When to Best Introduce Evidence

[gmonte201]

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?

 

[jacksgal]

You are best advised to seek legal counsel for advice. Since many Attorneys offer free consultations this would be a good time to get that info

 

[gmonte201]

I am representing myself so I am not using an attorney - that is why I am posting on this forum to see if anyone else might have some useful information, maybe having some experience in the matter.

 

[army judge]

I am representing myself so I am not using an attorney - that is why I am posting on this forum to see if anyone else might have some useful information, maybe having some experience in the matter.

It is a waste of your time trying to play lawyer in traffic court.



Traffic courts serve one function, to rip you off and get money for the city, county, or state.

The sure fire way (and cheaper way) to "beat" a ticket is take an online traffic school.

Fewer than 5% of traffic ticket victims walk out of traffic court with a dismissal or not guilty verdict.

The deck is stacked. The house always wins.

On the other hand, 100% of traffic school participants have their citations dismissed.

Play the game, but learn the rules.

 

[gmonte201]

Wow, you guys are harsh - but I appreciate the Devil's Advocate position (though I don't agree with you as far as trying to fight a ticket).

First of all, there are two officers involved. Only one actually witnessed the alleged violation and the other pulled me over 200+ feet down the road and out of sight of the other officer.

There are several ways to approach this case:

1) If only the issuing officer shows up then the prosecution has no case since there is no actual witness.

2) If both show up, get the officers to testify separately (so they can't hear each others testimony). Unless they are super prepared (which is doubtful in my experience), they will give conflicting testimony. This conflicting testimony could possibly lead to reasonable doubt.

Back to my initial question:

I have photographs of the day the alleged violation occurred of both the witnessing officer's location and the location of the issuing officer. Depending on their testimony, I can show that they do not recollect the events of that day correctly. As this could lead to reasonable doubt...

I repeat my initial 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?

Thanks

 

[jacksgal]

You plan to take a traffic ticket to trial?

 

[gmonte201]

Yes, that's usually how you fight a traffic ticket.