I’m a magistrate in a big-city court. I handle traffic dockets several times a month, on average, and assess witness credibility the same way for police officers as I do for civilians. In 14 years, I have never seen a cop caught in an outright lie, although there were certainly those whom I suspected were either lying or shading the truth. Those are some of the cases in which I acquitted defendants. The prosecution must prove its case by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m just as happy to convict someone as to acquit them, if that’s where the evidence and the law leads me. My ethical duty, always, is to see that justice is done.
Perjury cases are rare. I handled only one in six years as a prosecutor: a woman was charged with lying six times in her husband’s earlier criminal case, when he waived the marital privilege and called her as a witness to back up his story. The case was strong, I thought; it was glaringly obvious and provable that she had repeatedly lied under oath. But the judge dismissed the case with a shrug anyway, and said to me later, “Of course a wife will lie to help her husband.”
I don’t know about where you live, but here in the State of Maine, traffic court is not a criminal matter, and the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt (cite). I would not be at all surprised if it works the same in many other states.
Not really. If court happens to fall during a work day there is no extra money. If the defendant takes care of the ticket before court there is no overtime. If the defendant takes the plea for no points which most are going to court for there is no overtime. That takes care of more than 9 out of 10 of the tickets written. Overtime is far from my mind when writing tickets since the ticket I write will most likely not get me overtime. In fact when there are traffic jobs available on my off days then getting subpeoned for court could mean less money for me. A lot less.
There is a morning session and an evening session for court. Yes you’ll be inconvenienced but the court bends over backwards to accommodate a defendants schedule a hell of a lot more than they will for an officer.
And of course you also have the option to not speed.
You wish for me to defend a policy that takes money out of my pocket? Ok. For one it is more fiscally responsible. When we got subpeoned for every ticket most of the time you would show up, talk to the defendant, in most cases go tell the prosecutor they want a plea for a lesser charge, go home after 10 minutes and collect 3 hours of overtime. Then there really was an incentive to write tickets although the corporate culture of the department was still against writing a lot of tickets. Second it’s much more efficient for the vast majority who are there to get the best deal they can and not go to trial. Let’s say 50 people are scheduled for court. 48 will not want a trial. Trials take a lot longer than the regular court proceedings. So the 48 are taken care of as quickly and efficiently as possible and the 2 are sent away early with a new court date that is set aside just for trials. It works out much better for the vast majority of defendants.
As for your second paragraph I don’t see the problem. The judge instructed that the police testimony should not have any more weight than others. Assessing the veracity of testimony by looking at their incentive to lie is what you would do for any witness. That does not go against the instructions of the judge.
Seconded. The entire purpose of the trial is to determine guilt (or liability for a civil action), not merely to have a show where a judge rubber stamps the local constable’s action.
Loach, I hadn’t realized you were infallible and have never made a mistake. I suppose it would be more efficient if you just stood by the side of the highway, pointed at whoever you deemed guilty, then drove them to their bank so they could hand you the cash. That would increase efficiency by dispensing with all these pointless trials and no one could abuse that system, right?
I am somewhat surprised that court procedures in some places would require a defendant to make two appearances while the prosecuting jurisdiction makes only one. It seems that the courts there are showing an incredibly accommodating bias towards the police. I don’t even see how that is consistent with broad notions of fairness and procedural due process.
I don’t think you understand what presumption of innocence means. The court has to presume innocence. The judge has to presume innocence. If I was ever on a jury I would have to presume innocence. A police officer observing a violation does not presume innocence. He already sees the evidence of guilt. Now he has to convince the judge. How would it make any sense that after I witness a violation and issue a ticket I still have to presume innocence? How the hell would that work? If I thought in any way the defendant is innocent I wouldn’t write the ticket in the first place.
And if I’m a disinterested third party not involved in the case I can presume anything I want like when I presume that O.J. killed two people.
I understand the presumption of innocence. I think you missed the context of your response. dasmoocher was complaining about a court procedure which requires a defendant to take two days off work to defend a ticket but the police officer shows up only once and gets overtime. Your suggestion to dasmoocher’s concern about this inherent unfairness was “And of course you also have the option to not speed.” That seems to presume that every defendant in every case where he is complaining about unfair process could have avoided the unfairness by not speeding. That presumes the people appealing their tickets are all guilty. That’s not the job of the court, and it’s the court’s process he is complaining about. Since you don’t write every ticket in the country, it’s not your job as a police officer to assume that every ticket in the country is 100% reliable.
