In most areas, traffic ticket due dates and traffic court trial dates aren't set in stone. If you have a good reason for requesting a due date extension or that a traffic court trial date be moved back, there's a good chance you'll be able to get your request granted.
Every jurisdiction has different operating procedures. But most traffic court websites specify what you need to do to request an extension of time for a traffic ticket due date or traffic court trial. Generally, you can request an extension in writing, by phone, or by showing up to the traffic court in person.
Whatever method you use to request an extension of time, you'll probably need to have a reasonable explanation of why you need more time. Depending on the situation, you might be able to obtain an extension based on:
But whatever your reasons, try to be as specific as possible. In other words, if you have a wedding or funeral that conflicts with your court date, say so specifically rather than using general language like "family obligations."
It's also important to make your request for an extension well in advance of your due date or trial date, especially if you're making your request in writing. Courts generally don't like getting last-minute extension requests.
In some jurisdictions, there's a standard period of time for due date extensions and the like. This standard time is often 30 days. In other jurisdictions and situations, you'll need to specify how much additional time you're asking for. Generally, you'll want to request an amount to time that is adequate but not overboard. Unless there are special circumstances that warrant requesting a longer extension, it's fairly standard to ask for 30 days or less.
For some people, going to traffic court at all is too much hassle. In most jurisdictions, you don't have to go to court if you're willing to pay your ticket. But when you do this, you're essentially pleading guilty to the violation. Generally, you can pay a ticket by mail or on the court's website.
Some jurisdictions also allow eligible drivers to sign up for traffic school without going to court. Traffic school generally allows you to avoid insurance rate increases, but you might still have to pay the fine, depending on the rules of your state.
If you're unsure about how to deal with your ticket, you can get in contact with an attorney who specializes in traffic tickets. It's also possible to get information by calling the traffic court clerk or going to the court's website.
Oftentimes, the information you obtain through discovery can be a huge help when cross-examining the officer and presenting your own case at trial.
Discovery procedures vary by jurisdiction. And it actually is fairly uncommon for drivers to request discovery at all in a traffic case. But here are some basics of how it generally works.
To discover the officer's notes or other documents in a traffic case, you must make a specific written request for the disclosure of all notes or documents relevant to your case. In your request, you should describe precisely the items you're requesting and include a general statement such as "all other relevant documents and other evidence in the government's possession."
Generally, discovery requests should be sent to the law enforcement agency that issued the ticket, the prosecuting attorney (in jurisdictions that use prosecutors in traffic court), and to the traffic court clerk.
Prior to doing anything, it's a good idea to check with the prosecution, the court clerk, and the relevant law enforcement agency to ensure that you're following the local discovery procedure. You can also ask about requesting discovery at your arraignment (the first court date).
As previously mentioned, your discovery request should always include a general request in which you ask for all relevant information about your case in the government's possession. You can, and normally should, also include more specific requests. Here are some common items that you might want to request in a traffic case:
What you request, of course, depends on the type of ticket you received. Some of the items you request might not exist. However, if you think the government might have an item or category of evidence, it typically doesn't hurt to ask for it.
Because so few traffic defendants ask to see the evidence against them, many police and prosecutors (and even some judges) believe this right to discovery is not available in traffic court. So, if your discovery request doesn't initially get results, follow up with a second request—reiterating that you believe access to the officer's notes is critical to presenting your defense—that you have not received a response to your first request. With this second request, make sure you send it to all the same entities and include copies of the first request.
If you get no response to your discovery request within a few weeks or so (or your trial date is fast approaching), you'll need to file a "motion to compel discovery" in the traffic court. Basically, in this motion, you're asking the judge to order the government to turn over the requested documents and other evidence. (Again, it's probably a good idea to call the court clerk to find out how you should go about filing this type of motion.)
So, what can you do if the government doesn't comply with your discovery request?
If your trial date comes and your discovery request has still been ignored, you should ask the judge to dismiss your ticket for the discovery violation. In a case where the government clearly has the requested discovery in its possession—like calibration records for a radar unit used to measure your speed—there's a pretty good chance of getting a dismissal. However, in many other cases, the government might come into court and tell the judge there aren't any officer notes or other documents to be discovered. In these types of cases, it's unlikely the judge will do anything about the government's failure to respond to discovery requests.
If you want the best chance of beating a ticket in traffic court, you should at least talk to a traffic attorney. An experienced traffic attorney can tell you how the law applies in your case, advise you on available defenses, and help you decide on the best course of action.
