Traffic ticket story from a newsgroup
Angela
see the prosecuting attorney have a coronary, and I got the cop to
perjure himself on the stand twice.
I show up in court, and the prosecutor is basically riding the pine,
barely even trying. The judge is rubber stamping everything that the
prosecution throws his way. So I let the prosecutor do the same thing
with my witness. The witness essentially testifies the way that I want
him to: he doesn't stress the fact that I was driving in an unsafe
manner, rather he tries to cover his ass saying that he paced me for
500 meters etc. etc. etc. and determined that I was driving 50 miles
per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone (I was actually driving 45 mph, but
that's irrelevant).
So I let the prosecution rest, which essentially precludes any
additional testimony from the cop. Then I light into the cop with a
barrage of questions.
Me: So you testified that the car was a Honda Civic.
Cop: Correct.
Me: And you testified that the car was white.
Cop: Correct.
Me: What year model was the car?
Cop: What?
Me: Was it an old car, new car...
Cop: I don't know.
Me: Would it surprise you to know that the car was 12 years old and had
200,000 miles on it?
Prosecutor: OBJECTION!
Judge: Now listen, Mr. Gunter, I know you're not a lawyer, but there
are certain rules we have to abide by in this court. What relevancy
are you trying to establish here?
Me: Your honor, I'm trying to establish independent recollection. If
he can't recall that the car is new or 12 years old, how can he claim
to have indepedent recollection.
Judge: ... I'm going to overrule. Please answer the question.
Cop: I don't know.
Me: Is it possible that you could have confused me with any other
vehicles in the area?
Cop: No.
Me: There were no other vehicles in the vicinity?
Cop: No.
Me: Is it possible that your view of the vehicle could have been
obscured by rain or fog?
Cop: It was perfectly sunny.
Me: Were there any unusual grades, curves, or corners that could have
obscured your view of the automobile?
Cop: No.
Me: So to summarize, your testimony is that, in your opinion, you
observed a vehicle traveling fifty miles per hour in fair weather on a
four lane highway with no unusual grades, curves, or corners during a
period of unusually light traffic.
Cop: Yes.
Me: When you were pacing this vehicle, would you say that you were
carelessly disregarding the safety of other drivers?
Cop: Yes, um, no. No.
(At this point, I can see the prosecutor sit up and begin shaking)
Me: Did you ask the defendant during the traffic stop "Do you know what
the speed limit is back there?"
Cop: No (perjury).
Me: Do I need to remind you that you're under oath?
Prosecutor: OBJECTION!
Judge: Sustained.
Me: Did you have a lengthy discussion with the defendant during the
traffic stop?
Prosecutor: OBJECTION!!
Judge: Answer the question.
Cop: No.
Me: Isn't it true that the only point of contention discussed during
the traffic stop before you issued your citation was the speed of the
vehicle in question.
Prosecutor: OBJECTION!!
Judge: Just answer the question.
Cop: No (perjury).
Me: Does the patrol car you were driving that day contain a video
camera that records your activity?
Cop: No.
Me: Does the patrol car you were driving that day contain a radar or
laser speed detection device.
Cop: Yes.
Me: Why haven't we seen the evidence from this device presented.
Judge: I can answer that one for you. As of the last census, this city
does not qualify for the use of radar devices.
Me: Do you have any formal training on how to discern the exact speed
of a vehicle from a distance without the aid of a speed detection
device.
Cop: Yes.
Me: May I see your professional certification for that?
Cop: I don't have any certification.
Me: Have you ever taken any engineering courses at an institution of
higher learning?
Prosecutor: OBJECTION YOUR HONOR! HE'S A (here the guy actually spits
while he's speaking) POLICEMAN, NOT AN ENGINEER!
Judge: Sustained.
Me: Are you aware that the State of Mississippi...
Prosecutor: OBJECTION! OBJECTION!!!
Judge: Please let him finish speaking.
Me: Are you aware that the State of Mississippi requires that a
municipality base the speed limits of its streets on a traffic safety
engineering study?
