone get acquitted in one of the many trials I’ve observed… This is the fourth largest city in the U.S. and no one ever asks to for evidence? Jeez. The money racket moves onward.
And speaking of observing trials, I saw a doozy tonight. A guy got a ticket for traveling 49 in a residential neighborhood. His defense was that the speed limit was inadequately posted and the road had just changed from a commercial area to a residential area. He thought the speed limit was 40. He had pictures of the area and was really well prepared. But he still lost.
He was never sworn in and he never took the stand. The prosecutor stated his case, and then this guy started examining the officer. He finished and the judge indicated that it was the prosecution’s turn to rebut the officer’s testimony. Instead, the prosecutor stood up and started yelling questions at the defendent. “Did you expect to see a speed limit of 49? What did you think the speed limit was? What is the speed limit in an unmarked residential neighborhood?” The defendent grits his teeth and says “30.”
“So even if you were going 40, as you claim, then you would have been speeding. Correct?”
-flinches- “Yes”
“No more questions.”
So then the judge found him guilty and that was that. What pisses me off though, is that the defendent was not being examined and the prosecutor still went after him and then used his statements to make his case to the judge. And then the judge just went along with it.Of course, it didn’t help him when he (inadvertently) admitted that the radar gun was more accurate than his speedometer.
He didn’t have to answer those questions, but he did… 
What a wild wacky trip this is becoming.
True “saga of my speeding ticket” afficionados can pursue their next installment in MPSIMS. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill…
Just for nit-pick’s sake… I suspect the prosecutor was being invited to commence a re-direct examination of the officer.
Well, the judge shouldn’t have allowed it, but the defendant didn’t object. He should have refrained from answering the questions, and instead politely asked the judge, “Is the prosecutor now calling me as his next witness, Your Honor?”
Correct.
Regarding the question on the photographs Johnnyharvard wants to take, if he gets a friend who was not present at the time of the ticket to take the pictures, then Johnnyharvard won’t have to testify as to where the photos were taken. Instead of introducing the photos into evidence immediately, he instead shows them to the officer, and asks what the pictures are of, when the officer says that they appear to be of the ticket location (hopefully), Johnnyharvard now has testimony, courtesy of the arresting officer, of the legitimacy of the location of the photos, and can admit them into evidence at that time, right? And johnny has not testified, correct? As a fall back, if the officer pulls the “I can’t recall,” or “I don’t know,” he has the friend who took the photos there to testify where the friend took them. He simply gets a VERY detailed physical description of the ticket location while the officer is on the stand, (1/4 mile past X St…) and then gets the friend to testify that is where the picture was taken. Does that work, legal folk?
As to the perjury question: I believe a lawyer can be disbarred if they introduce testimony or evidence that they know to be false. So if the client admits to the crime, the lawyer will have a very difficult time admitting evidence or testimony that defends the client, as none of it can contrict the protected confession. I think. I don’t really know anything, I just watch a lot of David E. Kelley shows.
Habit rules the unreflecting herd. - Wordsworth
Maybe this was covered in the original post, but I’m curious as to why johnny didn’t just go for taking a Defensive Driving course, which would throw out the ticket, AND give him a 10% insurance discount for three years?
(Of course, this only works if one hasn’t had a speeding ticket for a year. If you’ve had more than one in a year, can they possibly bring your driving record to the court?)
A ship in the harbor is safe, but that isn’t what a ship is built for.
This used to be the case, but I think the law was changed within the last few years: you can take Defensive Driving to dismiss the ticket OR get the insurance discount, but not both. If that’s wrong, please post.
I was once young and naive as you are, johnny. As we have not heard the results here yet, I’ll predict that you got reamed. The officer will recall profuse detail of the incident (all made up, but who’s to know?) The prosecuter will twist every word you try to utter. Everyone there will resent their time and effort being wasted by this whiny pain-in-the-ass kid who thinks the world should stop because he got a widdle ticket. The jury will be disappointed they can’t impose prison time, only find you guilty (which will be done before they even sit down in the jury room). You will then learn to never go to any kind of court without legal counsel, ever, for anything. Then, learn about choosing your battles and what is worth expending this kind of energy on.
“Did you ever wake up,
Bullfrogs on your mind?”
You’re right that when the prosecutor asked the Defendant about the speed he was going and he admitted that he was going above the speed limit, it was not proper testimony. However, because it was a admission of a party to the action it could be used against the defendant anyway.
In general, a statement of a witness must be sworn and given at trial. If it isn’t it is hearsay and not admissable unless an exception applies. One of the exceptions is an admission of a party to the action. If a party to litigation (in this case, the Defednant) makes a statement in which he admits to what is alleged against him, his opponent (in this case the prosecution) can introduce sworn the testimony of someone who heard the party make the admission. (In other words, anything you say actually can be used against you in a court of law, because of this hearsay exception.)
Now if this were something more formal than traffic court, the judge might not simply find the Defendant guilty, but rather might put the police officer or some other witness on the stand to repeat in sworn testimony what everyone just heard. In traffic court, it seems that they just dispensed with this bit of unnecessary formality.
In other words, anything you say that may be an admission of guilt or liability can be used against you. But, because of your Fifth Amendment rights, you don’t have to provide any testimony or admissions. When you are acting as your own lawyer you should be careful about not making any damaging statements.
Rick suggested:
I would make a similar point, but do it slightly differently, because if the prosecutor answers Rick’s question “yes,” you will have to then point out that you can delcine to testify under the Fifth Amendment, and perhaps look to the jury like you are hiding something.
I would say: “I’m sure that the prosecutor knows that I am not required to testify here, but rather the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.” That should remind everyone that this is a criminal case, that the Defendant does not have to testify, that the prosecution has to prove its case, and that the proof must be beyone a reasonable doubt. It will also make the prosecutor look a little overreaching.
Good Luck.