Do I want a jury of my peers?
April 29, 2007 7:44 PM Subscribe
Should I request a jury trial for my (arguably invalid) speeding ticket?
I was ticketed this weekend for doing 38 in an area with an artificially lowered speed limit of 25. This was on a side street off of a main thoroughfare where the speed limit drops immediately from 45 to 25.
Illinois vehicular code requires that all signs indicating a reduced limit be positioned so that they can be observed by a "reasonably alert" person. This particular sign is positioned approximately three feet directly behind a large lamp-post that blocks it from most angles.
There is a second speed limit sign further around the bend. However, the officer who clocked me on radar did so only 400 feet from the sign. Illinois code refuses to admit electronic speed readings taken within 500 feet of a sign as evidence of a speeding violation.
Given that the first sign was obscured, and the citing officer was within the 500 foot limit from the second sign, I feel I have a good chance of getting this one dismissed.
Here's the question: In Illinois, I have a right to a jury trial for this infraction, should I request it. Am I more likely to find a sympathetic jury than judge, given this information, or would a judge be more likely to rule fairly on this than a bunch of grumpy jurors annoyed at having to take a day off work? Any experience and/or suggestions?
(Yes, you are not my lawyer. And also, please remember the AskMe rules, and address the question, not whether or not I was knowingly or unknowingly in violation of the law)
I was ticketed this weekend for doing 38 in an area with an artificially lowered speed limit of 25. This was on a side street off of a main thoroughfare where the speed limit drops immediately from 45 to 25.
Illinois vehicular code requires that all signs indicating a reduced limit be positioned so that they can be observed by a "reasonably alert" person. This particular sign is positioned approximately three feet directly behind a large lamp-post that blocks it from most angles.
There is a second speed limit sign further around the bend. However, the officer who clocked me on radar did so only 400 feet from the sign. Illinois code refuses to admit electronic speed readings taken within 500 feet of a sign as evidence of a speeding violation.
Given that the first sign was obscured, and the citing officer was within the 500 foot limit from the second sign, I feel I have a good chance of getting this one dismissed.
Here's the question: In Illinois, I have a right to a jury trial for this infraction, should I request it. Am I more likely to find a sympathetic jury than judge, given this information, or would a judge be more likely to rule fairly on this than a bunch of grumpy jurors annoyed at having to take a day off work? Any experience and/or suggestions?
(Yes, you are not my lawyer. And also, please remember the AskMe rules, and address the question, not whether or not I was knowingly or unknowingly in violation of the law)
Best answer: If your view of the law is right, you should be fine with a judge. I might pull for a jury if I thought I was technically wrong but would come off as a folk hero, or something, but in this situation it seems likely that either sort of trial will produce the same result.
I assume that demanding a jury trial will make the whole proceeding longer and more inconvenient for everyone, and the expense of that might even offset any savings in fines.
[not advice! you might consider speaking to your lawyer about this]
posted by grobstein at 7:57 PM on April 29, 2007
I assume that demanding a jury trial will make the whole proceeding longer and more inconvenient for everyone, and the expense of that might even offset any savings in fines.
[not advice! you might consider speaking to your lawyer about this]
posted by grobstein at 7:57 PM on April 29, 2007
Rather than reword what I recently read, here are two articles that might help you decide.
The first is an article about jurrors rulling not gulty because they thought the defendant did nothing wrong and shouldn't be punished.
Link
The second is about getting out of speeding tickets.
Link
posted by stuffedcrust at 8:12 PM on April 29, 2007
The first is an article about jurrors rulling not gulty because they thought the defendant did nothing wrong and shouldn't be punished.
Link
The second is about getting out of speeding tickets.
Link
posted by stuffedcrust at 8:12 PM on April 29, 2007
What are "artificially lowered speed limits?" The state, city or county determines the speed limit for all roads. How are some then "artificial?"
Anyway, i would not let you off. Good luck.
posted by DieHipsterDie at 8:16 PM on April 29, 2007
Anyway, i would not let you off. Good luck.
posted by DieHipsterDie at 8:16 PM on April 29, 2007
An "artificially low" speed limit, I would assume as someone who's dad spent 30 years as a traffic engineer for the City of Boston, would be one that was lower than was indicated for the zone by a traffic engineering survey for that area.