In most traffic trials—except those for red light camera tickets—the government proves its case primarily through the testimony of the officer who issued the ticket.
In other words, the officer explains to the judge what happened and why you were cited for a traffic violation. Once the officer is done giving his or her side of the story, the defendant (the person who received the citation) or the defendant’s attorney has the opportunity to ask the officer questions. The defense questioning is called “cross-examination.” This article gives some basic information about cross-examination in traffic cases.
CONSIDER HIRING A TRAFFIC ATTORNEY
Lots of people don’t hire an attorney for a traffic ticket. And in many situations, hiring an attorney to handle a traffic ticket might not be worth it. For instance, if you’re planning to admit the violation and pay the ticket or request traffic school, you might be okay without an attorney. But traffic trials can be tricky for a person who has no formal legal training. If you plan to contest your traffic citation in court, it’s probably a good idea to at least talk to a few attorneys first. Lots of attorneys give free initial consultations to prospective clients.
With cross-examination, you’re generally trying to raise doubt about the government’s evidence against you. In other words, the goal is to make the judge question whether the government has adequately proven you violated the law.
Depending on the type of violation and the facts of the case, the specific goal of cross-examination may be to show:
Whatever your approach, it’s typically best to come up with your strategy in advance of trial rather than on the fly. That way, you’ll have an idea of the types of questions you want to ask on cross-examination.
While cross-examining, you’re generally allowed to ask any questions that are relevant to whether you committed the traffic violation you were cited for. Relevant questions will typically be related to whether the evidence against you is reliable.
For instance, if the officer testifies to seeing you run a stop sign, it would be relevant to ask on cross-examination where the officer was positioned when he or she allegedly watched you go past the stop line. If the officer was in a spot that was far away or there were intervening objects that could have obstructed the officer’s view, the judge might start to doubt the officer’s account of events.
Judges will typically give the defendant or the defendant’s attorney some leeway in asking questions. But at the same time, traffic trials aren’t supposed to last all day. So, most judges want you to get to the point and may cut you off if you go too far down a line of questioning that doesn’t seem relevant.
Research the law. At a traffic trial, the government must prove you committed the offense. Otherwise, the judge is supposed to find you not guilty. So, a good starting point for preparing for cross-examination is researching the traffic law you’re accused of violating. If you know what the government has to prove, it might help you decide on a plan for cross-examining the officer.
List of questions. Although you might have your trial strategy in mind, it’s easy to lose track of what you’re doing when you’re actually in court. A list of questions categorized by topic can help keep you organized while conducting your cross-examination. You can always improvise if necessary, but by having your questions written down, you can be sure you won’t forget an important point.
]]>A traffic court arraignment is the first, and sometimes the last, court date for a traffic ticket. The purpose of the arraignment is to inform the court what you want to do about your ticket. Generally, you can either admit the violation and pay the fine or tell the court you'd like to fight the ticket at a trial.
Before going any further, it's worth noting that you can usually resolve your ticket without having to go to court by paying the fine online or by mail. When you pay a ticket this way, you're basically admitting the violation and will end up paying the standard fine (also sometimes called the "schedule fine"). A traffic conviction—which results from admitting the violation—might also result in the DMV assessing points to your driving record.
Many people—especially those who are very busy and have good financial resources—prefer this method of resolving tickets. Generally, paying the fine by mail or online is the quickest and easier way to deal with a traffic ticket.
Assuming you decide to deal with your ticket by coming to court in person, here are some of the most common options at the arraignment:
Every driver's situation is different. So, which option is best just depends on individual circumstances. For instance, for anyone who's extremely busy, pleading not guilty typically isn't appealing because it means having to come back to court at least one more time. (For drivers in this category who want to fight the ticket, hiring a traffic attorney might be a good idea.) And, although traffic school is normally a good option, drivers who have recently done traffic school normally won't be eligible.
In a few states, you have the option of presenting your defense in writing rather than personally appearing at a trial. Typically, you make your testimony in a "declaration," which is a written statement you type up and sign, swearing you are telling the truth. You might also be able to include witness declarations and other evidence like photographs and diagrams.
It is sometimes possible to plea bargain with traffic tickets. However, the process for traffic ticket plea bargaining differs depending on whether the jurisdiction has prosecuting attorneys in traffic courts.
If there is a prosecutor in traffic court, that's the person who'll be negotiating with. Otherwise, any plea bargaining that might be possible, would be accomplished by talking to the officer who cited you for the violation or the judge in open court.
There's nothing to prevent you from approaching the prosecutor at any time to see if he or she is willing to make a deal to avoid a trial. The idea behind any type of plea bargaining is almost always to compromise on a better deal than you would get if you were found guilty at trial.
It's seldom realistic to assume that you can get your case dismissed, though in some special circumstances, requesting dismissal might be reasonable.
In jurisdictions that don't have traffic court prosecutors, negotiations are sometimes possible with the citing officer. Basically, you might be able to convince the officer to agree to a deal that involves you pleading guilty to a less serious offense than the one you were cited for. For example, if you were cited for running a stop sign, you might be able to plea to a more generic offense for disobeying a road sign. With these types of plea bargains, you might be able to plead to an offense that carries lower fines or fewer points than the violation you were cited for.
Judges normally have the ultimate say on whether to accept a defendant's plea and what the sentence will be. So, as long as you keep it quick and concise, it probably doesn't hurt to make a reasonable request directly to the judge. For example, if you're going through financial hardship, requesting a fine reduction would typically be reasonable.
The date by which you must pay the fine or appear in court should be printed on your ticket. But if you have any questions about your options for dealing with the ticket or something else isn't clear, contacting the traffic court directly is a good idea. Most courts have a website that provides all the necessary information or you can call the traffic court. Court phone systems can be frustrating, so going to court in person can be another good option.
]]>Generally, an appeal isn't anything like a new trial. In an appeal, you don't get to present new evidence or have witnesses come and testify. The purpose of an appeal is to review what already happened at the trial for legal error. The court deciding the appeal starts with the presumption that the traffic court judge's decision was correct. To win the appeal, it's up to the driver to prove that that the traffic court judge didn't follow the law.
However, in some jurisdictions, the appellate court will review the traffic court's decision "de novo." In these jurisdictions, it's easier to win an appeal because "de novo" means the appellate court does not presume the correctness of the traffic judge's ruling. In other words, when an appeal is reviewed de novo, the appellate court will take a fresh look at all the evidence and make a decision without considering the conclusions of the traffic court judge.
Laws governing appeals vary considerably from state to state, so start by checking your state's law. Generally, you can find the specifics of how to appeal a traffic court conviction on the court's website.
Whatever the specific procedures are in your area, all traffic court appeals start with the driver filing a notice of appeal. In many jurisdictions, the driver must file the notice of appeal within 30 days of the conviction.
The next order of business with appeals is producing what is called the "appellate record." In most criminal and civil cases, the appellate record consists of all the documents that were filed in the trial court and transcripts of all the hearings.
However, in traffic cases, there sometimes aren't court reports (hence no transcripts) and very often aren't any documents like motions and exhibits that that were filed in the traffic court. So, in many jurisdictions, the appellate record from traffic court trials will consist of only a "settled statement" of the facts. A settled statement is basically a summary of the evidence presented at trial. Normally, the driver and government must come to an agreement as to what the settled statement of facts will be for the appeal. The court will typically get involved in this process only when the driver and government can't reach an agreement.
The "appellate briefs" are the most important part of any appeal. Appellate briefs are just written arguments that the driver and government submit to the appellate court. Generally, the first brief is called the "Opening Brief" and is submitted by the driver. The government then gets to respond in a "Response Brief." And the driver gets the final word in what's called the "Reply Brief."
Once the briefs have all been turned into the court, the court will set an oral argument date. In many jurisdictions, oral argument is optional and will be held only if the driver or government requests it.
At oral argument, the parties have the opportunity to make their arguments in person. Typically, the judge or judges who will be deciding the appeal will have at least some questions to ask the parties.
Oral arguments in traffic cases are normally short—about 10 or 15 minutes maximum.
Typically, the appellate court will issue a written decision within a few weeks or so of the oral argument date. In the decision, the appellate court will generally affirm the conviction (meaning the driver loses the appeal) or reverse the conviction (meaning the driver wins the appeal). However, in some cases, the appellate court might affirm certain aspects of a conviction and reverse other aspects. For example, an appellate court might affirm the traffic conviction but order the traffic court to lower the driver's fine.
Appeals can be somewhat complicated and time-consuming. So, if you're thinking of appealing a traffic conviction, it might be worth hiring an attorney to handle your appeal instead of doing it yourself.
]]>Although minor traffic infractions are technically considered crimes in most states, they usually aren't handled in criminal courtrooms. Criminal courts are typically reserved for more serious misdemeanor and felony offenses that can lead to jail time. Only the most serious driving-related offenses like driving under the influence (DUI), reckless driving, and vehicular homicide go to criminal court. Drivers who receive tickets for violating less serious traffic laws will go to traffic court.
