For the OP this is a very simple matter. Something I dealt with often. You witnessed an accident. A ticket was issued. Since you were named in the report you were subpoenaed. It’s a minor matter. No one will contact you beforehand. If you show up the prosecutor will briefly ask you what you saw before they try to make a deal with the defendant. The chances of you actually having to testify are slim but it’s possible. You will be dismissed as soon as a plea deal is reached.
In my court there has never even been a hint of sanctions against witnesses that don’t show up. It’s just not economical. At worst the guilty party gets off. Presumably your testimony isn’t the only reason for the ticket since most accidents don’t have named witnesses beyond the drivers.
If you were needed for a deposition for a civil case you would be notified differently and your subpoena would be from a law firm.
Sure, it’s something you dealt with often but for others, it’s not something most have a clue about. Hence the advice to contact an attorney is not unreasonable.
When the deponent said “What do you mean when you say ‘photocopying machine?’”, the attorney should have tried “What do you mean when you say ‘photocopying machine?’ Let’s see if they match up.”
That’s a good point. I was robbed at an ATM last year. A couple of months ago, I was asked to testify to a grand jury about it (they had made an arrest). At the end I asked the DA (probably a deputy DA) if they’d pay for my parking, and he sent me to the window for victims and witnesses, where they gave me a voucher for the parking garage.
I have been an expert witness in video forensics for almost 20 years now. Most of the work I do is in relation to civil cases involving vehicle accidents.
I am VERY, VERY rarely called to testify in court. Attorneys basically just want to use the threat of my testimony and research to achieve a more favorable settlement. I am deposed more frequently, but still a lot less often than one might think.
If opposing counsel wants to depose me, they will usually reach out to identify possible dates for a deposition through my client (the attorney with whom I’m working). Once we’ve settled on a date and I’ve received the subpoena, my client usually stops discussing the case with me. I can truthfully tell opposing counsel that I have not been prepared or briefed for the deposition since I was served.
One down-side of depositions is that my state limits the amount I can charge for a day of being deposed. It is much less than I would bill based on my hourly rate.
I actually kind of enjoy being deposed, as I’ve learned quite a bit about the process, what to expect, and how to handle it.
Maybe, maybe not. Quite possibly all they really needed was to be able to tell whatever judge/magistrate/alderman/dog-catcher “Your honor, we subpoenaed this witness, but they did not appear. We are however ready to proceed regardless.” Because the alternative, “Your honor, that witness isn’t here because we didn’t even bother asking them to show up” could lead to negative inferences or other sanctions depending on the details of the case and what the witness was supposed to be able to testify to.
In general, whether an attorney contacts a witness beforehand is going to have a lot to do with how important that case is to the attorney (which often boils down to how much they’re being paid), especially in what are to them minor cases. One of the fun things about being a student attorney at a legal aid clinic was that all our cases were super-important to us, but to opposing counsel they tended to be more of the “change the name on the form, show up to the hearing, say the same thing and ask the same questions as last time, only with the names changed” variety.
So of course they didn’t speak to witnesses beforehand. And if they were representing an individual (non-corporate) client, I doubt they spoke to their own client much at all outside of their initial meeting to take the case, and then whatever hearing itself. Because law students have hours and hours—days and weeks, even—to prepare for something like an eviction case or a personal protective order, but attorneys in practice who need to actually make a living off such cases? Yeah, not so much.
I just spent the last seven days waiting for a call to testify after being subpoenaed. I called the issuing attorneys, they said just to wait for them to call if they needed me. but they never did and the time scheduled for the case is over. So, yay, I guess. I work across the street from where I’d have to appear for testimony. So it would never have been that big an inconvenience. But I still had to spend two previously-scheduled vacation days with that potential phone call on my mind.
That only happens on tv. In cases with important consequences based on testimony, attempts are made to serve/contact/compel witnesses and OP’s letter isn’t temotely close to meeting that standard.
It happens all the time in real life. As you say in more important cases there is a lot more done to ensure witnesses are there. At the municipal level a letter gets sent out and they show up or don’t. I last worked in a courtroom (checks calendar) yesterday and I can assure you the prosecutor is often telling the judge the witness didn’t show. The case in the OP was at the municipal level with low consequences.
In my opinion, if the subpoena comes as a regular letter in the mail, then it’s probably safe to ignore. There’s no proof you received it. If the court really wants you there, they will subpoena you in a way that they know you received it.
This was FQ when I started it, but I did get pretty factual information out of the thread. It’s fine with me if the thread gets moved. Or just fades away. And in my personal situation the court releasing me makes it moot now.
Yesterday an insurance company called me and interviewed me at some length about the accident, with various conditions like agreeing to be recorded. I went along with everything and answered everything.
It seems as though there’s something important about car insurance that I don’t know. The guy who caused the accident had no insurance. The lady he hit did have insurance. However, the insurance company that called me was not her insurance company and was not involved with any of this at the time of the accident. The lady mentioned, after we were dismissed, that the same uninvolved insurance company had called her and interviewed her at some length. I believe there’s no dispute about when the accident occurred and that it occurred before this insurance company became involved.
It seems to me (and the lady) as if this insurance company is going to pay out for an accident that occurred before the guy became their customer. I didn’t think insurance companies would do that. It would actually kind of defeat the basic agreement behind insurance, that it manages risk about possible unknown events in the future, not known events in the past.
Does the state you’re in have a system for uninsured drivers? Where the state steps in to provide compensation to the innocent party, and then goes after the uninsured driver to cover the amount paid out?
If so, the insurance company may have a contract with the state to provide the coverage?
Just spitballing. I’m not familiar with driver insurance in the States, but I know Canadian provinces cover uninsured drivers. The mechanism to do so can vary.
That’s a really good guess. I had been aware of “assigned risk” customers, who have bad records such that no insurance company would want them, and the state requiring companies to take on some number of them. Not what this case is about, but an example of companies doing something that otherwise wouldn’t make sense.
If I were you, I would nope out of any further involvement in this situation. You met your legal obligation per the subpoena, you’re under no obligation to speak with this insurance company. You have no idea what their interest is in this.