They don't just pull speed limits out their ass, you know. :-)
posted by baylink at 8:24 PM on April 29, 2007
They don't just pull speed limits out their ass, you know. :-)
posted by baylink at 8:24 PM on April 29, 2007
If you take the time to make a good logical, non-whining presentation to the Judge, he will let you off. Take pictures, measurements, etc. I have been let off of parking tickets and a moving violation this way.
I do agree with DHD that there is no such thing as an artificially lowered speed limit. There could be all sorts of not obvious reasons why the speed limit is lowered there abruptly.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 8:25 PM on April 29, 2007
I do agree with DHD that there is no such thing as an artificially lowered speed limit. There could be all sorts of not obvious reasons why the speed limit is lowered there abruptly.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 8:25 PM on April 29, 2007
Best answer: The comment above this one may be a good reason to go with a judge. Common sense says that you did do something wrong, but the technicalities of the law (if the law is as you have stated it, and you can prove the circumstances you stated) will allow you to get off.
In either case it's really luck either way, as you can get a judge who has a hardon for punishing people who try to get off on technicalities, and you can also get a jury with the same issue.
One other thing:
Illinois code refuses to admit electronic speed readings taken within 500 feet of a sign as evidence of a speeding violation.
If what you are saying is true, you need to make sure you do whatever you need to do to make sure that the speed reading from the police officer never is presented to the court. I'm assuming "refuses to admit" means "refuses to admit as evidence," and so then you would have to do some sort of motion to exclude or whatever it's called.
If that evidence is excluded successfully, there will be no case at all against you. Most likely you can then move to dismiss and the jury doesn't matter.
As you can tell from the amateur phrasing of this post, I am not a lawyer.
posted by zhivota at 8:25 PM on April 29, 2007
In either case it's really luck either way, as you can get a judge who has a hardon for punishing people who try to get off on technicalities, and you can also get a jury with the same issue.
One other thing:
Illinois code refuses to admit electronic speed readings taken within 500 feet of a sign as evidence of a speeding violation.
If what you are saying is true, you need to make sure you do whatever you need to do to make sure that the speed reading from the police officer never is presented to the court. I'm assuming "refuses to admit" means "refuses to admit as evidence," and so then you would have to do some sort of motion to exclude or whatever it's called.
If that evidence is excluded successfully, there will be no case at all against you. Most likely you can then move to dismiss and the jury doesn't matter.
As you can tell from the amateur phrasing of this post, I am not a lawyer.
posted by zhivota at 8:25 PM on April 29, 2007
Your reasoning sounds within the law a judge would be my path.
posted by crewshell at 8:25 PM on April 29, 2007
posted by crewshell at 8:25 PM on April 29, 2007
Sorry, i meant to refer to DieHipsterDie's comment in mine. Preview eluded me.
posted by zhivota at 8:25 PM on April 29, 2007
posted by zhivota at 8:25 PM on April 29, 2007
Best answer: Have you been to court yet? If you have, you may have these two options that don't involve a jury:
(1) Nolle prossequi by the prosecutor: Where I live (not Illinois) a great many tickets are dismissed without a judge or jury being involved. You can sit down with a prosecutor, explain the situation, and very often they will decide not to prosecute.
(2) Dismissed through the services of an attorney: You may avoid a lot of trouble --- and a jury trial --- by spending the hundred bucks or so it would cost to hire a lawyer to represent you on it. Where I live, people represented by attorneys get their tickets dismissed, almost without exception.
Even if neither of these two things work, your determination to have a jury trial will probably result in a dismissal of the charges. Where I live, prosecutors don't want to do trials, and will nolle prosse something just to get you out of their hair.
posted by jayder at 8:27 PM on April 29, 2007
(1) Nolle prossequi by the prosecutor: Where I live (not Illinois) a great many tickets are dismissed without a judge or jury being involved. You can sit down with a prosecutor, explain the situation, and very often they will decide not to prosecute.
(2) Dismissed through the services of an attorney: You may avoid a lot of trouble --- and a jury trial --- by spending the hundred bucks or so it would cost to hire a lawyer to represent you on it. Where I live, people represented by attorneys get their tickets dismissed, almost without exception.
