Excellent points, all.
Island, I hadn't really thought of it that way. I had hoped that by doing my research, being able to quote important cases, being professional and presentable, etc. I could impress the judge with my respect for his court and my desire to prove my innocence. I can unfortunately see now how he might see it as "Legal work does not require a devoted professional; any amateur can do this successfully..." which is a personal insult.
Greg -- You're absolutely right on all of those things. I was under the impression that there were federal requirements for training, however, at least partially based on the radar cases from several states in the '70s and '80s. NHTSA or IACP, perhaps? The calibration requirements vary wildly from state to state, and even from one law enforcement organization to the next. I'm less concerned about those (the documents are highly questionable, but notarized, so therefore legal). I've spoken with several people at the manufacturer, but their word is hearsay unless they make a physical appearance to testify and be cross-examined (though the officer is not required to show, despite my 6th amendment rights). I had, in fact, an e-mail from the Program Manager of the radar SMD that the officer used, but it was ruled inadmissible as hearsay, obviously. And yes, that e-mail was tough to come by ...
Rick -- is there any way to find out who the former prosecutor was? Is that a public record item, "History of employment as prosecutor?"
Dan