Cops lying under oath

[LongCoolMother]

of course the judge takes the cop's word over yours, they're on the same side. they always do that. theres not much you can do about it.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: ReelC00L

Originally posted by: cjchaps
So, what is the outcome? I take it you got screwed?

Well, the Judge in Gainesville is very consistent. If you go in with a reasonable attempt at a case or reasonable story, she will typically reduce your fine and drop the points. My case was no exception. They are not very keen on letting go of money from a ticket apparently.

I wonder if there is any penalty for a cop for writing a bad ticket that would cause him to lie like that. Perhaps it was just an ego thing?

if the ticket get's dismised then it doesn't go on his quota, can't have cops not making their quota of tickets.

There is no quota. I don't like cops either, but they don't have any required number of tickets a month or anything like that.

 

[tk149]

1. Yes, some cops do lie on the witness stand. No, not all of them do.
2. It's just a traffic ticket. Why would the cop bother lying? Maybe he just doesn't remember very well, and thinks he's telling the truth. You were probably the 90th person he cited that day.
3. I worked for a city attorney. If a cop failed to show up in court, he got suspended. Of course, every city has its own rules.
4. You are NOT entitled to a trial by jury for a traffic ticket. If you ask, the judge will explain this to you very clearly and slowly in small easy to understand words.
5. Not all jurisdictions have a camera in every police car. You can ask, but don't be surprised if they don't. Those cameras are very expensive. I saw a fundraising banner at the courthouse I used to do research at. I have no idea why they cost so much.
6. If you're going to contest a ticket, you would do well to research the traffic court procedure in your jurisdiction, or hire a lawyer.
7. Yes, the judge is going to believe the cop over you. It sucks if the cop lies or is wrong, but think about the consequences if this were not true.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Encryptic

Originally posted by: FoBoT
maybe you were speeding and should just pay the fine

Maybe he had a valid case and got shafted by the system. Happens all the time.

maybe he was speeding , i will go back and read the original post and try to see if any information regarding this is actually posted, most of the post was just b!tching about the cop and stuff

*EDIT** in reviewing the first post, i cannot find any information on what the posted speed limit was or what speed the vehicle in question was traveling, nor can i find if the accused speeder denied speeding under oath, too little information has been provided

we may need a court transcript

We don't need a transcript. We need Matlock.

 

[djplayx714]

i totally sympathize with you. a cop pulled me over 3 years ago for changing lanes without my blinker. so i setup a whole defense to fight the ticket with.

come court day my entire argument was screwed. he told the judge i cut someone off. i was in shock that he so blatantly lied. i had nothing to say at that point.

 

[xaigi]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Hmmm... I didn't quite understand the semi part.... was the semi parked?
If so, passing a semi in 2 seconds means... speeding. (show me a semi driving under the speed limit... they're paid by the mile, not the hour)

In some parts of california, the speed limit for trucks is 10mph less than the speed limit for cars. All of the trucks are supposed to ride in the right (or second to right) lane and not pass 55 -- cars can go 65. How long does it take to pass a parked car at 10mph? Thats how long it should take to pass a semi on one of these roads if you are both doing the speed limit.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: tk149
1. Yes, some cops do lie on the witness stand. No, not all of them do.
2. It's just a traffic ticket. Why would the cop bother lying? Maybe he just doesn't remember very well, and thinks he's telling the truth. You were probably the 90th person he cited that day.
3. I worked for a city attorney. If a cop failed to show up in court, he got suspended. Of course, every city has its own rules.
4. You are NOT entitled to a trial by jury for a traffic ticket. If you ask, the judge will explain this to you very clearly and slowly in small easy to understand words.
5. Not all jurisdictions have a camera in every police car. You can ask, but don't be surprised if they don't. Those cameras are very expensive. I saw a fundraising banner at the courthouse I used to do research at. I have no idea why they cost so much.
6. If you're going to contest a ticket, you would do well to research the traffic court procedure in your jurisdiction, or hire a lawyer.
7. Yes, the judge is going to believe the cop over you. It sucks if the cop lies or is wrong, but think about the consequences if this were not true.

