I have been charged with an HTA offence. Now, the trial is within 8 months from the offence date, so there's no chance in hell I'll get an 11b toss out of it. They also had the disclosure in good order, ready and waiting for me. While I do stand a good chance in court, I wanted to see if this strategy will pad my odds: If I show up about a month before the court date and have it pushed up, will that make it less likely for the constable and/or the other witness to show up? Would it also help challenge their recollection of the events?
I have been charged with an HTA offence. Now, the trial is within 8 months from the offence date, so there's no chance in hell I'll get an 11b toss out of it. They also had the disclosure in good order, ready and waiting for me. While I do stand a good chance in court, I wanted to see if this strategy will pad my odds:
If I show up about a month before the court date and have it pushed up, will that make it less likely for the constable and/or the other witness to show up? Would it also help challenge their recollection of the events?
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
These days most Prosecutors are checking with the officers for their availability when they schedule or re-schedule a court date. It might work, but odds are it won't change much. As for the other witness... who knows? Could work in that the officer might show but not the other witness. As for challenging the re-collection of events, one month more shouldn't make too much of a difference. The officers get to read from their notebook to "refresh their memory." With a non-police witness, I guess it depends on the individual as far as recollection goes. I've observed a number of HTA trials. Two of them had civilian witnesses, both involving collisions. In one, the witness was completely useless and it actually helped the defendant get the charge tossed. In the other, the witness surprised the courtroom, as he had detailed, exact notes of the incident which he used to help him. So it could go either way, time might work to your benefit if the witness is less than reliable as far as seeing if they trip up in their testimony.
These days most Prosecutors are checking with the officers for their availability when they schedule or re-schedule a court date. It might work, but odds are it won't change much. As for the other witness... who knows? Could work in that the officer might show but not the other witness.
As for challenging the re-collection of events, one month more shouldn't make too much of a difference. The officers get to read from their notebook to "refresh their memory." With a non-police witness, I guess it depends on the individual as far as recollection goes. I've observed a number of HTA trials. Two of them had civilian witnesses, both involving collisions. In one, the witness was completely useless and it actually helped the defendant get the charge tossed. In the other, the witness surprised the courtroom, as he had detailed, exact notes of the incident which he used to help him. So it could go either way, time might work to your benefit if the witness is less than reliable as far as seeing if they trip up in their testimony.
Thanks. I'll probably try it anyway since it can't really hurt me and I have 2 good reasons to back it up. The court date probably won't be pushed by one month. It will be pushed to whenever they can schedule it. Last time it happened (the session ran out of time), it was about four months. Edit: I would/do appreciate additional input from you and other members.
Thanks. I'll probably try it anyway since it can't really hurt me and I have 2 good reasons to back it up. The court date probably won't be pushed by one month. It will be pushed to whenever they can schedule it. Last time it happened (the session ran out of time), it was about four months.
Edit: I would/do appreciate additional input from you and other members.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
I take it that the officer did not witness the collision, then. Without the witness, the case becomes more difficult for them to prosecute. That said, they should issue a subpoena for the witness. I guess it also depends on how enthusiastic/time-free the witness is. Suffice to say, if you think that the witness would be detail-oriented, collected and credible, then trying to get a trial date moved cannot hurt. If the witness is completely daft, then it doesn't matter. Put together a series of questions regarding the incident that you want to ask the witness. The more the witness trips up with regard to relevant details of the collision, the better.
I take it that the officer did not witness the collision, then. Without the witness, the case becomes more difficult for them to prosecute. That said, they should issue a subpoena for the witness. I guess it also depends on how enthusiastic/time-free the witness is. Suffice to say, if you think that the witness would be detail-oriented, collected and credible, then trying to get a trial date moved cannot hurt. If the witness is completely daft, then it doesn't matter.
Put together a series of questions regarding the incident that you want to ask the witness. The more the witness trips up with regard to relevant details of the collision, the better.