You wish for me to defend a policy that takes money out of my pocket? Ok.**
No we want you to do what’s right and live within your core values as a human being which should be aligned with your core values as a uniformed enforcer. But like you said, that would take money out of your pocket. I have challenged many uniformed enforcers not to write a ticket for one month. Never have any of those who have answered were concerned over safety diminishing, normally it was a revenue response of sorts
"I certainly don’t mind, I like free money"
*That’s called a gift or thievery, pick one but it’s not free
*
I usually didn’t pull anyone over doing less than 15 over"
*And what determined the unusual times you would pull someone for going over 15 mph? Seems a discriminatory practice
*
If I wrote you a ticket I’m not presuming guilt. I’m 100% sure because I saw you do it, hence the ticket"
You are presuming guilt 100% or not. I can not believe you really think that way:smack::smack:
I can believe whatever I want. Presumption of innocence has to do with the burden of proof not mine or anyone else’s personal opinion. As I pointed out the system I described is actually more efficient and the majority of the people involved in and out of the court and back to their lives quicker. Even those few who have to come back spend less time in the courtroom than they would if their trial was put off to the end of a long court day instead of rescheduled for a day set aside for trials and don’t have to sit through the parade of plea bargains.
No one said anything that suggests limits to your beliefs. We don’t need you to create this straw man. Again, I know what the presumption of innocence is. Congratulations on you for understanding it too. Your mother must be so proud.
You may believe that the system dasmoocher complains about is more efficient. It sounds absolutely more efficient for police, but it’s not the job of the court to save the police’s resources or to make their jobs easier. I’ll say it a different way: it’s not the job of the court to bias their procedures so cops are more likely to win their cases. It’s the court’s job to provide a fair venue to hear disputes, like whether a person was speeding. You might believe that the majority of the defendants also benefit from appearing twice to get one ticket heard. Dasmoocher seemingly believes that it would be more efficient for most defendants to appear in court once. I side with dasmoocher on this one. For out of state defendants, a second appearance might mean plane tickets and hotel stays. Do you think out of state defendants also prefer two court appearances?
You also completely ignored the point I made. This is a discussion about what dasmoocher characterized as the court’s procedural unfairness. Your response is that everyone can avoid the court’s procedural unfairness by not speeding. This can only be true if you believe that every person ever cited in the relevant jurisdiction was absolutely guilty of every violation for which they were cited. The court shouldn’t establish procedures that are manifestly unfair to defendants to make life easier for cops. That’s not procedural fairness as most people understand it.
But you defend the court’s procedural fairness based on your theory that every defendant is guilty so it’s fair enough to them. Can you see how that theory is inconsistent with the court presuming that the people who come before them are innocent? Can you see how that is when we believe the court should be presuming people are innocent?
You are entitled to say that you believe that every ticket ever written by every cop in every jurisdiction in the country is 100% reliable. The rest of us are entitled to believe you are either lying or grossly idiotically wrong about human fallibility if you believe it.
You are not making much sense. Presumption of innocence is a specific legal term having to do with the burden of proof. It has nothing to do with police work. I can not make a stop on an assumption but the term isn’t specifically used for that. If I witness a violation I’m not assuming guilt. I have actually seen it. What legal principle says I have to presume innocence? I have to prove guilt in court in front of others that have to assume innocence but I have seen the evidence of guilt with my own eyeballs. “Ma’am I’m writing you this ticket because I saw you blow through that red light and cause the van full of retired nuns to go into a ditch. But I’m presuming you are innocent.” How does that make any sense?
Again Presumption of Innocence is a specific legal term. It is not the same as saying people shouldn’t think badly about people. If I see a violation and I write a ticket I believe you are guilty. The judge has a presumption of innocence and determines if I meet the burden of proof. It’s as simple as that.
As someone who has seen it in action for several years I can see no evidence that it in anyway effects if one side or the other wins their case. I have yet to hear anyone make that agrument either lawyer or defendant. If that were the case I would agree with you 100%.
I think I also pointed out that this procedure in no way benefits the police since one of the main reasons was so they wouldn’t have to pay us overtime.
You can make make the argument that any system should inconvenience every one equally and that any system that makes it only more convienent for 95% is wrong… It’s a matter of opinion. I disagree as long as all parties get equal protection under the law. Of course you could come down and observe closely and see if it actually is more efficient. It looks that way to me from observation.
As with everything, not all cases fall into neat categories. I have seen special arrangements for out of state violations, for people traveling out of state or back to college etc. it’s up to the judge to decide those things on a case by case basis. Those issues are relatively rare and can be dealt with so the entire system does not have to be changed for the exceptions.
If I knew my little throw away line was going to detract from the real point I wouldn’t have put it in there. But let’s be adults. Most people are in traffic court because they screwed up. Most don’t try to deny it they are there to get the best deal they can. So yeah, the easiest way to stay out of traffic court is to not violate a traffic statute. That doesn’t mean that the court’s presumption of innocence should be abolished or that people are not to be afforded their day in court if they want. And it doesn’t mean that mistakes can’t be made and that some people are innocent. I have seen plenty of cases go against officers. The judge felt they didn’t meet the burden of proof.
