Today's my big court trial - advice?

Nick texted me. I will let him spill the beans.
 
While I'm reasonably sure he's not guilty of what he's charged with, I'm pretty sure it won't go his way simply because this isn't about guilt or innocence. Any judge allowing a chink in the armor of aviation patrolled tickets opens the system up for examination of many many tickets.

It's nice that the OP thinks this is about guilt and innocence, and will have his day in court. Sadly, it's not going to go well because no judge will open Pandora's box.
 
I have to get up at 4 o'clock in the morning. I sure hope Nick reports in soon so I can find out what happened before I go to bed.
 
I suspect he told the judge that 108 mph is a mere 92 knots.

Or he called the officer a poopy head.

Either way I think Wednesdays are spaghetti nights at the Big House.
 
AggieMike88 said:
I remember a post related to this about a year ago and always liked your style...

I think then you were pressing the issue of radar gun calibration, proper use, certification, etc...
Click to expand...
But he wasn't stopped by those- it was a bear in the air transmitting to a loval yokel to pull him over by make and model . . . .

I don't know how he gets into evidence he was coming on to the highway if the cop misidentified the vehicle he pulled over without testifying - and if he has to testify - the cross examination is: "So how fast were you going?"
 
comanchepilot said:
But he wasn't stopped by those- it was a bear in the air transmitting to a loval yokel to pull him over by make and model . . . .

I don't know how he gets into evidence he was coming on to the highway if the cop misidentified the vehicle he pulled over without testifying - and if he has to testify - the cross examination is: "So how fast were you going?"
Click to expand...

tumblr_lmeciwzomt1qguve2o1_500.gif
 
Guilty. but I feel satisfied that I got my day in court and made them earn the money. Basically, we took an hour and a half where everyone else took 5 minutes.

Some details that made it hard to defend:

1. the pilot officer showed up.
2. The pilot officer knew the distance between vascar lines because he painted and measured them himself in 2006 and they haven't moved since
3. The officer used two stop watches and took measurements across two different vascar lines, which reduced the likelihood that he measured the wrong car (but left open the possibility that they stopped the wrong car)
4. The non pilot officer was easily discredited as she was new and had no idea what the hell was going on. Thst said, the experience of the pilot officer helped them out.

Utlimately, all of my evidence was accepted and debated very heavily. The judge agreed that 91.113(b) meant that the pilot had to take his eyes off the road to maintain safety near the AFA, and the pilot officer admitted as much. Unfortunately, the video I displayed also helped demonstrate that it was easy to reestablish contact with the target vehicle when it is lost under a wing and was not a compelling enough argument.

The judge also was very complimentary that I handled this case more professionally and with more education that most defense attorneys do. He also mentioned that my suit was "very professional and dapper."

I probably won't appeal. Cheap enough at this point and I think I got my money's worth, if nothing else, by wasting two officer's time and the judges also. I'm innocent,but don't know how to prove it any more than I did today.
 
They don't have video of you crossing the lines?
 
Nice work. It sounds like the pilot cop had his act together, and this wasn't his first time in front of the judge.

You made them earn it though.
 
Like I've heard it said " you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the process."
 
So the judge said about what Fred Gwynne said to Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny: "That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. Overruled." So do you still have driving privileges?
 
So, how the discrepancy if you weren't doing 108+? There has to be an error involved somewhere. Clocking I"m guessing, maybe a simple mistaken start or stop time.
 
EdFred said:
They don't have video of you crossing the lines?
Click to expand...

Since it wasn't me, no. However, if such a video does exist, I'd never see it anyway because of Rule 8. Not only was I denied Discovery ahead of time, the only discover I was provided today was their evidence and nothing exculpatory. Real racket.
 
Ron Levy said:
So the judge said about what Fred Gwynne said to Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny: "That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. Overruled." So do you still have driving privileges?
Click to expand...

Of course I do! As I said all along, it's a speeding ticket, not a murder case. Total cost of going to court vs paying the ticket was like $40 all told. Would have been dumb to not try (and dumber to hire an attorney).
 
docmirror said:
So, how the discrepancy if you weren't doing 108+? There has to be an error involved somewhere. Clocking I"m guessing, maybe a simple mistaken start or stop time.
Click to expand...

My guess still remains: he measured one car violating, and somehow scrogged up the relay to the ground officer who stopped the wrong car.

One of my questions to both officers was "did you observe any erratic driving? Swerving, cutting into and out of lanes, etc." Both said no.

So how was I going 101 (I was wrong on the speed, it wasn't 108) in rush hour with traffic marked as "heavy" by the officers own admission without weaving in and out?

That's the mystery. But how do you prove that?
 
SkyHog said:
2. The pilot officer knew the distance between vascar lines because he painted and measured them himself in 2006 and they haven't moved since
Click to expand...

How exactly did he measure them? What equipment did he use? What degree of accuracy does the manufacturer of that equipment claim? Was it maintained and calibrated per the manufacturer's guidance?

I think this was your spot to really dig in.
 
SkyHog said:
I probably won't appeal. Cheap enough at this point and I think I got my money's worth, if nothing else, by wasting two officer's time and the judges also. I'm innocent,but don't know how to prove it any more than I did today.
Click to expand...

They were getting paid, and I suspect that you were not, so it wasn't their time that you were wasting.


JKG
 
SkyHog said:
My guess still remains: he measured one car violating, and somehow scrogged up the relay to the ground officer who stopped the wrong car.

