I am representing myself in a traffic court, there are two officers involved: one witnessed the incident and the other issued the summons from another location not in sight of the witnessing officer.
Is it best to introduce evidence when I am cross-examining an officer (to show he is mistaken) or should I let him say what he wants and then when I testify introduce evidence which puts his former testimony into question?
Is it best to introduce evidence when I am cross-examining an officer (to show he is mistaken) or should I let him say what he wants and then when I testify introduce evidence which puts his former testimony into question?