Traffic courts are somewhat less formal than other courtrooms. In traffic court, there's generally no right to a court-appointed attorney. So, unlike in criminal court, you'll see lots of people without legal counsel representing themselves. Also, the stakes in traffic court are lower than they are in criminal court—typically, the worst thing that can happen in traffic court is the driver is found guilty and must pay a fine. These—and perhaps other—factors contribute to a less intimidating and less rigid atmosphere than what you mind find in other types of courtrooms.
On any given day in traffic court, there are usually quite a few cases scheduled for trial. Typically, how it works is the clerk calls each case, and the driver and officer who issued the ticket come up to the front. If the driver is present but the officer isn't, the driver essentially wins the trial and the judge dismisses the ticket. But if both parties are there, the trial will begin.
In most trials, the attorneys make opening statements in which they explain to the jury what they think the evidence will show. But the evidence that's presented at traffic trials is usually fairly straightforward and traffic courts are normally quite busy. So, traffic court judges typically aren't interested in hearing opening statements.
Instead, after the traffic court clerk calls the case, the government will start presenting its evidence.
In most traffic cases, the government's evidence consists of only the testimony of the officer who gave the ticket. In some states, prosecuting attorneys represent the state in traffic court trials. But in many states, there aren't prosecutors in traffic court. So, depending on whether there is a prosecutor, the officer will either answer questions posed by the prosecutor or just tell the story and answer any questions the judge might have. When the officer is finished, the driver or driver's attorney has an opportunity to cross-examine the officer and ask questions of their own.
Despite the informalities of traffic court, the rules of evidence still apply. So, the driver or driver's attorney can make objections to the officer's testimony or other evidence presented by the government.
Immediately after issuing your citation, some police officers will note what happened on the back of their copy or on a separate piece of paper. Officers make notes because they issue lots of tickets, and if one of these tickets ultimately ends up in trial, it can be hard to remember precisely what happened without the notes.
But in most states, it is technically improper for the officer to simply read directly from notes (or from any other document) while testifying in court. Notes and other documents can be used by a witness to refresh his or her memory, but the testimony of the witness must be based on memory rather than read directly from notes.
So, if an officer is obviously reading directly from notes, you can make a "hearsay" objection. In response to this type of objection, the judge will normally ask the officer to state what he or she is looking at (the notes) and then look up when done reviewing the document. In other words, the judge will let the officer review the notes but then require that the officer's testimony actually come from his or her recollection.
If you don't have a copy of the notes the officer is reviewing (it's possible you might have obtained these through the discovery process), you should ask for a copy or an opportunity to review the notes.
Most speeding violation tickets are based on an officer's radar or LIDAR speed measurement. But a measurement is only as good as the measuring device. So, it's important that speed-measuring devices be operating properly. Otherwise, the speed measurement could be inaccurate.
Officers in speeding ticket cases almost always testify that they clocked the driver at a certain speed. If possible, before the officer specifically makes this statement object for "lack of foundation." If prompted by the judge, you can explain the officer's testimony as to speed lack foundation unless the officer can establish that the radar or other instrument was properly maintenanced and calibrated.
An officer reading from notes (addressed above) is a specific instance of a hearsay violation. However, more generally, hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement admitted for the truth of that statement. The most common type of hearsay is where a witness testifies in court as to what someone else said or wrote.
Sometimes it's a little tricky to recognize hearsay. But, generally, a witness can testify only as to what he or she personally observed. If a witness's testimony strays from his or her own observations, it's likely hearsay and time to make the objection.
Unfortunately, there are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule, which allow certain types of hearsay to be considered by a judge or jury. Probably the most common in traffic court allows an officer to testify to any statements you made, which would tend to prove your guilt. This exception is called a "statement against interest" by a party.
EXAMPLE: Your vehicle collides with another at an intersection controlled by stop signs at all four entrances. You tell the officer you entered the intersection first, and that the other driver ignored the stop sign. But based on the statements of the other driver and a bystander, the officer concludes you were at fault for failing to yield to the vehicle to your right. You contest the ticket and go to trial. In court, the officer appears, but neither the other driver nor the bystander is present. When the officer testifies what the driver and bystander said about the accident, you should object based on hearsay.
Once the government has presented all of its evidence, the driver has a chance to present evidence. The driver might want to testify or present physical evidence like photos and the like.
