Testifying Against Yourself In Traffic Court

In My Humble Opinion
21

We should all try to do what is right instead of what is convenient. This is a good opportunity for your friend to show some morals. If the headlight was out, testify to that. If its partially his fault because of it and he’s only getting out of being punished because of some error by the cops, correct it. People are so quick to dismiss that the headlight couldn’t have been a cause but I’d rather have the court decide it rather than someone with a self-interest not to do so

To put it simply, your friend has information that might exonerate someone in an accident and if he wants to be a good and decent person he’ll do the right thing and help her out. If it turns out its his fault she couldn’t see him, then he should rightly accept the blame for it

22

Hi, sorry, need to introduce myself to the forum first but really cannot help but comment on this…
Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood but your relative had one headlight out, meaning they had one working? Not sure where you’re from but I assume they have motorbikes/mopeds on the roads, which have 1 front light? I think the everyone ought to be thankful your relative was driving a car which was able to be smashed in, rather than just a rider in leathers and a helmet… Perhaps a decent lawyer might point this out to him.

23

This is a bizarre claim. If the person had been riding a motorcycle, they would’ve noticed the missing headlight earlier and probably have not even been driving. It’s like being thankful they didn’t have an eggshell skull.

24

Bottom line, there is no benefit to the OP’s relative in testifying, and possibly some detriment. If he is not served with a subpoena, he should not appear or testify. If he is served, he should appear and testify truthfully.

25

Pulling out in front of one headlight is no different than pulling out in front of two. The difference between wrecking a car and a motorcycle.

26

Everybody needs to get some perspective.
This is TRAFFIC COURT.
Presumably, the charge is running a stop sign, not vehicular manslaughter.

Perry Mason is not going to be there to cross examine anybody. Police will not grab and cuff anybody for admitting to a minor traffic violation. The judge will not hear ponderous reams of evidence from expert witnesses. He will not retire to his chambers and come back to render a verdict days later after considering briefs from both sides. Lawyers will not be jumping from their seats shouting “Objection, your honor.” Nobody will be granting anybody immunity from prosecution. NOBODY FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL BE THERE.

There will be a line of 50 or 100 people waiting to get their cases heard. Each will get one to three minutes and the judge will pronounce his verdict.

Assuming the cop wasn’t there to witness the accident, if the other guy had a lawyer rather than some goofball relatives, the cop would probably not be allowed to testify or could testify, at most, “I arrived on the scene and saw a stop sign and two smashed vehicles” (unless the other guy blurted out that he ran the stop sign).

A defense attorney would not want your relative to be there to testify. Assuming the cop didn’t witness the accident, your relative could be the only one who could testify that they saw the other guy run the stop sign and thereby convict the other guy.

And you (and the other guy) have a fundamental misconception about the function of traffic court. It is there to adjudicate a traffic offense. If the other guy is accused of running a stop sign, the court’s interest is limited to determining whether the guy ran the stop sign. IT IS NOT THE TRAFFIC COURT’S FUNCTION TO DETERMINE WHO IS AT FAULT FOR THE ACCIDENT.

After the trial, the insurance companies (assuming you’re insured) will hash out who is responsible for the accident. If they can’t agree, then the matter will be settled in a civil court, not traffic court. And, yes, if the other guy is convicted of running a stop sign, it will be held against them.

THE OTHER GUY IS AN IDIOT for wanting a witness against him to show up in court. Presumably, he is too stupid to know how to issue a subpoena and will have to get a lawyer to do it. The lawyer will presumably tell him he is an idiot.

Yes, if the insurance companies don’t settle, there will be plenty of testifying to do later in a civil trial for damages. Traffic court is not the place to hash this out.

No. Don’t show up in court unless you are served with a subpoena.
Yes, if the lawyer asks you whether you committed any crimes such as driving with a burned out headlight, you can take the fifth. If the judge disagrees, he will tell you so.

27

Tell your relative to shut up. There is no benefit to him/her to do otherwise.

The girl isn’t getting out of running a stop sign regardless.

28

IANAL, but I’m of a different opinion, I think this is about her civil liability. The only place that I know contributory negligence would factor in would be a civil case, not traffic court.

The charge she’s facing is probably failure to yield right-of-way, and the relatives headlight being out is immaterial to that. Even if he were driving with both his headlights off, it’d still be immaterial. Before pulling out, she was legally responsible for verifying that no traffic or people had the right of way before she attempted to enter the roadway. She failed to do so. Even if she stopped completely, she still failed to check adequately. His equipment issues do not absolve her of this responsibility just as she wouldn’t be absolved if she’d pulled into the path of a pedestrian dressed like a ninja at night. She is responsible for verifying the roadway is clear. Period. The collision itself is frequently considered prima facie evidence that she didn’t do so and that she failed to yield right of way.

It sounds very much like she or her lawyer is trying to get him on record as saying his light was out, possibly to affect his ability to recover should he decide to sue her or her insurance company. It might also allow her to sue him (regardless of the citation, though that would make her case hella harder).

Advise your relative not to testify and not to even be there unless summoned. If summoned, he should not testify to the condition of his vehicle unless specifically asked. If you see a court stenographer present, then the jig is up. Her lawyer is trying to use the testimony to bolster their defense or denial of liability. The court reporter being present is key because without it, his testimony in traffic court might be inadmissible in civil court. The stenographer acts as an independent (in the eyes of the court) record of exactly who said exactly what.

