Showing a reasonable doubt for a speeding ticket in Ohio

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

timotb

New Member
This will be my second traffic pro se traffic trial. The first should have been for speeding but the cop took pitty when he saw my CDL and charged me with not wearing a seat belt which I removed prior to get to my wallet where my DL was kept. I took it to trial and my passenger acted as witness.....found NOT guilty.

Now I need to show a reasonable doubt in a new speeding issue that radar had possible interference because it was aimed in close proximity to a high voltage substation. See docs.google.com/document/d/1Lk6igXqW57cgFUuFHI7DuDPVYee0w-1M5ecjbUmkG6k/edit for an overhead view. (You might have to add http before this link, had to remove that because they wouldnt let me post a URL if my posting were under 15....fooy)

Does anyone have additional information that can support this interference claim and be introduced at trial?

I plan to argue first that I have not been properly told what the specific speeding violation is because the copy of the issued citation is NOT legible enough to identify the specific number of the Ohio Rev Code.

Comments?
 
Good luck, traffic citation trials are not capital murder cases. Don't expect too much from the judge. Most of these cases, well in excess of 97% of them result in convictions, fines, and fees.

Too bad you can't do traffic school on that CDL. :(


Sent from my iPad2 using Tapatalk HD
 
I know the odds are against me. The total fine and costs are only $125. I do this for the satisfaction of making the State prove their burden as well as getting pro se trial experience. All I have to do is show one reasonable doubt...
 
Last edited:
For anyone who would like to comment on my list of discovery items to be requested:


Radar Unit - Repair records, manufacturers manual and specifications, calibration log and the Department's FCC License to operate the radar unit. Make, Model, Serial number, options and age of the actual device used.

Tuning Fork - Certificate of accuracy. Repair and calibration records and log sheets for the actual device used.

Police Officer making the Complaint – Traffic Citation record for February 27, 2012 and last three months prior to February 27, 2012, officers daily log for February 27, 2012, radar training record and operator's certification and a copy of the back side of the original citation. Complete training records for this officer including classroom and supervised instruction on the device used.

Patrol Car - Speedometer calibration certificate, repair and maintenance records along with the repair and service records for the actual patrol car.
 
Of course Its up to me to be able to apply the discovery at trial. And that's where I'm just an amateur. My plan at trial is to 1. argue about not knowing the specific citation in violation because ticket is not ledgable. 2. argue over missing discovery (I expect) 3. question the officer with regards to interference from sub station as per manual 4. question officer about cosine error and how to calculate it, hopefully making him look like he never read the manual and doesn't fully understand his equipment. Its possible police radar calculates errors automatically, but I'm hoping to read his manual and find out for sure as well as find other areas to question.

"That which does not kill me makes me stronger" -Nietche?

I was hoping I could get some better input by some of the experienced people here....or are you guys all cheering for the other side? lol
 
Last edited:
I was hoping I could get some better input by some of the experienced people here....or are you guys all cheering for the other side? lol

I am....
 
I don't have a problem with that. But that doesn't mean I have to help a habitual speeder avoid the consequences of his actions. Or that I want him on the road.

Of course you can make your state prove its burden. But that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to cheer for the state.
 
"habitual speeder!?" Sir, I am 50 years old, I don't drive anything like I used to as a kid. I remember getting a speeding ticket roughly every 2 years in my 20's. My last speeding ticket was in 1996! Now all of a sudden I get stopped twice in 4 months on the same road in my own back yard! I hardly see this a trend in reckless driving behavior. You can cheer for the State if you want, I like the cheer for the underdog....lol

You must be a cop or a prosecutor.
 
Last edited:
I hate to say it, but if I am the definition of a habitual speeder after 16 years of no speeding tickets, Proserpina, you must be the definition of an idiot.
 
....Although I will admit to being a habitual speeder in my younger days. I remember in 1988 buying a new Mustang 5.0. The thinking at the time was I wanted to end any argument with another driver by speed.
 
If you get stopped twice in four months, then yes, you are a habitual speeder.

I am neither a cop nor a prosecutor. Nor even a Sir. (That's Ma'am, to you.) Just an ordinary citizen who wants the roads to be safe when she (and her family) are out on them.

I'll root for the underdog when it's appropriate. Rooting for the Kansas City Royals to beat the Yankees is an appropriate time to root for the underdog. So is rooting for the UK to beat Finland in Olympic ski jumping. Rooting for a habitual speeder to avoid the consequences of his actions is, IMHO, not.

Have a good day.
 
...and 16 years clean driving record is no factor in your mind....I am also the definition of tenacity. Now I'm more motivated then before to show you "left-wing, government loving, California Commys" (lol) a win. Especially you "ma'ams" lol . I think this forum is over dominated by female thinking. I'm in the wrong camp!

I'll find someone local, even if I have pay their time, to review my strategy to find that reasonable doubt. HA!
 
Last edited:
You do that. I'm sure if you pay someone enough they'll come up with any answer you wish.

You're not paying me, so I don't have to take your side if I feel you're wrong.
 
timotb said:
...and 16 years clean driving record is no factor in your mind....I am also the definition of tenacity. Now I'm more motivated then before to show you "left-wing, government loving, California Commys" (lol) a win. Especially you "ma'ams" lol . I think this forum is over dominated by female thinking. I'm in the wrong camp!

I'll find someone local, even if I have pay their time, to review my strategy to find that reasonable doubt. HA!
Click to expand...

You need to convince the judge in your case of your innocence. The opinions of the volunteers on this site are irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone 4S via AT&T using Tapatalk
 
army judge said:
You need to convince the judge in your case of your innocence. The opinions of the volunteers on this site are irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone 4S via AT&T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Convince the judge of my innocence... Why not just show a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case to the judge's satisfaction? In Ohio the standard for Traffic is "beyond a reasonable doubt" same as criminal standard. I seem to remember as kid the standard was a preponderance of evidence. Not sure if it was ever changed or if I just was too dumb back then to know.

Yes. you are right. The opinions of these housewife commentators are irrelevant.
 
You can't possibly be speaking about me - I am hardly a housewife.

But I don't recall offering any opinions; it is a fact that you are a habitual speeder. You've proven that yourself here. The only other thing I had to say was that I declined to assist you.

I await with baited breath for your attempt to get the last word.
 
I suspect this poster might say that an alcoholic who was sober for 15 years and then got two DUIs in a 2 year period no longer had a drinking problem.
 
There is no last word. This forum continues indefinitely until no one else wants to comment. Army judge is the only person who contributed anything positive so far. I know I can be a bit of an agitator. I enjoy life to the fullest. I've actually been looking forward to this opportunity to get some pro se experience. I said it before, and I'll say it again, "that which does not kill me, makes me stronger" For me, this is not about some moral right or wrong, good or bad. I know speed kills, and responsible driving is necessary for us all to get to our destination safely. This is about exercising the rights of the accused to go to trial and let the State make their burden.....they probably will. I get to keep the enjoyment and education of it.

But you two women don't understand this. Almost makes me think the 19th amendment was a mistake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top