This question just came to mind in light of a recent traffic ticket. Isn’t a judge supposed to be impartial? Isn’t a judge OBLIGATED to judge a case on its merits? If so, then how come a judge can review your driving record? Wouldn’t that clearly bias his/her opinion vs. listening to the facts of the case? Also, does it not sway the judge on your penalty? (A judge can up the penalty in some states, ya know.) Isn’t that double-jeopardy? Traffic court is a criminal court, after all.
Also, can I (the average non-legal eagle) citizen request the judge to judge the case on its merits when s/he asks me about my record? Or, will the judge think I am being a smart ass? (Ultimately, is this a reasonable request?)
Mods: I’m seeking just the facts here which will vary from State to State.
When a judge sits as a finder of fact, he is presumed to understand the distinction between admissible and inadmissible evidence, and consider only that evidence relevant to the offense.
Now, in the general criminal context, prior bad acts are not admissible to prove that the accused acted in conformity therewith. But they are admissble for other reasons, such as to show a common plan, motive, scheme, or absence of mistake.
Judges have the discretion in sentencing to consider a wide range of factors that are not relevant to the question of guilt, and prior bad acts are absolutely relevant to sentencing.
No, it’s not double jeopardy.
You can ask anything. But since the presumption exists that the judge will consider only that evidence relevant to the offense, you have no real grounds to demand it. Nor is it a wise idea.
Traffic court is not a criminal court. If it was it wouldn’t be traffic court, it would be criminal court. When it comes to the penalty phase, depending on the charge, the judge may be obligated to review your driving record. Some penalties may have mandatory minimums for repeat offenders. Even if the judge isn’t obligated in a particular case to take into account repeat violators, why shouldn’t he? I mean specifically in the penalty phase. Prior bad acts should not be part of the trial phase.
In my State, there is NO such thing as traffic court. It IS a criminal court, and traffic offenses are misdemeanors. The first time I appeared in (what I thought was) traffic court, there was a man in handcuffs appearing just to state his plea, as I recall, for hunting in a State park without the proper credentials. IIRC, he also fled from authorities and/or, resisted arrest.
Of course, that raises the question…if criminal, where’s the jury? :dubious: So, what kind of court would it be, if not traffic court? - Jinx
Bricker, I see what you’re saying. Technically, considering one’s record is not double-jeopardy because one is not being tried for THE same crime twice. Yet, that doesn’t mean it won’t come back to haunt you, right? And, as for the merits of case, who’s really gonna tell the judge what is within the metes and bounds of a traffic case, right? Unless said judge goes way out of line…like bringing your elementary school attendance record into the case, as well, right?
*The following does not mean you are wrong. It is different in every state. But the example you give does not make you right either.
Just because there was a guy in handcuffs does not mean that it is a criminal court. People appear in handcuffs at traffic court all the time. Usually because they have failed to appear on a previous subpeona for traffic court and are being cited for contempt as well. Maybe they are being held in jail for multiple reasons and have to appear in the local court to answer one particular charge. Sometimes local judges get to set bail on serious charges that will be heard at a higher court (In practice our local judge can approve warrants for serious crimes but makes it no bail, the suspect has to stay in jail until he sees a Superior Court judge). Also local courts may be allowed or required to hear misdemeanor cases as well as traffic. Doesn’t make the traffic portion a criminal court. In New Jersey it is very clear. Even the terms are not hidden in legalese. There are crimes (either first, second, third or fourth degree). These are handled by Superior Court (county). Then there are disorderly persons offenses. That is what many states would call misdemeanors. These are handled at municipal court. Then there are traffic violations which are also handled at municipal court. If you speed you are not commiting a crime, you are violating a statute. In New Jersey there is no right to a jury trial for traffic offenses or disorderly persons offenses. That is not the case in all states.
Again only speaking from a NJ perspective. There is an appeal procedure in place. Unfortunately most who try to appeal a decision in traffic court do so because they don’t agree with the judge. Doesn’t work that way. When the appeal goes through the Superior Court judge that hears the case will not make an opinion as to guilt. But the judge can throw out a case if the original judge acted inappropriately. If you think that you were found guilty of speeding solely due to the fact that you have a record of speeding offenses in the past you might have a valid appeal. Of course it would have had to of come out in the original trial. The appeal is made using transcripts of the original trail. What was in the judge’s head will not be on the transcript, only what he said.
Well, I think you may not realize that if you were to be convicted of a crime, your criminal record would certainly be relevant during sentencing.
Depending on the judge and circumstances of your case, your criminal record might be the biggest factor in your sentence, in fact. First-time offender? Good, fill this out, you’re on probation. Uber-recidivist? Put these on, you’re in prison.
As I’ve pointed out in the “Whaddaya mean, civil law?” thread, traffic court is a criminal court in the sense of distinguishing between criminal and civil cases. That is, cases before it are of the form “People/State vs. Offender” rather than “Brown vs. Green”, and there are a few technical points associated with this. However, of course, 99% of cases before a traffic court are minor “summary” offenses punishable, at most, by a fine and/or revocation of a license. In many (most?) states, though, the traffic law also includes misdemeanors (and rarely felonies) like DUI and reckless driving, which can involve jail time, and may even rise to the level of warranting jury trial and the whole “reasonable doubt”/“Miranda rights” shebang of proper criminal procedure.
Normally this is a fairly petty point, but from time to time there do exist circumstances where it becomes significant. (And again, it’s subject to the state’s legal procedures – for all I know, there may exist states where cases are of the form “Traffic Cop vs. Speeder” and it’s adjudicated under civil law. Never heard of one, though.)
But the fact that you don’t get a jury trial doesn’t mean it isn’t a criminal proceeding. Something can be criminal without entitling you to jury trials. Indeed, in Ohio, the fact that traffic code violations are criminal in nature is why jurisdictions which wish to use cameras to issue tickets for speeding and red-light running must draft civil fine statutes for these offenses (when caught on camera), since, of course, there is no ability to confront your accuser, as we require for a criminal proceeding.
Which is not to say that some states haven’t decriminalized their traffic code. But I do not believe that is the norm.
I want to point out that State laws vary greatly and widely on how “criminal” most traffic offenses are. In CA, they are mostly called “Infractions” and rate with Code Enforcement violations and such. (Not counting DUI, etc)
