Truly was not speeding

Yes it is you in front of the Judge asking for a new trial.

Yes the crown will be there to possibly object. They may not object though.

So a NEW trial then...not an appeal of the first trial/conviction?

I can't wait to see how this goes (drips with sarcasm)

Judge: Let me understand this. The crown offered you 65 in a 50 twice and you turned it down twice. Then you don't show up for your trial. And now you want another one?

Me: Yes, sir.

Judge: Why should I do that?

Me: Because I have physical evidence that suggests the car could not have been where it is said to have been. And the crown told me to appeal rather than recall my name at the trial.

Crown: He had his chance. Screw him.

Judge: Screw you.

If granted, would the new trial be held in the lower court where it should have been if I showed up on time, or in the appeal court?

Well, my prediction (previous post above) of what the judge would say at my appeal hearing was pretty close, but like I said, there is always a surprise in court. At least to me anyway. Here's how it went.

Judge: "I have reviewed the matter. You were late for your trial and you were convicted and now you want another trial is that right?"

Me: "Yes, sir."

Judge: Pauses. Scowling. Shakes his head. "I could say something but it will do me no good".

Me: (Thinking I'm about to get blasted)

Judge: "This is not justice. I am going to overturn the conviction and give you a new trial".

I'm pretty sure I would he would not have overturned the conviction if I was a no show at trial. But I wasn't a no show...I was late and I checked in with the crown. I almost didn't go to the court that day because I thought there was no use. Learned something.

Well that is good news!

Yes it is I guess.

Where is it written that I am entitled to disclosure of the radar operator manual? Furthermore, where is it written that I am entitled to anything at all? For example, I want the VIN of the patrol car. It's key to my defense. What do I say to the judge when the crown refuses to give it to me?

You are entitled to prepare your defense and make full answer to the charges.

Anything you want, like manual and VIN number, will have to be argued about why you need it and why it is important to your defense. If you can't convince the prosecutor to give it to you, then you need to convince the JP to make the prosecutor give it to you. If you can't convince the JP then you need to convince the Judge at your appeal that you should have gotten it. So basically you need to make a disclosure request with as much detail as possible to make these arguments.

I just posted this earlier today which is a starting point:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7372.html

I am curious, how can a vin number be key to your defence?

screeech wrote:

I am curious, how can a vin number be key to your defence?

+1

it gets me info about the car. see post 6, para 6.

Well, I can't say I have ever seen that one in court before...If I had to take a semi educated guess, it is not going to happen this time either. The data you seek will be unreliable at best. The vin may give you the make, model and engine size...your weight will not be accurate given after market additions to the cruiser for such equipment as light bar, cage, computer, emergency equipment in trunk and so on...And as soon as you make "assumptions" it all goes out the window anyway. The court will only consider facts, not assumptions. Of course your expert will tell you what you want to hear, he wants to get paid, and generally they are not cheap. I would take a hard long look at your experts CV before investing too much money...

CV...... We're talking 10th grade physics here. Care to bet against me? I have pay pal.

Looking for engine size, model year and a few other things. Not really looking to get weight from the VIN. Maybe I'll revise my disclosure so they have to run down to the local grain elevator and weigh the actual unit and get me scale ticket.

They can either give what I need or not. Either way I win.

It'll be interesting. I doubt the justice is going to give you what you're hoping for or put as much weight on your physics calculations as you are expecting but who knows. Do come back and let us know how it went.

We should find out very soon what the crown is ordered to disclose. If I was the crown and the officer, I would just drop it. It's just wouldn't be worth putting my time and reputation on the line fighting a true believer.

Most people have no clue how the court operates, so when the prosecutor gets a request for stuff like you are asking for, they will just blow it off and not give it to you. If you have given some good reasons why you need it, then I would file an 11b charter application 3 weeks before the trial saying you have not received it as this will force the prosecutor to come up with their reasons why they are not going to give it to you.

I hope you are successful in getting this information, however do not be surprised if the JP simply agrees with the prosecutor that you don't need it. This is how our great unjustice works!

The problem I see for you is that you can't take the stand without purjuring yourself as you've said you were speeding (just not by as much as the ticket). Your entire case therefore rests on throwing enough reasonable doubt on the officers testimony by focusing on the fact that he caught you 80m from the intersection when he was 40m from the intersection. These are just estimates because he certainly didn't measure them. Could it have been 120m and 80m ? Maybe. Perhaps it could even have been 160m and 120m. I see it going this way: crown introduces the officer's radar evidence, you cross and bring in the acceleration/vehicle power argument showing that the 80m/40m is unlikely, then crown gets to go again and asks the officer if it could have been further. Officer says yes and judge accepts that.

It seems that you think the officer is going to lie in his testimony and to prove that and have a justice basically state that the court does not believe an officer you are going to need a heck of a lot more than what you have.

I admire your tenacity but I have seen many people come to court with all sorts of arguments but it all boils down to 'were you speeding' and I haven't read anything that leads me to believe that you can show enough reasonable doubt.

As I said, it's going to be interesting and please keep us posted.

Now officer, you just testified that you are a 9 yr veteran and you are an expert at judging speed and distance visually, and now you can't tell the difference between 40 m and 120 m?

I know you are putting great stock in that question. I just have my doubts that the justice will give it much weight. Time will tell.

Yeah that question and about 100 more.

Changing gears here, I see you are a retired officer. I assume you used radar. Off the record, did you or your colleagues ever take liberties with when you locked the radar in? Maybe because you knew the guy was speeding but you couldn't get him locked in time? Or maybe you drove around with 98 km locked on the display just in case?

