| |
|
Tonight was probation/parole - matters somewhat remote from a simple civil infraction, such as our favorite, that ever-popular and unavoidable 'crime' - speeding.
However, what was more interesting was the little meeting my friend "Geof" and I attended this afternoon. But first, let Geof relate an experience from earlier this week:
Well it probably should come as no surprise, but the judge that I testified before today was extremely biased. The case essentially was decided before it began.
The judge denied my motion for dismissal on account of prosecution's inability to produce public records according to MA General Laws and would not even hear my motion for postponement (continuance). The judge then let the officer testify. In the officer's testimony, he testified that he stopped a black Mercury. For the record, I was driving a gray Mercedes. When I introduced the photograph into evidence and the officer saw it, he quickly changed his testimony that it was indeed a gray Mercedes that he saw even though he previously testified otherwise. The judge even went so far as to ask the officer if there was no question that this was the vehicle that he stopped. the officer said that there was absolutely no question.
I then asked the officer about his qualifications and calibration techniques for LIDAR. I must say that he did quite well describing the methods for calibration. He did however make sweeping statements that he performed internal and external calibrations before and after his shift which the judge allowed without any documentation. Basically whatever the officer testified to was as if it was the word of God.
Besides the misidentification of my car, the point that I really nailed the officer on was visual estimation. He testified that he performed a visual estimation before using LIDAR whose reading was taken at 1400 feet. Any reasonable person know that is virtually impossible to do so at such a distance, yet the officer said he was able to do so and the judge took it as the gospel's truth.
To tell you the truth, I am somewhat shaken by the total disregard that judges have for our justice system as well as the officer's nonchalant attitude toward lying. It was obvious that the judge considered this a nuisance case and just wanted it to end as soon as possible so as not to hold up other business.
I did however learn one lesson in cross-examining the officer. It is absolutely necessary to have follow-up questions when the officer obviously lies (such as about his superior visual estimation ability).
Nonetheless, while disappointed with the verdict, it was worth it to catch the officer in a lie and see his face. I obviously was not the type of defendant that he expected to face when he woke up this morning. It's just a shame though that judge feels justified in running over the rights of us ordinary citizens (that happen to pay his salary with none other than speeding tickets)."
Well, it just happened this very same courthouse was conducting an open house tonight and the topic was "How Can the District Court Better Administer Justice".
Both Geof and I spoke in front of a judge (it wasn't 'his' judge), a DA, dozens of Assistant DA's, a bunch of defense attorneys and a police chief or two. We made them sit up and at least consider the effects of 'expediting justice' - something they seemed to be really interested in - on a normal citizen accused of speeding. I also pointed out the difference between the court's attitude when it needs you for a jury duty the the court's attitude as described by Geof. (Afterwards, two lawyers thanked him for speaking up at their meeting.)
It's not going to change the appeal that he has filed since, but speaking up did made Geof feel better. And I guarantee you, for a while, this court will take speeding cases more seriously. At least for awhile...
IvanP.S. Trivia Answer from Last Week:
Only 5000.
The Trivia Question of this Week:
What do the following quotations have in common?
Answer next week!