My personal view now is this:
Legally, always protect yourself and the hell with the other person. There’s no justice in the legal system. There’s only lawyers. Remember that.

My .02 centavos.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

29

A defense attorney who got his client convicted in order to trap somebody into saying something on the stand would be committing malpractice.

Calling the only witness to the crime/offense to the stand would almost surely guarantee her conviction. The defense attorney’s ONLY job is to prevent his client from being convicted.

If they need his testimony that his headlight is broken, they can file a civil suit and take a deposition under oath then. The same lawyer or a different lawyer can handle that. (Or they can wait for a suit to be filed against them and then take the deposition.)

30

No, the point is that if one headlight was out on the car, there was still one headlight working.

One headlight ought to be enough to ensure a driver notices there’s a vehicle there, and if it’s not, then that driver isn’t really safe on the public road that caters to vehicles that have one headlight by design.

31

Here in the UK, I contribute to a motoring forum where this type of question frequently arises. It would almost never be related to the original prosecution for running a red light. That is considered to be an ‘absolute offence’ and the fact that it caused a collision would be irrelevant unless there was a higher charge like dangerous or careless driving. In any case the offender would most likely plead guilty without appearing in court to take advantage of the discount on the statutory penalty:

The usual argument will be about how to apportion blame. This is because a victim who is 100% blameless will be able to recover all of their uninsured loss (Excess [copay], hire car, lost wages etc). It also has an impact on future premiums.

32

Don’t know if this is relevant or not, but what the hell…

I was in a similar accident many years ago; a young woman didn’t see my car approaching and pulled out from the stop sign where she had been parked. Smacked right into me.

I had the right-of-way and it was unquestionably her fault. But when I showed up in traffic court to testify (automatic subpoena in my state), I mentioned to the prosecutor that there was a construction trash skip near the intersection that probably made it difficult for her to see my car (which was a Mazda Miata, so a low-profile vehicle).

The prosecutor made me tell the judge, and the judge found the young woman guilty, but suspended her $101.00 fine.

Made her very happy, and didn’t cause me any trouble - her insurance company paid my claim fully.

33

I didn’t mean to imply that her defense attorney might pursue this avenue as a defense, because you are right, and they’d know it’d be of no import to their case. However, a lawyer for her INS Co. would love to have that testimony on the record. There’s no indication in the OP as to whether or not the relative has filed suit or sought counsel, but if they have, then the dynamic changes a bit.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

34

If he’s already run his mouth about the matter, how can he morally justify not testifying to it?
If the headlight being out contributed to the accident, that’s up to the court to determine.

35

Leaving aside all this discussion of what he should or shouldn’t do - and it’s frankly unfortunate that this got moved from GQ, because it was not initially a request for legal advice - the question in the OP was what happens in such cases.

Specifically, can/will the judge and/or prosecutor make out a new complaint against this guy based on his admission in court that he was driving with a headlight out? Or are they limited to the case before them and/or unable/unwilling to issue a new ticket on the basis of this type of new info weeks after the case?

This is also a concern and I’m wondering how this works too. Because I don’t think a judge in a traffic case is in a position to assign fault - he would either decide that the other guy was responsible enough for her ticket to stand or she wasn’t. I don’t see the judge making any finding of fact at all about the accident - which technically is not the matter before him.

And even if the judge decides to dismiss that person’s ticket (which seems very unlikely to me) how does the information about the traffic light get into the public record and the insurance company. Is there a court record of every sworn statement made in every traffic court case such that you could grab that and forward it to the insurance company?

36

A couple things:

  1. To the actual factual question as to whether or not a traffic ticket COULD be issued - that depends on the state and such. Some have the ability to issue tickets X amount of time after an incident. I’ve never seen a judge (or cop in court) for that matter do so. And I think the plausibility of it actually occuring is virtually nil.

  2. To those that state that this is “just traffic court” I ask if you know the difference between these two things:

“I was driving and she hit me and I’ll admit one of my lights was out”

And:

“I was driving and she hit me and it was partially my fault as one of my lights was out.”

The difference is huge - the first you are testifying to just facts - the second you are admitting it is your fault partial - and depending on what state it is - that can basically mean your insurance company can go after YOU as you have eliminated some of their defenses they might have in court.

Probably doesn’t matter much in this case - girl probably isn’t any trouble, but this can and does cause issues for people. No - insurance companies aren’t trolling through court records trying to find this stuff, but if that girl files a lawsuit for $100,000 2 years and 11 months after the accident - they very well may.

  1. While Alley Dweller is correct it generally isn’t traffic courts function to decide who is at fault - there is a specific charge in my state of “contributing to the cause of an accident” - so in that case - they could so inquire. Bit it isn’t “who is at fault” it’s “did you contribute to the cause of an accident” and it sounds like she did. It is not who is at greater fault.

  2. I would contact my insurance company and ask for their advice. You have a certain duty to “help” your insurance company - and not telling them about a case - even if you don’t think it is important would IHMO - be certainly frowned upon should anything happen.

37

As someone stated, the ticket is for going through a stop sign not for causing an accident. If the defendant thinks he has knowledge which can help prove she did not go through the stop sign then she should subpoena him.

38

Legally, if your relative shows up and testifies that his headlight was out, I suppose the judge could. Practcially, he won’t. It’s traffic court. They just want to move things along.

Regards,
Shodan