For example, for a stop sign ticket, a driver might want to present a photo to the court showing the sign was obscured by tree branches. Or, if a driver was cited for a basic speed law violation (unsafe speed), he or she might want to testify that road and weather conditions were good at the time of the alleged violation.
Some judges might allow for closing arguments. But, typically, traffic court judges announce the verdict—find the defendant guilty or not guilty—once the parties are done presenting evidence.
In most cases, judges state the amount of the fine immediately after announcing a guilty verdict. In some states, a driver might still be able to do traffic school even after being convicted at trial. For drivers who are interested in this option, it probably wouldn't hurt to ask the judge.
]]>Traffic court trials are generally conducted in courtrooms that look much like those on television. In addition to the judge, a clerk and a bailiff will normally be present. The clerk sits at a table immediately in front of the judge's elevated bench, or slightly off to the side. The clerk's job is to keep the judge supplied with necessary files and papers and to make sure that proceedings flow smoothly. Depending on the state, there may also be a court reporter present, who keeps a word-by-word record of proceedings.
Be a little early for your trial (it can take a few minutes to find the right courtroom, which in some states is called a "department"). Once you arrive, tell the court clerk or bailiff you are present, then take a seat in the spectator section.
Courtrooms are divided about two-thirds of the way toward the front by a sort of wooden fence known as "the bar." The judge, court personnel, lawyers, and you (after your case is called) use the area in front of the bar. The public, including you and other people waiting for their cases to be heard, are seated in the main body of the room. When the judge or clerk reads (calls) the name of your case, you may cross through the bar into the area where the judge sits. When you come forward, you sit at one of two long tables, known as the counsel tables, facing the judge.
In courtrooms that follow an informal approach, your witnesses should accompany you to the counsel table. At more formal trials, they remain behind the bar (as does the police officer) and testify at the witness stand only when their names are called. If you watch a few cases before yours, you'll quickly see how things are being handled. In some courtrooms, you and any witnesses will be asked to raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth before the judge arrives. In a few, you or your witnesses will be sworn in only just before testifying.
An increasing number of states (including Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, Oregon, and Washington) have completely "decriminalized" traffic offenses. In most cases, this means that the procedures for fighting traffic tickets are much less formal than in states where traffic cases are decided in criminal court. Though this may sound reassuring, unfortunately it also means that along with formality you lose some of the important rights and procedures guaranteed in criminal court.
Some of the differences you may encounter in states with a civil traffic system include:
In some of the states with civil traffic systems, you have the choice between a formal and informal hearing. Given the choice, you should almost never opt for an informal hearing, especially if the rules in your state say that an officer doesn't have to be present at an informal hearing. By insisting on the officer's presence, you get the advantage of being able to challenge the officer's statement in court. And you also gain the very real possibility that the officer will not show up to testify against you, which means the case will most likely be dismissed.
Be polite and respectful. Be polite (but not obsequious) to all court personnel—most especially the judge. This may be tough to do if you have a genuine beef with the legal system and feel truculent or angry. But realize that if you express your anger or hostility, the judge is very likely to hold it against you. Judges want you to be able to separate your emotion from the facts of the case. And remember: No matter how informal a courtroom, all judges, when spoken to, expect to be called "Your Honor."
In many states, it's common for traffic court trials to be handled without the presence of an assistant district attorney or other prosecuting attorney. After the clerk calls the case, the police officer simply presents testimony as to why he or she thinks you are guilty. Then you have a chance to cross-examine before presenting your defense.
With no prosecutor present, the judge normally will allow the officer to tell his or her side of the story in narrative form, perhaps interrupting to ask a few questions. You should then have an opportunity to ask the officer relevant questions—called cross-examination. You should be prepared to cross-examine the officer.
What to do if the judge tries to get you to waive cross-examination. Some judges may not tell you that you have the right to cross-examine, or recommend that you just skip this stage and present your defense. In most states they must let you cross-examine if you insist. It is usually wise to do so, since getting the officer to appear unsure of what happened or to admit that he or she can't remember key facts is one important way to create a reasonable doubt as to your guilt.
After you question the officer, you get to present your side of the dispute and present the testimony of any of your witnesses. At any time during either presentation or after you are both done, the judge may ask questions. Finally, the judge will announce a verdict of guilty or not guilty. If the judge finds you guilty, he or she will usually pronounce sentence (the fine) right away.