Even if neither of these two things work, your determination to have a jury trial will probably result in a dismissal of the charges. Where I live, prosecutors don't want to do trials, and will nolle prosse something just to get you out of their hair.
posted by jayder at 8:27 PM on April 29, 2007
Seems to me that if the traffic law is unquestionably on your side then you'd benefit from having an expert at that law making the judgement -- that is, if the argument is as airtight as you say it is then you just have to lay out the circumstances as you did above (with citations to the statutes) and the answer will be obvious to the judge. To a jury, you'd have to explain why you should be let off even though you admit to having passed two speed limit signs.
Though the cross-examiner in my head wants to know the answer to the question: Had you driven on this street before? Were you aware of the 25 MPH zone before you entered it? Were you aware of where the 25 MPH zone begins?
posted by winston at 8:31 PM on April 29, 2007
Though the cross-examiner in my head wants to know the answer to the question: Had you driven on this street before? Were you aware of the 25 MPH zone before you entered it? Were you aware of where the 25 MPH zone begins?
posted by winston at 8:31 PM on April 29, 2007
Best answer: I'm pretty sure if I had to serve on a jury for someone's speeding ticket, I'd resent it and would probably judge you harshly. But it looks like you have a good case and have done some serious research so you do have a good chance though.
posted by chairface at 8:42 PM on April 29, 2007
posted by chairface at 8:42 PM on April 29, 2007
Are you sure you can ask for one? You have a right to a jury if you're being tried for a felony or misdemeanor, or for civil suits, but a traffic ticket is a "violation" (which is distinct from a misdemeanor or a felony) and I'm not sure that they have jury trials for those in all jurisdictions.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:47 PM on April 29, 2007
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:47 PM on April 29, 2007
Response by poster: To answer some questions in this thread:
1) Yes, I am certain I have a right to a jury trial. It explicitly states so on the summons.
2) By "artificially reduced" I meant that the limit, which is 35 on most of the township's streets, is 25 on this one, *directly* off a 45 (which, itself, may be technically illegal -- the Illinois Vehicular Code dictates that there may not be more than a 10mph jump between two adjacent speed zones, but I'm not certain if the fact that this is a side road would confuse that), and this road is no different from other ones that are marked at 35 in the area. With, of course, the exception that a) there is a large amount of traffic that has *just* come out of a 45 zone (in which everyone does 60-plus) and there are very frequently officers running speed traps just because of that.
To be fair, I have not requested a copy of the engineering survey for that area, and my completely amateur (and admittedly biased) opinion may be way offbase, in that for some reason it is only surveyed for 25. However, it's still one of those red-flag areas where the limit is lower than everywhere around it for no good reason, everyone takes it a good bit faster, and there happen to be many convenient areas for speed traps.
3) As to whether I had driven on this street before, as silly as it is for something so minor, this is an open legal matter and I don't wish to comment on anything which might be potentially construed as an admission of guilt. I can honestly state, however, that had you asked me until today, when I went by to examine the site myself, I would not have been able to tell you precisely where the reduced speed began.
posted by jammer at 9:02 PM on April 29, 2007
1) Yes, I am certain I have a right to a jury trial. It explicitly states so on the summons.
2) By "artificially reduced" I meant that the limit, which is 35 on most of the township's streets, is 25 on this one, *directly* off a 45 (which, itself, may be technically illegal -- the Illinois Vehicular Code dictates that there may not be more than a 10mph jump between two adjacent speed zones, but I'm not certain if the fact that this is a side road would confuse that), and this road is no different from other ones that are marked at 35 in the area. With, of course, the exception that a) there is a large amount of traffic that has *just* come out of a 45 zone (in which everyone does 60-plus) and there are very frequently officers running speed traps just because of that.
To be fair, I have not requested a copy of the engineering survey for that area, and my completely amateur (and admittedly biased) opinion may be way offbase, in that for some reason it is only surveyed for 25. However, it's still one of those red-flag areas where the limit is lower than everywhere around it for no good reason, everyone takes it a good bit faster, and there happen to be many convenient areas for speed traps.
3) As to whether I had driven on this street before, as silly as it is for something so minor, this is an open legal matter and I don't wish to comment on anything which might be potentially construed as an admission of guilt. I can honestly state, however, that had you asked me until today, when I went by to examine the site myself, I would not have been able to tell you precisely where the reduced speed began.
posted by jammer at 9:02 PM on April 29, 2007
Response by poster: (And, to expand upon point 3, I have already anticipated those questions, and have an answer prepared. :) )
Apologies if I'm slightly incoherent. It's been a long day, for other reasons. You can bet I'm going to be more lucid when I go before a judge and/or jury.
posted by jammer at 9:04 PM on April 29, 2007
Apologies if I'm slightly incoherent. It's been a long day, for other reasons. You can bet I'm going to be more lucid when I go before a judge and/or jury.
posted by jammer at 9:04 PM on April 29, 2007
In Cali, you can request a written hearing first, and then if you lose that one, you can then appeal for that one. I've heard someone make the argument that you're more likely to win the written case, because often the citing officer will be required to submit his testimony in writing in his free time, whereas if he's called to court to testify, it's on the clock.
posted by gramcracker at 9:22 PM on April 29, 2007
posted by gramcracker at 9:22 PM on April 29, 2007
Best answer: In TN, I got a ticket thrown out by a judge because of a good explaination of rules and physical impossibilities. I received a ticket for going 45 in a 30 zone, and the cop who ticketed me used a pacing method to determine the ticket - no radar, no hard evidence. Just him basically eyeballing me.
Thing was, he eyeballed me by pulling out of an intersection, accelerating to my supposed speed, paced my speed (which requires at least a couple of seconds to make sure), and then stopped for a stop light - all in about a 500 feet, so he claimed. I did the math, and it was physically impossible for him to do this an still stop for the light - which he had to do, as I stopped for the light and he was behind me.
The judge simply looked at me, smiled, and said "Dismissed."
He knew the area (it was a smaller town), he knew the exact intersection the cop pulled out of and its close proximity to the intersection we stopped at.
Your logic sounds like it is along these lines. If you have evidence to back up your claim, a judge should dissmiss the claim before you are even given the chance to ask for a jury trial - the judge is in the business of getting the jury out and not wasting their time. If the law states that you can't make more than a 10 mp jump, or that you can't admit radar evidence within 500 ft of a speed limit sign, it would be impossible for a rational juror to come back with a guilty verdict, and thus must be dismissed.
Try that first, then go for the jury if the judge insists on letting it get to that point.
posted by plaidrabbit at 9:39 PM on April 29, 2007
Thing was, he eyeballed me by pulling out of an intersection, accelerating to my supposed speed, paced my speed (which requires at least a couple of seconds to make sure), and then stopped for a stop light - all in about a 500 feet, so he claimed. I did the math, and it was physically impossible for him to do this an still stop for the light - which he had to do, as I stopped for the light and he was behind me.
The judge simply looked at me, smiled, and said "Dismissed."
He knew the area (it was a smaller town), he knew the exact intersection the cop pulled out of and its close proximity to the intersection we stopped at.
Your logic sounds like it is along these lines. If you have evidence to back up your claim, a judge should dissmiss the claim before you are even given the chance to ask for a jury trial - the judge is in the business of getting the jury out and not wasting their time. If the law states that you can't make more than a 10 mp jump, or that you can't admit radar evidence within 500 ft of a speed limit sign, it would be impossible for a rational juror to come back with a guilty verdict, and thus must be dismissed.
Try that first, then go for the jury if the judge insists on letting it get to that point.
posted by plaidrabbit at 9:39 PM on April 29, 2007
Response by poster: Thanks for the advice and suggestions, everyone. I believe I will talk to the prosecutor, explain the facts as I see them to him, and see if I can get him to drop the case. Failing that, I think I will simply request a bench trial. I'm not interested in trying to make an emotional plea to a jury. If I can't convince a legal expert that prosecution's case does not meet necessary requirements of the code I've been cited with violating, I will dutifully pay my fine.
posted by jammer at 9:49 PM on April 29, 2007
posted by jammer at 9:49 PM on April 29, 2007
Buffalo Grove is notorious for ticketing anything that moves. I was once pulled over in Lincolnshire, had no license on me at 2 am. The guy let me go and asked where I was headed. I told him through BG. He told me to go around, and said that they pull over any old cars after midnight!
