Received Notice of Trial - need advice on next step

Again if you can get them to admit that it could have been an iPod Touch, the burden would jump to the prosecution to make the claim that is also a handheld communications device.

Thanks a lot friends for the tips. As I prepare my defense based on the pointers here, I had few more questions -

1. If the color itself of the phone as quoted by officer is wrong, will it help my case to create enough doubt that he could have seen something else and what proof can be acceptable? Phone manual showing my phone's color or the phone itself?

2. Am I allowed to refer the list of questions in a piece of paper that I prepare in my defense and plan to ask? I will try hard so I wont need them but just to ensure I don't lose track or miss them during the trial. And can I take notes on the paper as officer replies to my or prosecutor's questions?

3. Is it okay to take 1-2 similar looking objects (but not phone) to show to the officer if what he saw could be one of it?

4. If officer does not remember how many passengers were in the car, will I need a proof to quote the correct number?

Thanks again, I can't appreciate this forum enough.

1. Remember that you could bring anything to the court and say it was this you were holding. I will be up to the JP to determine which side has more credibility.

2. Absolutely you should have notes with and refer to them.

3. Yes completely. There might be something the officer says in testimony that you want to question in cross examination. Scribble notes !

4. Again, same as 1, how do you prove the number of occupants. Of course the actual number is irrelevant to the charge but can bring into question the officer's recollection of the day in question.

The better prepared you are, the greater your chance of winning. If you have notes from the day, you're in the same position as the officer: you will be relying on notes that were made at the time of the alleged offence to help you refresh your memory months later. As Argyll said, taking notes of the officer's testimony is definitely the right thing to do. You can refer to his exact wording or to what he said when you cross-examine him. The points in questions 3 and 4 are excellent! Remember...you don't have to prove you didn't commit an offence; the Crown has to prove you did. If you can get the officer to say "maybe," "I think," etc., you can then say in your summation that the officer obviously isn't completely sure about the events and is acknowledging there is reasonable doubt. I've managed to do that a couple of times. It's a wonderful feeling!

Hi friends, I appeared for trial this week prepared with the defense. This is what happened -

1. Officer came, he had around 10 cases on his name, guess was not my lucky day.

2. Crown offered me $200 fine and 3 points, I did not accept. Asked for a non-moving violation, she did not agree.

3. They finished with all guilty pleas first, then called me up.

4. For some reason, prosecutor suggested the JoP that I might be looking for adjournment. JoP asked me what I wanted to do. I said I wanted my trial, she asked if I consulted legal help to which I said I myself studied the disclosure and am ready for trial. She then asked if I need an interpreter or adjournment (did not understand why she asked me this). Since officer was in that day, I thought better to take adjournment and I said if possible I will take interpreter. So they gave me continuation date in October 2017 and took my request for interpreter. They said that is the earliest availability and I did not push for any earlier date. They never asked me the reason, conversation flowed as if they were offering me adjournment which I accepted. Got the orange tag with new date and came back.

Now I request your guys thoughts and expertise -

1. Why would crown have suggested the adjournment, whereas I never talked about adjournment. Only reason I can imagine is I got my disclosure 3-4 weeks back, so she assumed I needed more time. Could it be anything else?

2. I am not 100% sure if I did the right thing by agreeing for adjournment, but I hope so.

3. Now October date will take my trial date to over 10 months from offense date. Could this be accepted as a valid reason if I requested for a stay (I understand I will need to send couple of forms as per procedure)? Should I send request to prosecutor to give me an earlier date requesting for speedy trial?

Looking forward to expert opinions and advise on what would be best for me from here . Thanks guys.

1. No idea. Most self-represensented people don't know what they are doing, so maybe was doing this to be nice and try and give you more time to think about it. But honestly, we will never know why.

2. Well there is now a very very small chance that the officer will not appear at the next trial date, so no harm done. Worst case for you is that officer shows up next time as well and you have to go to trial. The other thing is that there is a chance the interpreter won't be there either so another possible way out for you. So assuming you have the time to go to court again, this was the right move.

3. No this probably won't help you with a stay because from your explanation they would most likely count this delay against you so this time does not count in the total required for a stay.

R. v. Pizzurro: the Crown does not need to prove the cell phone was capable of receiving or transmitting in order to convict him under S. 78.1(1)

R. v. Gill: the defence argued that the device could have been a toy...From the Judge "people do not normally talk to themselves with an object held to their ear. This would draw in this Court's estimation, unwanted attention to the person by police"

Thanks jsherk, encouraging comments.

jsherk wrote:

Well there is now a very very small chance that the officer will not appear at the next trial date

In your comment above, I assume "not" is a typo and you meant small chance that officer will appear. I badly hope so too

No not a typo... there is a very good chance the officer WILL appear and a very very small chance the officer will not appear.

jsherk wrote:

No not a typo... there is a very good chance the officer WILL appear and a very very small chance the officer will not appear.

Ok thanks. So trial it will be.