I’d suggest wearing your best. The court will notice and you’ll stand out from those in T-shirts and jeans (or worse). The judge is supposed to decide the case on the law and on the merits but judges are human and your professional appearance will be a plus. Business attire is appropriate, not provocative attire.
Don’t openly or aggressively disagree with the judge. Make the points you think are worth making but don’t argue with the judge. Refer to the judge as "Your Honor" and don't interrupt the judge.
In most cases, you’ll probably not want to testify. You don’t have to. It never hurts to tell the judge you don’t intend to testify and you can still ask questions or object as appropriate. Your decision not to testify can't be held against you.
Know the format of the trial. If the judge is doing things correctly, the officer and you will have a chance to make opening statements, although this may be skipped over. You can request an opening statement to state what you believe the evidence in the case will show. The officer will be allowed to present the prosecution case. Then, you can cross examine or question the officer. You will be given the chance to testify and the officer may ask you questions after that, although this could constitute the practice of law and would be improper legally, unless the officer is duly authorized to prosecute by the District Attorney (See Government Code Section 26500). Because the prosecution has the burden of proof, they might have a chance to rebut your closing. Since traffic cases are less formal legally, the opening and closing arguments are frequently skipped over.
Don’t argue during the time you’re supposed to be asking questions. Ask questions. If the judge tells you to move on or to do something differently, either apologize or thank him/her and modify your approach. If you argue with the judge, you’ll probably be legally wrong and even if you’re not, you’ll probably lose your case.
You should know before going to court what the elements of the offense are. The prosecution must prove these. If the officer finishes presentation of evidence and testimony without doing that, I’d move for dismissal. The elements of the charge are found in the code section you allegedly violated. All of these must be proven.
Be respectful to the officer and any other witnesses. You might think he or she is a liar (and you may or may not be right) but the judge will assume you’re wrong. The judge has the task of assessing witness credibility. You have an incentive to lie (a financial one) while the officer does not. Most judges will attribute more credibility to the officer and less to the defendant, although if you can impeach the officer's credibility, this might change. Impeachment here means proving objectively that what the officer says is wrong or showing that the officer has no recollection of what happened, etc. It does not mean arguing with the officer or simply contradicting what the officer says.
Make sure you’re prepared. You should read case law and statutes relating to your alleged offense. (I use words like alleged offense deliberately.) In my own case, I knew the case law better than the City Attorney did (unless he was lying) and I pretty much proved that to the judge. When the judge asked me about a recently decided case, I said I didn’t agree with the appeals court decision but that the case also didn’t apply here. Then, I explained why. You might think that this is impossible unless you’re a trained lawyer but actually, these cases are frequently written in readable and understandable language. If you look over the case law from highwayrobbery.net you’ll see this. In California v. Evelyn McGee (this case is cited in CA v. Gray) I read the section on mandatory vs. directory statutory requirements several times before understanding it completely.
I know of a case where a City Attorney lied to the judge about a certain case and it’s meaning and application to the case at hand. After I read the case, which I might never have done except for the lie told, I was able to cite it effectively in my own case. In fact, it supported both my case and the earlier case in its correct application.
No comments:
Post a Comment