shall I go to trial or make a deal if offered ?

gar
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

shall I go to trial or make a deal if offered ?

Unread post by gar on

Can any one kindly give me some advice on this?

I was charged doing 78 in a 50 zone, $135 fine. This is my first ticket ever. I decided to go for a trial. I asked for disclosure after the court date was given. I received the OPP officer's note and a few pages of Tests and Tracking History and Care , Clearing of Genesis ll Directional Manual (not the type of radar the officer claimed in his note that he used to clock me).
The note reads:

-male diver wanted no ticket, saying he was testing new veh tire.
-stationary patrol on xxxx street.
-handheld Genesis VP Direct. Ser # xxxxxx.
-clear unobstructed view.
-no conflicting readings
-2 lane paved.
-clear roads dry.
-veh xx-xx fully marked.
-light traffic.

My questions are:
1) The note does not say anything about testing the radar before and after he took my speed. Maybe he did test the unit before and after but he just did not write it down in his note. Can I challenge the officer in front of JP that if it is not in the note then the officer can not prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the radar worked properly at the time he clocked my speed?

2) The note does not say anything about the officer followed the mandatory request of Tracking History. The Genesis ll Directional manual included in the disclosure says the Tracking History must be conduced when enforcement action is undertaken. I do not have the Tracking History information for Genesis VP Directional handheld radar but I seem to read somewhere that it is the same as Genesis ll radar. Again, maybe he did it but just did not write it down in his note. Can I challenge the officer in front of JP that if it is not in the note then the officer can not prove beyond the reasonable doubt that he followed the procedure of Tracking History and the radar worked properly at the time he clocked my speeding?

3) Do I stand a good chance if I challenge the office's testimony in front of JP on above 1) and 2)? If so, when the Crown offers me deal before the trial shall I take it or not?

4) Shall I ask for additional disclosure such as the officer's radar training or exam records, or I have already got enough "bullets" ?

I still have a few weeks before the trial date. Any advice would be much appreciated!

Thanks.


gar
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by gar on

Decatur wrote:#1 This link to the manual is for the US manual and should not be relied upon for use in Canada. They are quite different.
#2 The Genesis II SD can not display the speed of more than one target at a time. They can track and indicate whether the vehicle is travelling towards or away from the police vehicle from both front and rear antennaa(if equipped)
Do you have a link to the manual for Genesis VP Directional handheld for use in Canada?

thanks.


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

Unread post by hwybear on

gar wrote:4) Shall I ask for additional disclosure such as the officer's radar training or exam records, or I have already got enough "bullets" ?
Will not get any of that, officer will testify as to his/her training on the date of trial.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


gar
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by gar on

Any advice on those questions?

Anyone knows the link to download the manual for Genesis VP Directional?

thanks a lot.


User avatar
Decatur
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 697
Joined:

Posting Awards

Moderator

Unread post by Decatur on

gar- Please remove my comments from this post as they are from another un-related post.


gar
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by gar on

Decatur wrote:gar- Please remove my comments from this post as they are from another un-related post.
How to remove it ? I do not know what to do.
I actually asked this question under a different topic but it turned out to be here.


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

Unread post by hwybear on

gar wrote:
Decatur wrote:gar- Please remove my comments from this post as they are from another un-related post.
How to remove it ? I do not know what to do.
I actually asked this question under a different topic but it turned out to be here.
gar - I moved the above post from the other thread to here as you are to keep your incident isolated to yours only, this prevents cross-contaminantion of information
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


gar
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by gar on

hwybear wrote:
gar wrote:
Decatur wrote:gar- Please remove my comments from this post as they are from another un-related post.
How to remove it ? I do not know what to do.
I actually asked this question under a different topic but it turned out to be here.
gar - I moved the above post from the other thread to here as you are to keep your incident isolated to yours only, this prevents cross-contaminantion of information
hwybear- Now I understand, thanks for doing that. Any advice on my case? I have never been to a courtroom and English is not my native language. Hope I can get some help from this forum.


Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined:
Location: Ontario

Unread post by Stanton on

1) If the radar was not tested, the readings should be excluded as it raises reasonable doubt that the device was operating correctly. The only problem is that the officer may have notes in regards to testing, but failed to disclose them (they tend to copy the notes relating to the stop but sometimes forget the separate testing times). If there are no notes, that should be sufficient for reasonable doubt.

2) I was under the impression that the requirement for tracking history has been eliminated. It was briefly added to the operator manuals in Canada and quickly removed a few months later. You may have been provided with a copy of an out of date manual.

3) I'd say #1 is very strong argument, but obviously trial outcomes can't be guaranteed.


gar
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by gar on

Stanton wrote:1) If the radar was not tested, the readings should be excluded as it raises reasonable doubt that the device was operating correctly. The only problem is that the officer may have notes in regards to testing, but failed to disclose them (they tend to copy the notes relating to the stop but sometimes forget the separate testing times). If there are no notes, that should be sufficient for reasonable doubt.

2) I was under the impression that the requirement for tracking history has been eliminated. It was briefly added to the operator manuals in Canada and quickly removed a few months later. You may have been provided with a copy of an out of date manual.

3) I'd say #1 is very strong argument, but obviously trial outcomes can't be guaranteed.
Thanks for the advice.
a further question:
If the office produces another note at the trial to say that he did test the unit before and after he clocked me, is that admissible to the court, since he never provides me with that part of his note as the disclosure before the trial?

thanks.


User avatar
Simon Borys
VIP
VIP
Posts: 1065
Joined:
Contact:

Unread post by Simon Borys on

gar wrote:If the office produces another note at the trial to say that he did test the unit before and after he clocked me, is that admissible to the court, since he never provides me with that part of his note as the disclosure before the trial?
Notes are not evidence at a trial, the officer's oral testimony is. Your question should be, "Will the officer be allowed to testify about the testing since that wasn't disclosed?" If you make a stink about it, the answer is probably not. But your remedy then will likely just be an adjournment for you to review the new disclosure. You get to come back and then he can testify about the testing. So sometimes lawyers just accept the late disclosure since adjourning it isn't necessarily going to help them.
http://www.boryslaw.ca
NOTHING I SAY ON HERE IS LEGAL ADVICE.


gar
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by gar on

Simon Borys wrote:
gar wrote:If the office produces another note at the trial to say that he did test the unit before and after he clocked me, is that admissible to the court, since he never provides me with that part of his note as the disclosure before the trial?
Notes are not evidence at a trial, the officer's oral testimony is. Your question should be, "Will the officer be allowed to testify about the testing since that wasn't disclosed?" If you make a stink about it, the answer is probably not. But your remedy then will likely just be an adjournment for you to review the new disclosure. You get to come back and then he can testify about the testing. So sometimes lawyers just accept the late disclosure since adjourning it isn't necessarily going to help them.
Thank you so much for the comments!
If the trial is adjourned because the officer is not allowed to testify about the tests outside the disclosure provided and then I am given a new disclosure, am I still given a change to plea bargain with the Crown right before the next trail?
thanks.


User avatar
Simon Borys
VIP
VIP
Posts: 1065
Joined:
Contact:

Unread post by Simon Borys on

You may be, that is completely within the discretion of the crown.
http://www.boryslaw.ca
NOTHING I SAY ON HERE IS LEGAL ADVICE.


gar
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by gar on

Simon Borys wrote:You may be, that is completely within the discretion of the crown.
thanks a lot!


gar
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by gar on

My trial date is approaching and I want to prepare some case law to be presented at trial.
Can I print the documents from Danlii and give the copies to JP and Crown at the court?
When I print them, do I have to print the complete document or I can just print the part that concerned? Some of the case law has some 20-30 pages but only a part of them is relevant to my case. Whethere a partially printed case law is accepted at the court?
Any advice?
Thanks.






Post Reply

Return to “Exceeding the speed limit by 16 to 29 km/h”