In NC you do have the right to a trial by jury, it depends on how they charge a ticket by the state. If it is any real type crime then federal law takes over and YOU do have a right to a trial by jury, ala The US Constitution

US Constitution


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Those 3 amendments will always oversee ANY state law, i.e you can appeal and you can have a trial by jury, BUT you would have to appeal the state law thats says you can't have a trial by jury for a ticket and that would probable cost more then the ticket did int he first place.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

In NC you do have the right to a trial by jury, it depends on how they charge a ticket by the state. If it is any real type crime then federal law takes over and YOU do have a right to a trial by jury, ala The US Constitution

US Constitution


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Those 3 amendments will always oversee ANY state law, i.e you can appeal and you can have a trial by jury, BUT you would have to appeal the state law thats says you can't have a trial by jury for a ticket and that would probable cost more then the ticket did int he first place.

You are right about Federal law trumping state or local law, of course. BUT...

Amendment V is inapplicable here, as a traffic ticket is not a capital case.

I do not think Amendment VI applies because the courts have not strictly interpreted this amendment. See here "Although the Sixth Amendment provision does not differentiate among types of criminal proceedings in which the right to a jury trial is or is not present, the Court has always excluded petty offenses from the guarantee in federal courts, defining the line between petty and serious offenses either by the maximum punishment available or by the nature of the offense"

I believe that Amendment VII addresses civil cases, not criminal, and is therefore inapplicable to this case.

However, I do stand corrected. In some jurisdictions, you do have the right to a trial by jury for a traffic ticket, but not all. In these jurisdictions, state or local law (city, county, whatever) gives this right. BTW, in my city, you have to pay a $100 "jury fee" to get a jury trial for a traffic offense.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I base my argument solely on my admittedly faulty memory of law lectures and some internet sources.😱

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

In NC you do have the right to a trial by jury, it depends on how they charge a ticket by the state. If it is any real type crime then federal law takes over and YOU do have a right to a trial by jury, ala The US Constitution

US Constitution


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Those 3 amendments will always oversee ANY state law, i.e you can appeal and you can have a trial by jury, BUT you would have to appeal the state law thats says you can't have a trial by jury for a ticket and that would probable cost more then the ticket did int he first place.

You are right about Federal law trumping state or local law, of course. BUT...

Amendment V is inapplicable here, as a traffic ticket is not a capital case.

I do not think Amendment VI applies because the courts have not strictly interpreted this amendment. See here "Although the Sixth Amendment provision does not differentiate among types of criminal proceedings in which the right to a jury trial is or is not present, the Court has always excluded petty offenses from the guarantee in federal courts, defining the line between petty and serious offenses either by the maximum punishment available or by the nature of the offense"

I believe that Amendment VII addresses civil cases, not criminal, and is therefore inapplicable to this case.

However, I do stand corrected. In some jurisdictions, you do have the right to a trial by jury for a traffic ticket, but not all. In these jurisdictions, state or local law (city, county, whatever) gives this right. BTW, in my city, you have to pay a $100 "jury fee" to get a jury trial for a traffic offense.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I base my argument solely on my admittedly faulty memory of law lectures and some internet sources.😱

Oh I agree. Most states are smart enough to call a speeding ticket something that will try and keep it out of a jurys hands and save money, or should I say make the state/local Gov money. BUT I feel if it was really put to a legal test it would not stand, but who wants to spend thousands of dollars to prove a $100 ticket.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: GroundZero
the judge will always take a cops word over yours

Wrong. I beat a speeding ticket myself. Questioned the cop on the stand, then put my girlfriend, then myself on the stand.
I was very calm, and wasn't a smartass to the cop at all. I just asked questions, then told the story when I got on the stand.
The DA tried to discredit my girlfriend by asking her how she knew me, when she said "I date him", the DA cut her off and said "no further questions", like us dating had anything to do with whether I was speeding or not. (I wasn't)

The closing statements were basically the DA saying how the cop was on duty, testified to this and that, blah blah, and mine was "Your Honor, I don't doubt that the officer clocked a car at 67 mph in a 35 that night, but I believe that I've shown that there is more than a reasonable doubt that it was me".

Not Guilty.

Damn straight, and I wasn't even close to being guilty, either. If I had lost, I'd have appealed and gotten an attorney.