Probably. Here's how to change the trial date: http://www.ticketcombat.com/step2/change.php I'd suggest filing the motion for adjournment in advance. The other options really aren't that good.
It turns out an unavoidable job conflict coincided with the scheduled court date, so I went in. Here's the report.. 1) If you go in, you better have a very good reason and be prepared to outline it to the JP in great detail. 2) The JP may request for you to settle the matter with the prosecutor. Had I known about that, I would have prepared a sales pitch for the off-chance of them willing to go for it. Of course, the best they're allowed to do is give you a Charmin (R) brand fine reduction that still leaves a conviction on your record. Unable to accept a bylaw charge deal as nothing would have fit the offence, in the interest of saving both my time and the court's time. 3) I recommend trying to eke out a dismissal from the prosecutor first so you can at least be able to tell the JP that you tried to resolve the matter and find a common ground. 4) Once it was determined that a common ground could not be found, the rescheduling was pretty easy and it's based on the court's schedule, the prosecutor's schedule, the constable's schedule and your schedule, so you better have your availability handy.
It turns out an unavoidable job conflict coincided with the scheduled court date, so I went in. Here's the report..
1) If you go in, you better have a very good reason and be prepared to outline it to the JP in great detail.
2) The JP may request for you to settle the matter with the prosecutor. Had I known about that, I would have prepared a sales pitch for the off-chance of them willing to go for it. Of course, the best they're allowed to do is give you a Charmin (R) brand fine reduction that still leaves a conviction on your record. Unable to accept a bylaw charge deal as nothing would have fit the offence, in the interest of saving both my time and the court's time.
3) I recommend trying to eke out a dismissal from the prosecutor first so you can at least be able to tell the JP that you tried to resolve the matter and find a common ground.
4) Once it was determined that a common ground could not be found, the rescheduling was pretty easy and it's based on the court's schedule, the prosecutor's schedule, the constable's schedule and your schedule, so you better have your availability handy.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
Hi everyone. I'm asking for a friend who has a question of interpretation.
He was ticketed for using a hand-held device. He contends that he was acting within the exemption provided under Subsection 14 (1) of O. Reg. 366/09, which reads as follows (emphasis added):
Hey guys i just wanted to know what speeds you see others do on the roads on a regular basis. As we all know no body drives 100 km. It seems they only hit that speed twice once on the way up and once on the way down.
it seems the De Facto limit on the 401 is about 120-130. But lately i dont know if…
On June 10, 2017, I was pulled over by an OPP on the 403 heading WB and told I registered 136km/hr. I kept chit chat to a minimum and took my ticket and went on with my day. I later requested my disclosure and did not receive it until a week before my Oct. 27 court date, and so I had my date…
Anyone know any more information? Apparently kathleen wynne mentioned trying to introduce legislation after more than 20 years of no speed cameras. My guess is that it wont happen, since they've tried before many times to bring it back after it was abolished.
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I posted this in the 3 Demerit Section and haven't received any
responses.
I received a failure to stop at an amber light ticket on April 17, 2009. At my First Attendance Meeting I asked to read the police officer's notes and remember thinking how ridiculous they were and the difficulty…
I was on the right side of the road going straight when a pedestrian waved down the taxi driver in the lane next to me. He pulled over to the right without any notice or signalling and hit me with the side of his car.
There were many witnesses but I immediately had a concussion and did not think of…
My mother was driving EB on a 4 lane street (2 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB).
She was in the left hand lane and started a left hand turn so as to enter a side street, crossing WB traffic. There was NO intersection. She hit a cyclist who was heading WB. Police where called but none showed up. My…
If the speed limit is 50, and you do 100+, not only do you get 6 points. Your car gets impounded for a week, and your license suspended for 7 days, along with a hefty fine of at least $2000. The penalty is actually the same as for racing. The law came in effect on October 1, 2007. Remember -…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural…