Hello, Just to be clear here - I am not here seeking any legal advice; I am just inquiring what can be done when prosecutors change their position on disclosing evidence they said they had and would be giving it to me. I was charged with an offence (I would rather not say what it is on here publicly). When writing up the ticket, the police officer said that the infraction was recorded on the police cruiser cam. I wanted to dispute the charge and I wanted to go to trial or plea guilty with an explanation. The intake clerk at the court told me to fill out a "disclosure request form" which I did on the very same day when I requested a trial. The clerk who took my form said that a prosecutor would review my request and give me any video if it is deemed relevant. On my first appearance, the two police offers (the officer who ticketed me and his partner who was with him in the cop car) showed up in court. The prosecutor said that the video evidence was not necessary because the evidence the two officers would be giving would be sufficient eye-witness accounts. The case was then adjourned and the judge told me to speak to an agent or a lawyer. I have spoken to a few lawyers and paralegals (ie. free 30 minute consultation), they said that there was a recent high-profile case where this dash cam issue was front and centre. It was written about it here: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/1 ... years.html And after running a quick Google search, I see that this person ultimately won the case: http://www.lawtimesnews.com/20170612622 ... ith-jordan The lawyers said that case was won on some complex legal technicalities that experienced lawyers should handle. Anyway, for my case, they said they can do something called a "Stinchcombe application". I am told this is basically a legal move that would ask the judge to make an order to the prosecution to disclose the video. They also mentioned that this would be an expensive process because it requires ordering of transcripts and stuff that would cost me hefty. Look, I am looking at losing 6 demerit points, a possible license suspension, a huge increase insurance, possible loss of my job (my job requires that I have a valid driver's license) and a whole lotta other stuff if I am convicted of this bogus charge. What the prosecutors are doing is just plain wrong and unethical in my opinion. They just can't say they have a video of me committing an offence and then not give to me.... but all the lawyers I have spoken to said that "the prosecution can meet its burden on the testimonial accounts of the officers even without disclosing the video", whatever this means. Can anyone offer some insight? Thanks!
Hello,
Just to be clear here - I am not here seeking any legal advice; I am just inquiring what can be done when prosecutors change their position on disclosing evidence they said they had and would be giving it to me.
I was charged with an offence (I would rather not say what it is on here publicly). When writing up the ticket, the police officer said that the infraction was recorded on the police cruiser cam. I wanted to dispute the charge and I wanted to go to trial or plea guilty with an explanation. The intake clerk at the court told me to fill out a "disclosure request form" which I did on the very same day when I requested a trial. The clerk who took my form said that a prosecutor would review my request and give me any video if it is deemed relevant. On my first appearance, the two police offers (the officer who ticketed me and his partner who was with him in the cop car) showed up in court. The prosecutor said that the video evidence was not necessary because the evidence the two officers would be giving would be sufficient eye-witness accounts. The case was then adjourned and the judge told me to speak to an agent or a lawyer.
I have spoken to a few lawyers and paralegals (ie. free 30 minute consultation), they said that there was a recent high-profile case where this dash cam issue was front and centre. It was written about it here:
The lawyers said that case was won on some complex legal technicalities that experienced lawyers should handle. Anyway, for my case, they said they can do something called a "Stinchcombe application". I am told this is basically a legal move that would ask the judge to make an order to the prosecution to disclose the video. They also mentioned that this would be an expensive process because it requires ordering of transcripts and stuff that would cost me hefty.
Look, I am looking at losing 6 demerit points, a possible license suspension, a huge increase insurance, possible loss of my job (my job requires that I have a valid driver's license) and a whole lotta other stuff if I am convicted of this bogus charge. What the prosecutors are doing is just plain wrong and unethical in my opinion. They just can't say they have a video of me committing an offence and then not give to me.... but all the lawyers I have spoken to said that "the prosecution can meet its burden on the testimonial accounts of the officers even without disclosing the video", whatever this means.
The video can do nothing, add evidence of you guilt, or exonerate you. If two officers offer strong testimony against your weak testimony (especially one that contains an admission of guilt) then that would be enough to convince a JP that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, one way or another if you exercise all of your legal muscle and if it exists the video must be given to you or you can ask for a stay of the charges so that your right to a full answer and defense of the charges is not compromised. You ask for the video in your disclosure request prior to the beginning of the actual trial. Resend and document additional disclosure requests. If the prosecutor does not turn it over then object at the beginning of the trial that you have not received full disclosure. Ask the JP to order the prosecutor to turn over the video or stay the charge.
The video can do nothing, add evidence of you guilt, or exonerate you.
If two officers offer strong testimony against your weak testimony (especially one that contains an admission of guilt) then that would be enough to convince a JP that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, one way or another if you exercise all of your legal muscle and if it exists the video must be given to you or you can ask for a stay of the charges so that your right to a full answer and defense of the charges is not compromised. You ask for the video in your disclosure request prior to the beginning of the actual trial. Resend and document additional disclosure requests. If the prosecutor does not turn it over then object at the beginning of the trial that you have not received full disclosure. Ask the JP to order the prosecutor to turn over the video or stay the charge.
I got a speeding ticket on the 401 by Cornwall. The officer said I was going 140 initially then dropped it to 130 (for the record I don't believe for a second I was going 140, that's way faster than I would ever intentionally drive). I filled out the info on the back of the notice to request a…
I was recently charged with stunt driving on a 60kmh road. When I was pulled over, the officer told me I was going almost 100kmh (still 40kmh above the limit) but was charging me for stunt driving because I accelerated quickly from an intersection on an empty road (in a straight line). I know…
what to do about a an illegal right turn onto steeles from staines rd
got the ticket around october of last year
put it to trial
so there is a big mess of cars at this intersection and I see a cop outside standing directing traffic with a huge row of cars pulled over to the side, through…
Are any non-domestic vehicles "pursuit-rated" in North America? Also have the Michigan State Police (this is relevant because apparently they have the most accepted selection/testing process) tested any of them to see if they meet their criteria? Just curious...
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - Beginning Tuesday, or April Fool's Day 2008, fines on Quebec drivers caught overspeeding will be doubled. It is not only the money penalty that will go up, but also demerit points.
The new law, Bill 42, is similar to Ontario's street racing rule. It stipulates fines for…
A friend got a ticket Jan. 9th of this year for doing 110 kph in a 90 kph zone, so 20 over.
What should the set fine and total payable read?
It's confusing to me, as the prescribed fine under HTA s.128 is different than the set fine enumerated by the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice.
An OPP officer ticketed me claiming I was going 40km/h over the limit (140km/km) on my way home with a few friends on the 401. This is my first ever speeding offense. Although I am sure I was over the limit, I am almost certain that I was not going 40 over, more realistically closer to 30 over. The…
Yesterday night I was charged for stunt driving (excess over 50km/h) and I have a few inquiries. I'm sure you've all heard the same story, but the unmarked cop in an SUV was tailing me for a good 2-3 minutes as I was travelling 120~135 km/h. Then as he came close I decided to boot it up…
I had a speeding ticket in May 2013 which brought me to 9 demerit points out of 15. I received a letter and had to attend an interview. Due to a history of speeding tickets and a previous interview a few years prior, the interviewer decided to put me on zero tolerance for a year. Meaning if I…