OK, before I hire a lawyer to handle this traffic ticket (grrrrr…)…
I heard of someone who asked the judge at a traffic court for permission to approach the bench. Once there, he told the judge he was requesting a jury trial. I never realized this was a right, but apparently it is.
The judge, obviously not wanting to waste a jury’s time, dismissed the charges. (It was a minor moving violation.)
Anyone hear of this tactic before? Is there a reasonable success rate with it? I got hit with a completely bogus ticket that I want to get out of, and if I can save the money a lawyer would cost me, so much the better.
I am pretty sure the SCOTUS has said that infractions do not beget you a jury trial, only a trial in front of a judge. And besides, you wouldn’t approach the bench to ask for a trial, you’d plead ‘not guilty’ at the arraignment (which is all your initial court appearance is, if you want a trial you’ll need to return at a later date)
It certainly can be for moving violations that would result in higher insurance premiums for years. Not to mention the problem with accumulating points and possibly getting a license suspension.
Even if you don’t have a right to a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution, it is possible (but very unlikely) that you have a right to a jury trial under the state constitution or state law.
But anyway, the story you told sounds like BS to me. For one thing, it would normally be the prosecutor’s decision to drop the charges to save the expense of a jury trial. For another, that’s just not how government employees act. They don’t just let ordinary people game the system like that if they have any choice.
The story just sounds like somebody’s fantasy of a loophole. Kind of like asking “are you a cop?” to an undercover cop.
I see you are in So Cal. I’ve been called (in So Cal.) for jury duty many times, and I’ve never seen any jury called for a traffic infraction. In fact, I think it is just you, the cop and the judge.
It’s very important to people who hold a commercial driver’s license. Certain infractions can cause a CDL holder to lose their commercial license, which means they’ve also lost their means of making a living. When that’s the case, you betcha the ticket’s worth fighting.
The story, as recounted, sounds like a UL. Too simple. You can’t just get a case dismissed by saying the magic words. Unless the U.S. flag in the courtroom has fringe, of course.
The availability of a jury trial for a traffic ticket, big surprise, will depend on the jurisdiction. Under the U.S. Constitution, you’re not entitled to a jury trial if the offense is a petty offense, defined as an offense with a penalty of six months or less. Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 148-150 (1969). Doesn’t sound too petty to me. The Constitution just establishes a baseline, though; states are free to provide greater protections in their own constitutions and statutes, and many if not most do. It’s common to see a jury trial available if any jail sentence is possible, or if the judge decides jail is an option prior to trial.
Some states routinely offer jury trials for traffic tickets. My very first jury trial was for an accident in which my client was ticketed for an illegal left turn. Turns out that the guy who hit her was the one who ran the light, and was speeding and illegally changing lanes to boot, in front of a disinterested witness. The officer just ticketed the wrong party for some reason. What’s worse, the city attorney knew it, didn’t tell me, and decided to proceed to trial anyway. The jury deliberated less than five minutes.
I am not from or work in California so I can’t give you a complete answer. However I can confirm that if you can get a trial by jury in traffic court then it is a local thing. It would never happen in New Jersey. Anything that is heard in front of a municipal judge does not get a jury trial. Here that includes disorderly persons offenses (what most of the country calls a misdemeanor) Along those lines you also don’t have absolute access to the public defender. There has to be what is called a consequence of magnitude (significant loss of license, jail time etc) before it would be considered and then you have to prove economic hardship (and you still have to pay $200).
If it was as simple as you say don’t you think everyone would do it? Or at least a significant number of people in the know. I doubt it is that easy to get out of a ticket.
In my experience those with lawyers for minor traffic violations get the benefit of receiving the exact same deal from the cop and prosecutor as they would without a lawyer. YMMV. If you are going to go to trial then it would be stupid without a lawyer.
Just as a point of information…filmyak, do you hold a Class One Driver’s license? Or did this ticket involved alcohol? Because those are about the only two times a lawyer should be necessary for a traffic ticket. Most of the time you can plead either “Guilty with an explanation” and pay a lesser fine and points, or “Not Guilty” and see if the cop doesn’t show up for the trial.
Can’t speak for California, but you can demand a jury trial for a traffic ticket in Georgia. I have done so. It did not get the case instantly dismissed as described in the OP. Instead the judge transferred the case to another court, since his court was not authorized by law to conduct jury trials.
A couple of months after the case was transferred, I wound up on a jury trial calendar with dozens of others charged with more serious offenses. So I got to sit in court all morning with these fine folks as the judge went through the list of pending cases trying to figure out which case was going to get tried first and which would be “on call.” My case was “on call” for the week, meaning I might be called into court on two hours’ notice at any time, and had to be available just in case.
My case was not reached in that trial term, so two months later I was called into court for another trial calendar. Repeat the above process.
On the third trial calendar, my case was close to the top of the list. The prosecutor called me over, tried to negotiate a plea, and I refused to bargain. The prosecutor sighed and decided to dismiss the case. (I suspect his witness had disappeared on him.)
So if you have a right to jury trial in your jurisdiction, and if you file a demand for a jury trial, then yeah, you might ultimately get your case dismissed, but it may require a major time investment to reach that end. On the other hand, you might end up going to trial, being found guilty by a jury, and then facing a sentencing judge who is irritated at you for burdening the system over a traffic ticket.
Called a lawyer friend in California, per California Penal Code 19c, those that recieve traffic tickets in California cannot have jury trials. He told me a basic rule of thumb, if the criminal offense can result in jail time and you are eligible for a public defender, you can have a jury trial. If you have an otherwise clean driving record, he suggests traffic school, it keeps the citation off your driving record and will not affect your insurance rates.
Sorry to change the subject, but doesn’t a prosecutor have to “show his cards,” so to speak? It seems troubling that a prosecutor would try to negotiate a plea deal knowing that otherwise he will drop the charges.
Why is it so troubling? Think about it. The prosecutor was not mulling over this important speeding ticket for months. He opened the file, looked at it (probably for the first time when the defendant was standing in front of him) asked for a plea, didn’t get one, thought it over for a few seconds and thought “oh fuck it” and dropped it. This isn’t the Lindberg kidnapping. There is no plot to defraud the defendant.
