Reasonable Doubt?
So I went to court for my ticket yesterday. Let me just say, I hate small town judges who are all buddy-buddy with the police officers. The cop who gave me the ticket (who also swore, in court, that my navy blue Neon was 'a lighter green, not very dark') spent ten minutes in the courtroom with the judge before I was called in. Then, after everything was done, the judge said that if I'd raised the issue that the officer didn't have me in sight the entire time he was supposedly following me (a whopping 5 miles, at least, according to officer Caudill) it would have given 'reasonable doubt' that it wasn't my vehicle that he'd originally clocked at 77 in a 60. However, since I didn't bring it up (and neither, for that matter, did the prosecutor, so I feel they didn't prove it) it didn't affect his decision and he found me guilty anyway. What a crock of shit. Some more interesting facts:
The officer followed me for over 5 miles, to 'see how fast [I] would go', and tailgated me half of that time.
He did not verify that I was in fact me when he pulled me over (that is, he did not ask me to verify my name with the name on my license).
He did not verify that I was wearing corrective lenses, which is listed as a restriction on my license.
He swears the car he pulled me over in was 'a light green, not very dark'.
He did not note my hair color or my license restrictions on the ticket.
He made sure I knew how easy it was to pay by mail when he pulled me over.
The judge decided he must have clocked me when I (allegedly, I don't remember a damn truck) pulled out to pass a truck (Hello? Aren't you supposed to speed up to get around people in a timely manner) that was doing 60. I had my cruise set at sixty five, and the judge assumes I would have sped up to at least 'ten miles faster than the other vehicle' and that my 'speedometer might be a few miles off' so I was probably doing at least '75' so, instead of finding me guilty of 75 in a 60, which would have lowered the fine by at least $40, he found me guilty of 77 in a 60. But, might I note that his own calculations put my speed at 73, not 75 or even 77?
The judge told me that if I'd raised the doubt that he might not have had the vehicle he alleges was travelling so fast in sight the entire time, I would have won. If the judge had that doubt to begin with, and the prosecution didn't prove it, I don't have to disprove it, do I? Prosecution bears the burden of proof, not me. However, I could be wrong.
But I'm still pissed. I find small consolation in the fact that my fine of $166.50 couldn't possibly have covered the cost to get the county prosecutor to the courthouse and have the officer in question and his supervisor there as well for 2 hours.
The officer followed me for over 5 miles, to 'see how fast [I] would go', and tailgated me half of that time.
He did not verify that I was in fact me when he pulled me over (that is, he did not ask me to verify my name with the name on my license).
He did not verify that I was wearing corrective lenses, which is listed as a restriction on my license.
He swears the car he pulled me over in was 'a light green, not very dark'.
He did not note my hair color or my license restrictions on the ticket.
He made sure I knew how easy it was to pay by mail when he pulled me over.
The judge decided he must have clocked me when I (allegedly, I don't remember a damn truck) pulled out to pass a truck (Hello? Aren't you supposed to speed up to get around people in a timely manner) that was doing 60. I had my cruise set at sixty five, and the judge assumes I would have sped up to at least 'ten miles faster than the other vehicle' and that my 'speedometer might be a few miles off' so I was probably doing at least '75' so, instead of finding me guilty of 75 in a 60, which would have lowered the fine by at least $40, he found me guilty of 77 in a 60. But, might I note that his own calculations put my speed at 73, not 75 or even 77?
The judge told me that if I'd raised the doubt that he might not have had the vehicle he alleges was travelling so fast in sight the entire time, I would have won. If the judge had that doubt to begin with, and the prosecution didn't prove it, I don't have to disprove it, do I? Prosecution bears the burden of proof, not me. However, I could be wrong.
But I'm still pissed. I find small consolation in the fact that my fine of $166.50 couldn't possibly have covered the cost to get the county prosecutor to the courthouse and have the officer in question and his supervisor there as well for 2 hours.
posted by Mela @ 8:13 am
1 Comments:
At 6/18/2005 1:40 pm,
Mela said…
mmk. What really gets me is the excuse the judge made for the officer regarding the color discrepancy: "Some people are color-blind" Well, they didn't prove the officer in question was color blind, and my car doesn't look light green in any circumstance; at best it looks black or dark blue.
Post a Comment
<< Home