One of my questions to both officers was "did you observe any erratic driving? Swerving, cutting into and out of lanes, etc." Both said no.

So how was I going 101 (I was wrong on the speed, it wasn't 108) in rush hour with traffic marked as "heavy" by the officers own admission without weaving in and out?

That's the mystery. But how do you prove that?
Click to expand...

Well, that's where I started this whole deal, thinking he started on one car, and finished timing yours, and had you pulled over. Mistaking a car for yours to start the timing wrong. Their proof on the timing start on your car is the thinnest part of their evidence. I think if you can find some wiggle there, that's what I would use to appeal. I doubt you would be granted an appeal unless there was something rather specific that was developed from the testimony. BTW, you don't have to prove you weren't speeding, technically the that's the prosecution burden. I guess the judge felt they met it, and your exculpation's weren't satisfactory.
 
Two things:


  1. Someone should make a video about Hitler finding out Nick is not going to jail.
  2. That Nick has intimate knowledge of 14CFR there is an open door for Nick to make pals with the officer pilot to facilitate a ride a long. If CO is like CA, they fly tricked out new C-206.
 
Nice try - you should be proud of the effort.

I spent a lot of time in traffic court on the other side.

The judges wanted to hear a plea of "Guilty", "Not Guilty" or "Guilty with an explanation".

You were 100% right to plead "Not Guilty" and make your case. Good job.

But for others, I found many judges sympathetic to the "Guilty with an explanation" plea. It showed the taking of responsibility and if the explanation was at all feasible they'd often waive court costs or reduce the fine.

Just my experience - any particular judge may be different.
 
SkyHog said:
Of course I do! As I said all along, it's a speeding ticket, not a murder case. Total cost of going to court vs paying the ticket was like $40 all told. Would have been dumb to not try (and dumber to hire an attorney).
Click to expand...
As others have said, you didn't waste their time; this is what they do. The only thing a lawyer might have done differently is gotten the case dismissed. But it sounds like you had a good time, and as long as there are no points involved, you pay a fine and you move on. :thumbsup:
 
As for the vehicles with a gov, I drove a couple different ambulances a few years ago. The E350 would max out at around 96-97 indicated on level ground. It was a slightly smaller box on the chassis. The E450 was governed at 85. The problem with it was that if you tried to run up against the gov for a longer period of time, (the exact qty was unknown to everyone) it would go into some crazy override mode that would let you top out at 25 mph down hill. The dealer mechanic said it was some problem with the gov, took awhile for them to fix it. There were a number of times a second unit had to come transport the PT.... Somebody forgot to change that part of the computer when they put the chassis under a ambulance box.
 
The outcome is really amazing! In the states I drive a lot in , maryland , penna, and NYS, you would have been in deep trouble. The police would have first told of their many years on the force, their extensive training in the method they used to ticket you and a brief description of the proven accuracy of their method. The judge would then have noticed you were not represented by a lawyer and listened briefly to your story, possibly looked at his watch, then dropped the hammer on you. The further out in the country the court, the worse the sentence usually. Small towns hard up for money. Then from NYS , in a month or so, you would have gotten a letter requesting an additional 300 bucks for a state "fund" .....and you'd better pay as most states in the east have reciprocity. They would explain that you can pay in three payments over three months or your driving privileges in NYS would be revoked and they would notify you home state. If you had a prior record of any importance you'd be revoked for six months or a year, driving school, the whole 9 yards. 100 mph in any of the above states is big time!
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
How exactly did he measure them? What equipment did he use? What degree of accuracy does the manufacturer of that equipment claim? Was it maintained and calibrated per the manufacturer's guidance?

I think this was your spot to really dig in.
Click to expand...

I think that would have led down a path of making him look better. This guy was really thorough.

Actually, though, something just occurred to me that I wound up leaving on the table that I probably could have rested my case afterward by saying "I just established a significant reasonable doubt to the guilt in this case..."

The officer explained that he made left turns, a "left traffic pattern" around the VASCAR marks. In a separate statement, he said that he makes all turns at 50-60 degree banks. He admitted that between measurement and relaying to the officer on the ground which vehicle to stop, he would have had to make a turn to keep the car in sight, and that he might lose track of the vehicle "for one or two seconds."

Damned if I didn't just realize that to make a 90 degree turn at 60 degrees of bank, it would have taken considerably more time - like 10 seconds or so (assuming a standard rate turn is 3 degrees per second and occurs at 30 degrees of bank, I figure you double that and get 6 degrees per second).

Even if the math's wrong, I doubt it would have been challenged for accuracy.

Son of a *****.
 
jesse said:
How exactly did he measure them? What equipment did he use? What degree of accuracy does the manufacturer of that equipment claim? Was it maintained and calibrated per the manufacturer's guidance?

I think this was your spot to really dig in.
Click to expand...
And it's not even Monday morning yet!
 
Lindberg said:
As others have said, you didn't waste their time; this is what they do. The only thing a lawyer might have done differently is gotten the case dismissed. But it sounds like you had a good time, and as long as there are no points involved, you pay a fine and you move on. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
As Nick said, a lawyer would not have put the time and effort into this case that He did unless it was pro bono just for the heck of it. What a lawyer might have done is work out a deal that reduced the infraction to some type of non-moving violation so that possible insurance premium increases were not also a potential penalty.

Of course, I say that from the standpoint of one who never handled a traffic case unless criminal penalties were involved.

Good job Nick. And glad you felt you got your day in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top