You can get supervision if the prosecutor is uninterested in your idea, won't go on your record.
posted by lee at 10:03 PM on April 29, 2007
You can get supervision if the prosecutor is uninterested in your idea, won't go on your record.
posted by lee at 10:03 PM on April 29, 2007
Response by poster: Hah! Yes. BG cops are... um. They have nothing better to do, I suppose. Although, as far as seeming to exist for no reason other than as a speed trap, I find Mundelein to be more heinous.
It was a Wheeling cop who threatened to arrest me for peeing behind a Target while waiting in line on Wii release night. Nevermind that the *only* car that went back there that night was him, looking for people to harass. Or that he suggested I trespass on a nearby construction site to use their porta-potty, rather than going to a discreet, concealed location at a store that welcomed us to stay overnight as customers.
I loathe the suburbs. Once the wife gets her degree, we're on to Chicago proper, and good riddance.
posted by jammer at 10:22 PM on April 29, 2007
It was a Wheeling cop who threatened to arrest me for peeing behind a Target while waiting in line on Wii release night. Nevermind that the *only* car that went back there that night was him, looking for people to harass. Or that he suggested I trespass on a nearby construction site to use their porta-potty, rather than going to a discreet, concealed location at a store that welcomed us to stay overnight as customers.
I loathe the suburbs. Once the wife gets her degree, we're on to Chicago proper, and good riddance.
posted by jammer at 10:22 PM on April 29, 2007
This is one of my favourite Metafilter posts:
A man takes pictures, creates a computer simulation, and still manages to get a ticket.
posted by Hankins at 10:48 PM on April 29, 2007
A man takes pictures, creates a computer simulation, and still manages to get a ticket.
posted by Hankins at 10:48 PM on April 29, 2007
Illinois law says:
Unless some other speed restriction is established under this Chapter, the maximum speed limit in an urban district for all vehicles is:
1. 30 miles per hour; and
2. 15 miles per hour in an alley.
If you were in an urban area and you did not see a speed limit sign to the contrary, then you must assume that the speed limit was 30 mph. Just because the speed limit was 45 on the main thoroughfare, you can't assume it would would be 45 on the side street. Unless you saw a 45 mph sign on the side street, you must assume it is 30 mph. If this is the case, then you would be exceeding the speed limit regardless of where the 25 mph sign was located.
posted by JackFlash at 12:08 AM on April 30, 2007
Unless some other speed restriction is established under this Chapter, the maximum speed limit in an urban district for all vehicles is:
1. 30 miles per hour; and
2. 15 miles per hour in an alley.
If you were in an urban area and you did not see a speed limit sign to the contrary, then you must assume that the speed limit was 30 mph. Just because the speed limit was 45 on the main thoroughfare, you can't assume it would would be 45 on the side street. Unless you saw a 45 mph sign on the side street, you must assume it is 30 mph. If this is the case, then you would be exceeding the speed limit regardless of where the 25 mph sign was located.
posted by JackFlash at 12:08 AM on April 30, 2007
Some bad advice being given here...IANAL, but I did just successfully defend myself (in front of a judge) for a speeding ticket.
(1) Someone mentioned paying a lawyer $100 bucks to defend yourself. Where I am it's more like $300-500. But, if you have a point system in IL, and the added ticket will increase your auto insurance by $XXX/year (call and ask your agent for potential cost increase..they will find out anyway), it may be worth it for you to hire a lawyer. I defended myself.
(2) From my research: (A) request a Judge if you have a technical point to get you off, or (B) request a Jury if you will be making emotional pleas. I argued a bad ticket based on radar, so I went with a judge.
(3) If the citing officer doesnt show up for court, the prosecutor will likely drop the case. In some areas, the prosecutor can (and will, if s/he's a prick) read from an officers written testimony instead of the officer showing up - not sure about IL. Unless you admit in court you are guilty, you will still win the case. Legal point - If they do this (officer testimony is read in), then you should testify as to the case and refute the written testimony. Remember, if you represent yourself, "you" - as in sworn testimony of a witness - don't have to testify...it's your call. The only reason to testify is if you have direct testimony as to what you did and that testimony refutes the officers testimony. Most lawyers will tell you to never testify in that type of case, because a judge/jury will usually believe and officers testimony over yours.
(4) Remember, you have the right to the jury trial because you are charged with a crime. The standard the prosecutor has to meet is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Your/your lawyer's job is to raise doubt...it is NOT to "prove" you are innocent. So, have your case ready. Have the pictures you need printed out on, minimum, 11x17 paper. Go to google earth and print out a sat photo of the area and diagram it all out (where were you..where was the cop..etc). Have any case law ready (printed out). Make yourself notes on what points you want to make. If the case is close, the judge will want to look at your evidence, and it will be entered as evidence. Make it CLEAR, and make it nice. Dress nice. I found that the judge I saw was very accomodating as to me not being a lawyer and allowed me to present my case fully.
Advice - the officer, if s/he shows up, has been through court 1000 times, and the prosecutor will have the case thought out. Your job is to RAISE doubt..NOT to "prove" you are innocent. In my case, the officer claimed to clock me on radar at 5pm on a busy 4 lane road at over a quarter mile away. I have a background in engineering and knew it was impossible to assign my speed to a wide radar signal at that distance (it was reasonable to assume that the reading could have been another car near mine).
Best of luck
posted by wylde21 at 12:30 AM on April 30, 2007
(1) Someone mentioned paying a lawyer $100 bucks to defend yourself. Where I am it's more like $300-500. But, if you have a point system in IL, and the added ticket will increase your auto insurance by $XXX/year (call and ask your agent for potential cost increase..they will find out anyway), it may be worth it for you to hire a lawyer. I defended myself.
(2) From my research: (A) request a Judge if you have a technical point to get you off, or (B) request a Jury if you will be making emotional pleas. I argued a bad ticket based on radar, so I went with a judge.
(3) If the citing officer doesnt show up for court, the prosecutor will likely drop the case. In some areas, the prosecutor can (and will, if s/he's a prick) read from an officers written testimony instead of the officer showing up - not sure about IL. Unless you admit in court you are guilty, you will still win the case. Legal point - If they do this (officer testimony is read in), then you should testify as to the case and refute the written testimony. Remember, if you represent yourself, "you" - as in sworn testimony of a witness - don't have to testify...it's your call. The only reason to testify is if you have direct testimony as to what you did and that testimony refutes the officers testimony. Most lawyers will tell you to never testify in that type of case, because a judge/jury will usually believe and officers testimony over yours.
(4) Remember, you have the right to the jury trial because you are charged with a crime. The standard the prosecutor has to meet is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Your/your lawyer's job is to raise doubt...it is NOT to "prove" you are innocent. So, have your case ready. Have the pictures you need printed out on, minimum, 11x17 paper. Go to google earth and print out a sat photo of the area and diagram it all out (where were you..where was the cop..etc). Have any case law ready (printed out). Make yourself notes on what points you want to make. If the case is close, the judge will want to look at your evidence, and it will be entered as evidence. Make it CLEAR, and make it nice. Dress nice. I found that the judge I saw was very accomodating as to me not being a lawyer and allowed me to present my case fully.
Advice - the officer, if s/he shows up, has been through court 1000 times, and the prosecutor will have the case thought out. Your job is to RAISE doubt..NOT to "prove" you are innocent. In my case, the officer claimed to clock me on radar at 5pm on a busy 4 lane road at over a quarter mile away. I have a background in engineering and knew it was impossible to assign my speed to a wide radar signal at that distance (it was reasonable to assume that the reading could have been another car near mine).
Best of luck
posted by wylde21 at 12:30 AM on April 30, 2007
How to beat your traffic ticket. It is nothing more than a plug for the books, but there is some interesting info there.
posted by caddis at 4:01 AM on April 30, 2007
posted by caddis at 4:01 AM on April 30, 2007
I lost my case, had it downgraded to a “no seatbelt”, paid the 150.00-180.00 in fines and court costs, it didn’t go on my insurance and I didn’t have to use article 894. Article 894 here means you can get a moving violation (non-felony), plead guilty and pay the fines, yet the ticket does not go on your insurance. It’s kinda like a double or (sorta) nothing deal.
I live in a Parish and there are several municipalities and you can plead the article above in 4-5 different cities. You can use the same article in, Kenner, Harahan, Metairie, and
Westwego, all of those are in Jefferson Parish.
Cop writes me a ticket at 9:43 am for 27 in a 20. The school zone is only from 7:30-9:00am and my ticket was clearly written waaay after it was not a school zone. I argued that my speed was under the limit of 35 and that is was not a school zone at that time.
It didn’t matter to the ADA who advised me to take the no seatbelt, (non-moving violation) and pay up and get the hell out. Good advice as traffic court judges here are not really all that flexible.
I tried several times to explaining to 2 different ADA’s ad they were not interested in hearing how it was not a school zone when I was driving.
Plead it out and move one.
posted by winks007 at 8:38 AM on April 30, 2007
I live in a Parish and there are several municipalities and you can plead the article above in 4-5 different cities. You can use the same article in, Kenner, Harahan, Metairie, and
Westwego, all of those are in Jefferson Parish.
Cop writes me a ticket at 9:43 am for 27 in a 20. The school zone is only from 7:30-9:00am and my ticket was clearly written waaay after it was not a school zone. I argued that my speed was under the limit of 35 and that is was not a school zone at that time.
It didn’t matter to the ADA who advised me to take the no seatbelt, (non-moving violation) and pay up and get the hell out. Good advice as traffic court judges here are not really all that flexible.
I tried several times to explaining to 2 different ADA’s ad they were not interested in hearing how it was not a school zone when I was driving.
Plead it out and move one.
posted by winks007 at 8:38 AM on April 30, 2007
Have you considered simply going to the district attorney who will be prosecuting the case and explaining to him your situation and how you plan to fight it?
If your understanding of the law is sound, chances are he will drop the case rather than take it to court. I've done this with success on multiple speeding tickets with much more dubious evidence to my innocence than you (I've even had a reckless driving ticket dropped in this fashion).
Just head over to the courthouse during his office hours and drop in. Talk with him face to face and see what he says. If he says tough luck, then take it to court (and in answer to your question, without a jury, I think).
posted by dead_ at 9:19 AM on April 30, 2007
If your understanding of the law is sound, chances are he will drop the case rather than take it to court. I've done this with success on multiple speeding tickets with much more dubious evidence to my innocence than you (I've even had a reckless driving ticket dropped in this fashion).
Just head over to the courthouse during his office hours and drop in. Talk with him face to face and see what he says. If he says tough luck, then take it to court (and in answer to your question, without a jury, I think).
posted by dead_ at 9:19 AM on April 30, 2007
If you have the time and are really fired up about it, have a jury trial. You think jurors would be pissed that you are taking up their time with a speeding ticket trial? How about the judge? The judge will be so fired up that they are having a trial for a speeding ticket that he will be as pissed as can be at the prosecutor. Prosecutors do not like having the judge pissed at them. They also don't want to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars on a jury trial when they undoubtedly will have other more serious cases that need to be tried in those courtrooms. Result? The prosecutor will dismiss it. It might take a long time. The prosecutor might keep putting your cases on trial calendars over and over so that you have to keep coming back to court. But that prosecutor is very likely to dismiss your case ultimately if you push it hard enough.
Where I practice criminal defense, I have certainly never heard of anyone having a jury trial for a speeding ticket. Judges here don't like presiding over jury trials for any misdemeanors, much less speeding tickets. A prosecutor who tried a speeding ticket here would not only be hated by the judge, but he/she would also be ridiculed by his/her peers. It simply would never happen here. And I am rather certain that it would never happen where you are, either. Your knowledge of the law and the facts of your case will have less to do with the case ultimately being dismissed than your ability to be a thorn in the prosecutor's side and a pain in the whole judicial system's ass.
posted by flarbuse at 7:07 PM on April 30, 2007
Where I practice criminal defense, I have certainly never heard of anyone having a jury trial for a speeding ticket. Judges here don't like presiding over jury trials for any misdemeanors, much less speeding tickets. A prosecutor who tried a speeding ticket here would not only be hated by the judge, but he/she would also be ridiculed by his/her peers. It simply would never happen here. And I am rather certain that it would never happen where you are, either. Your knowledge of the law and the facts of your case will have less to do with the case ultimately being dismissed than your ability to be a thorn in the prosecutor's side and a pain in the whole judicial system's ass.
posted by flarbuse at 7:07 PM on April 30, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by clarkstonian at 7:47 PM on April 29, 2007