Prosecutor: OBJECTION!
Judge: Sustained.
I notice that the prosecutor is taking notes, preparing to FREAKIN'
REAM me when I take the stand. His neck is bulging over his collar,
his mustache is twitching, his face is fire engine red.
Me: Your honor, I am done with this witness.
Judge: Would the prosecution like to redirect?
Prosecutor: (still scribbling notes in his notebook) No your honor...
Judge: Mr. Gunter, you may take the stand.
Me: I do not wish to present an affirmative defense your honor. The
defense rests, and wishes to proceed directly to closing arguments.
Judge: Okay, lets hear your arguments.
Me: Closing:
---
Your Honor, the Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed last June a Rankin
County Circuit Court decision that upheld the rather vague wording of
the careless driving statute. The case in question was Leuer v. City
of Flowood. In their decision, the Court agreed that the wording of
the law was vague, but upheld the wording by stating "Popular words in
statutes must be accepted in their popular sense and we must attempt to
glean from the statutes the legislative intent." While legislative
intent is often difficult to ascertain, the careless driving statute
and reckless driving statute mention each other directly, each defines
itself in comparison to the other, and each became law on exactly the
same day. We can therefore assume that the legislative intent of the
careless driving statute is to empower law enforcement officers to make
the distinction between the wanton and willful endangerment of others
while driving, and negligent endangerment of others while driving.
Given that Mississippi adopted laws governing safe speeds on state
highways 7 years before the adoption of the careless driving laws,
given that these speeding statutes still exist in the Mississippi Code,
and given that these speeding statutes are never mentioned in the
careless driving statutes, we can also assume that the legislative
intent of the careless driving statute is not to circumvent, subvert,
or replace the current speeding statutes.
Your honor, substantial doubt has been cast on the prosecution's case.
First, the only facts that the police officer can positively affirm are
that the defendant, in the officer's opinion, was traveling at 50 miles
per hour in fair weather on a four lane highway with no unusual grades,
curves, or corners during a period of unusually light traffic
activity. Secondly, the officer's exclusive concern over the speed of
the vehicle in this matter reveals that he was basing his decision to
issue a citation exclusively on speed and no other matters of
imprudence or carelessness. Given that the legislative intent of
careless driving is not solely to regulate speeding, the defense
believes that insufficient evidence exists to convict the defendant of
careless driving, and moves for an acquittal.
---
At this point the prosecutor JUMPS up from his seat and begins pounding
on the table saying "YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT! I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS.
THE DEFENDANT WAS LEADING THE WITNESS blather blather blather etc. etc.
etc." He's hopping around like a cat with his tail on fire, he's
screaming at the judge, the judge is laughing and shaking his head.
Judge: Alright, let's all just calm down here please. Son, can you
give me that supreme court decision again?
Me: Leuer v. City of Flowood. I've got the decision right here your
honor.
Judge: Let me see that. (reads the decision for a couple of seconds) So
they upheld the wording of the law here, right?
Me: Yes sir, subject to an interpretation of legislative intent.
Judge: Well, they upheld the wording of the law. I'm going to find you
guilty as charged and fine you $82.
Me: Thank you your Honor, have a nice holiday season.
Outside, in the foyer as I'm paying my fines, two cops walk up to me
and shake my hand. "Boy, you kicked ass in there. Good job." Oh,
well, I guess you got some good and some bad in every organization.
<and then he goes on to write>
I called a couple of friends that I knew from high school who have
since become lawyers to see if they knew the prosecutor in the traffic
court case. Apparently, the guy is a part-time prosecutor for the
Brandon municipal court and part-time Pelahatchie judge. The lawyer
friend that knew of him said that the guy is a serious guilty-mill hard
ass who is famous for telling attorneys that attempt to settle with
him "I can't help you."
Well, the friend thought that my story was the funniest thing he had
ever heard, and asked if he could tell everyone the story at the next
bar association meeting. He also guaranteed me that he would find
someone who would be brave enough to go up, pat the guy on the
shoulder, and say "I heard you learned a little something about
legislative intent."