I bet I fell for the oldest trick in the book

Absolutely not. Locking in is actually pretty irrelevant. I would testify the speed that I saw being displayed whether or not it was locked. I didn't allow people to come and see the radar because there is no need. To do so they have to get out into traffic and also tactically it would allow for someone who's agitated to take a run at me. I simply testified as to what I saw and did and let the chips fall where they may. It was not my job to get a conviction - it was my job to present truthful evidence.

You don't have to lock? Didn't know that. Actually at one time I though you were suppose to lock two readings. Back 30 plus years ago when I was 16 I got a ticket and the officer told me he only locked one reading because when I saw him I braked so hard he couldn't even read the numbers on the radar.

I do not know how it works elsewhere but VIN would be pretty much impossible to get. We have 40 cars and drive what ever is available. I am not sure that there is a record as to what car we drove on shift unless I took someone to jail and the sally port video was used.

I do not know where cops ever testify that they are experts on judging speed. What I always say is I observed a car and it appeared to be speeding. Actually having to provided a estimated speed is not required. However when it was required it I was pretty amazed how close we could actually get, Usually within +- 5kmh.

We never had to judge the distance. The only time distance came into play was LIDAR and it was part of the reading. Any other distance would be purely an approximation and not at all official.

For some reason people seem to think that when we see a car and decide it is speeding that we will do anything to make it happen. Most times if I see a car speeding and am not ready it gets a pass. There are many cars after that will be speeding. Think of it like fishing. You cannot catch everyone.

Police do not get paid for the conviction. We lay the charge and what ever happens in court happens. Most do not take it personally if we lose.

We get asked all kinds of odd questions in court. I have been asked about acceleration on the cruiser. I just said I have no Idea and this is not relevant as the radar speed was "blah blah blah. (that is if the crown did not object as to it's relevance) There is no reason we would need to know this and it is not relevant to the charge

Trespassing on the police lot. Here you actually would have been arrested and charged. You say your taxes helped pay for them and seem to think that you you have a right. However, you do not. It is private property and not for public access(it is posted as such) and we do not know why you are there. How do we know you are not there for some nefarious reason or trying to track our personal vehicles(we park in the same lot). This has happened in the past. In fact I think it was Hamilton cops got into a shoot out with someone in their parking lot. In Ottawa the guy who killed the cop in 2009 was actually hunting for a cop in the station parking lot at one point. So yeah it is a big deal now.

There is no requirement for officer to "lock in" a reading. They will testify to the first reading or highest reading they SAW on the radar and that will be considered prima facia evidence of your speed at the time unless you can bring reasonable doubt to the reading, like proving they did not follow manufacturers instructions for testing it properly.

Went before the green sash to set a new trial date. I mentioned to his worship that there was still some disclosure outstanding. He said tell it to the trial judge. Crown (a new one this time around) interjected and said write me a letter I'll see what I can do. Also mentioned to his worship that I was denied access to the radar manual. He said you probably won't get that....it's too thick. Then an officer stepped up and told the crown that I could look at it at the station.

I'm back to update.

I had my new trial today. Final outcome was that the crown withdrew the charge.

I met with the crown before court took session. Said I would be making three pre trial motions to dismiss 1) time on ticket was wrong, 2) the matter has taken too long. It's been 17 months, 5 court appearances, 4 different Crown attorneys and I still don't have the disclosure about the car that I need, which brings me to 3) Crown had failed to provide me with info on the car that I need to defend myself.

Crown asks why I need car info. I say because from a stop he disclosed that he accelerated to within 35 meters of my bumper when I was allegedly traveling at 72 kph and he accomplished this feat in only 70 meters and ~2.5 seconds. I think we need to see what he has under the hood. Crown said you can ask but I will object to all but if you can show what you allege, then you won't need car info. I said one more thing... Off the the record that officer is lying to you and if I cross examine him it won't be pretty but i don't want to do that. Crown said I have a good brief but I will talk to officer again. I said make sure you don't prep him. Officer stood by his story and we went into court room.

Then this. Just seconds before calling my name Crown approaches me in the pew and says the cop now says that his disclosure a year ago about being 35 m behind me at radar lock is untrue. Crown withdraws charge because "we have an optics issue". Yes ma'am I think you do.

That was one ticked off Crown prosecutor. Cop tried to get out of there but Crown said No I want you to stand here while I give this man the news. Then it was " now you come with me officer "

So a lying cop was outed today. Raise a glass.

Oh, about the radar manual disclosure. OPP said it was copywrite infringement if they gave me a copy but the radar instructor volunteered to sit with me at the detachment while I read it. In the end, that was way better than getting a copy because I sat there for 90 minutes asking him questions. I know a thing or two about radar now. Example of a classy professional police officer there.

Congratulations on your win!

I do find it strange that the police officer would admit to hs notes being wrong. If they are going to lie in their notes, then why would they not continue to lie in the court? But anyways, it is all good news for you! Way to stand up for your rights and see it thru!

the untrue statement wasn't in his notes. It was in an email from the crown to me in response to a question I asked. I asked "how far was the patrol car behind the subject vehicle at radar lock?". The and the answer in the email reply from Crown was ".... I didn't measure but it's a Short stretch of road.... Maybe 30-40 meters from back of trailer".

He didn't admit to lying. He said the statement (which was attributed to him) was untrue. He said the crown misquoted him in her disclosure letter to me. And since that particular Crown attorney has moved on, she wasn't able to speak to that allegation. But the truth was clear for everyone to see.

Its my civic duty to file a complaint against him but Im not sure if I will. He doesn't seem like a bad guy but I guess that's what he wants me to think now that he's been caught on a lie.