The judge is boss: Be prepared for anything. While this article outlines the usual ways a traffic case works, understand that judges have a great deal of leeway in running their own courtroom. Some judges won't listen patiently to your well-prepared and practiced presentation. Instead, they will insist on questioning you, the officer, and all witnesses. And, as noted above, a judge may even try to rebuff your attempts to cross-examine the officer, ask questions of your own witnesses, or make a final statement.
It will greatly help you understand what is expected (and modify your presentation accordingly) if you can watch a few cases in the courtroom of the judge who will hear your case. And it should also help if, in advance, you make a concise list of the points of your defense that you feel must be made during the trial. Then, if the judge derails your presentation, you can glance at your list and say something like this: "Your Honor, I have prepared a few brief points that I think are crucial to my case and would like to be allowed to present them to you." Most judges will slow down and grant you this polite request.
In some courts, a prosecutor (normally a lawyer from the district, county, or city attorney's office) will present the state's case. As mentioned, this is likely to result in a more formal courtroom proceeding. In addition to each side presenting its own testimony and having a chance to cross-examine witnesses, each party may also make a formal opening and closing statement. In theory, you have the right to make an opening statement before the officer testifies, and a closing statement after all evidence is presented, but if no jury or prosecutor is present, many judges will try to save time by pressuring you to waive these procedures. To find out in advance if a prosecutor will be handling the case, you can try to ask court personnel or actually go to the courtroom where traffic cases are held and see what the standard procedure is.
]]>In most criminal trials, the defendant doesn't testify. In many cases, it's best for the defendant to keep quiet and argue at the end to the case that the prosecution hasn't met its burden of proving the charges.
But in traffic cases, the driver's testimony generally improves his or her chances of winning. If a driver doesn't testify, the evidence presented to the judge at a traffic trial will typically be limited to the officer's testimony about what happened. With just one version of the story—that of the officer who wrote the ticket—chances are slim that the judge will side with the driver. When the driver testifies, it gives the judge another version of events, and if things go well, some doubt as to whether the driver is guilty.
The focus of a driver's testimony should be aimed at creating doubt as to guilt. Taking a look at the statute you're accused of violating is a good starting point. Once you know what the government must prove to get a conviction, you can better assess what your testimony should cover.
For example, suppose a driver receives a ticket for violating a basic speed law that prohibits motorists from driving at a speed that is faster than is "reasonable and prudent" given the current conditions. At trial, the driver's testimony should be focused on the factors—such as clear visibility and favorable road conditions—that would support a finding that the speed was reasonably safe under the circumstances that existed at the time.
With other types of violations, the driver might want to concentrate on raising doubt as to whether the officer was able to accurately see what happened. For example, when a driver is cited for running a red light, the issue is whether the driver crossed the limit line before the light turned red. If the officer who wrote the ticket didn't have a good vantage point to see the limit line and the front of the driver's vehicle, the driver will want to point this out in his or her testimony.
The bottom line is you want to go into court with a game plan for your testimony. If your testimony is unfocused and irrelevant as to whether the government has proven the violation, you're unlikely to win your case.
There's no trick to practicing your testimony. In most types of cases, a witness testifies in a question-and-answer format. But in traffic court, the driver typically just tells his or her version of events. The judge might interject questions from time to time. But, by in large, the driver will just be giving a narrative of what happened. So, to practice, the driver will just want to run through the story out loud a number of times. After practicing the presentation enough times that you are getting comfortable, it might help to have a friend or family member listen to the presentation and ask any questions that come to mind.
For those who have never previously appeared in traffic court, it can be helpful to drop by and watch a few cases.
Generally, the driver has a right to obtain any notes made by the officer through a process called "discovery." Having these notes can be extremely helpful in fighting a ticket because it gives you advance notice of what the officer is likely to testify to.
Every jurisdiction has its own process for obtaining discovery. To find out what the process is in your area, you might want to contact the traffic court clerk and ask. But, generally, you can obtain the officer's notes (assuming they exist) by making a written request. The request should specify what you are requesting (so, include a request for the notes and any other evidence you seek) and be sent to the law enforcement agency that issued the ticket, the traffic court, and the prosecution (if your area has prosecutors in traffic court). You should make this request as far in advance of your trial date as possible.
If you receive a copy of the officer's notes, you'll want to study them carefully. It's possible that these notes may cause you to re-evaluate your defense strategy. You'll want to focus your testimony based on your defense and what the officer is likely to say at trial. And if an officer's testimony isn't consistent with the notes, you'll likely want to ask the officer about the discrepancies during cross-examination.
]]>