I abandoned the fatal error notion a while ago. Yes I am looking for specific answers that favour my case. For example, does a police officer need to maintain a line of sight with a vehicle to give the driver such a hefty charge?
charging me after I've turned through 3 intersections with no cop behind me in a congested area does not seem right. An officer who was in the area could have easily spotted the first car similar to the description and charged that driver (which seems to be the case here).
1) Line of sight broken for more than 1 minute and after 3 turns, mitigating to my case? Yes or no? (Area heavily congested at 3:40 pm)
2) What is my burden of proof? Beyond a reasonable doubt or balance of probabilities?
1-While it is not an automatic win, this argument can certainly help establish reasonable doubt. From what you have described this sounds like a good line of questioning to take. Ultimately it will come down to how good the officer's recollection of events is vs. how well you can pick him apart on the stand. With a good line of questioning and a little bit of luck you may be able to convince the JP that the officer may have pulled over the wrong car.
2-Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard the prosecution has to meet to convict you.