I don’t think the procedures need to be equally convenient for every side. I don’t even think that’s possible. I just don’t think they should be tilted in either side’s favor. Requiring one side to make two appearances while the other side makes only one sounds unbalanced.
I’m glad to hear that the procedures aren’t as biased as they sound. I don’t fully understand them so the truth is I can’t really make an informed comment. I will respect your views that the procedures don’t prejudice cases for either side.
I fully concede that most people are in traffic court because they screwed up. And I will go one step further and say that I’d generally credit a police officer’s testimony over a defendant’s.
I’ve received my share of fair tickets and I’ve paid them. But I’ve also been cited twice when innocent, so being innocent doesn’t always keep you out of court. In both cases, I was pulled over based on the radar reading of a different car. The first time, the car ahead of me crested a hill, got picked up on radar, and slammed on his brakes (presumably when he saw the cop). I was a little ways behind him but I caught up to him while travelling the speed limit as I had been the whole time. The cop couldn’t see my car over the hill but assumed we were travelling the same speed and wrote us both tickets for the same speed. In court, he admitted he wrote both tickets on the same radar reading and I showed pictures that confirmed from the officer’s vantage point, he really couldn’t have seen my car come over the hill. The officer conceded that the pictures were from the location where he set up and that they fairly portrayed his field of view. Ticket dismissed.
The second time, I receive a ticket on the highway. I was in the slow lane going approximately the speed limit (maybe 3-5 over). I was passed by a fast moving car and then a brief bit later by a cop. The cop pulled over the car in front of me and when I caught up to them, he flagged me over. He asked me if I knew the driver of the car in front of me. (I didn’t, but we both had out of state plates from two states over). The cop didn’t explain why he pulled me over but the ticket said I was doing 80 mph, presumably the speed of the car that had passed me. I am guessing he pulled me over because he thought that me and the other car were racing or fooling around on the highway. Once I was stopped, he cited me for what I have to believe was the other guy’s speed. I paid that ticket because I could afford it and it was too inconvenient to appeal.
When I was talking about the balance of the inconvenience I wasn’t talking about the court and prosecution vs the defendants. I was talking about those that are there to make a plea for the best deal and those that are asking for a trial. For the most part everyone else is going to be there anyway whether there is a trial or not. I hope I was clear on that. I tend to not write as well using my phone as opposed to the computer although I may be the only one that notices.
LOACH:
You are not making much sense. Presumption of innocence is a specific legal term** having to do with the burden of proof. It has nothing to do with police work. I can not make a stop on an assumption but the term isn’t specifically used for that. If I witness a violation I’m not assuming guilt. I have actually seen it. What legal principle says I have to presume innocence? I have to prove guilt in court in front of others that have to assume innocence but I have seen the evidence of guilt with my own eyeballs. “Ma’am I’m writing you this ticket because I saw you blow through that red light and cause the van full of retired nuns to go into a ditch. But I’m presuming you are innocent.” How does that make any sense?
Just to be fair I have Highway Patrol, a sheriff, a LT. of a police dept. and 2 prison guards and a lawyer in my family so we discuss this kind of stuff a lot. Our Thanksgiving suck
I am just regurgitating how you presented your ideas. Your retort was evasive and off target when you attempted to explain.
Presumption of innocence (18c.)** criminal law**.The fundamental principle that a person may not be convicted of a crime unless the government proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, without any burden placed on the accused to prove innocence. Just in case anyone wanted the def.
You did not use the term presumption of innocence, you use the term presumption of guilt so I went with that. But since you brought up legalese I would just like to say that most folks going into traffic court do not understand the language of legalese. That is another important factor while trying to represent yourself. It’s damned near impossible, it’s a different language. Easy money for the courts.
Looks like you got some other conversations going on so I’ll dip out.
-If you are right, never plea bargain
-traffic courts count on you rolling over and paying up
-learn the language of legalese
-dress nice and be professional
-The enforcers may not lie but they certainly are aware of their boundaries
Yeah? Well, one day I was driving my Saturn at a sedate going-with-the-flow-of-traffic 70MPH in a 65 zone. Another identical white SC2 zooms past me at 90per.
Comes up a CHP, who pulls me over. I explain. He writes the ticket. I go to court, the judge reduce the fine but sez i am guilty anyway as I admitted to 70. :rolleyes:
The cop saw* someone* do 90MPH. He *claimed *it was me.
The above post sounds like one of the odd mistakes an officer will occasionally make… which didn’t convince a judge after hearing the defendant’s explanation. So the judge not only didn’t presume guilt based on the officer’s testimony, he may not have even believed it AND he reduced the fine; isn’t that what’s supposed to happen?
And yes, the judge was correct saying the defendant was still guilty. In fact, the defendant is the one who likely provided the most compelling evidence of his own guilt by stating that he was speeding. I’m not sure what that story was supposed to show.
