Quote:
Originally Posted by ramonesfreak
If your fighting it pro se, you have little chance because while the state has the burden of proof, you still need to know how to cross examine the cop properly. It’s not easy, especially when you have no idea what you are doing and the judge is hurrying you along because the courtroom is packed and he has to get to all the cases before lunch. I’ve handled a lot of these cases for friends and co-workers and getting in touch with the prosecutor to make a deal is always step number 1. If they don’t want to deal, get a lawyer.
|
Here in Washington, traffic infractions are "civil" offenses, wherein this "burden of proof" is only 51% of the available "evidence". "Preponderance of evidence" I believe is the legal term. No "beyond reasonable doubt" or "90%" as used in a criminal case. And, well guess what - if the cops says you did it, that meets this "51%" threshold.
Our traffic attorneys will never even attempt to cross examine an officer on the stand. They know if it goes that far they have already lost before the trial even begins. The deck is that heavily stacked. Attorneys have no chance - lay people are simply cannon fodder.
If a traffic attorney in this state sees that it is going to trial, because the officer actually waded through the paperwork successfully, they will plea bargain with the DA to a monetarily equivalent non-moving violation. Lay people that try to do this will never even get a meeting with the DA. They are not a dues paying member of "the club".
Again, and I stress - this is here in Washington. Other states vary. It pays to learn how your state operates.