Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Previously on my noir crime saga: Rory gets a ticket for running a stop-sign by a crooked cop with a vendetta to settle. Pulled over without proof of insurance, our hero faces steep fines and points on his driving record. Under the tutelage of a man who curried favor with an attorney woman, he has grown wise to the ways of law. Now, the final chapter.

According to the Sixth Amendment, I have the right to a speedy trial. The State of Washington defines speedy as within 120 court days. Nothing prevents me from requesting multiple continuances, which delays my hearing a few weeks at a time until one would put me over those 120 days. At that point court's computer system kicks in and won't allow any more delays.

Thanks to due process, I also have the right to review all evidence that could be used for or against me. It's called discovery, and if I submit a request, the prosecution has to provide it. I already have the ticket and the officer’s notes, but if I request a bunch of stuff like the squad cars maintenance report, all the tickets issued within a ten block radius that day, or what kind of tree the officer most identifies with, no fresh out of law school traffic court attorney is going to bother looking it up. When they don't, and I go to the hearing I can make a motion to dismiss my case. This will be considered, but denied; however, my hearing will be postponed to allow for the discovery request to be evaluated.

Genuinely winning the case is hard. It would basically come down to a situation where it would be my word against the cop's and you are never going to win in that battle. The court considers a police officer's word to be golden; in the legal sense they're expert witnesses. But if I can continue my hearing to the last possible date, get it delayed on a technicality, then I can get the case thrown out at the re-hearing because they've now exceeded the time limit on my constitutionally required speedy trial. Brilliant!

Someone I know studying law says they can't wait to be a lawyer so they can thwart the efforts of people like me. This is the view of an asshole, and the world doesn't need more asshole lawyers. As a lawyer, there are bigger fish to fry then the young kid who did his homework to get out of a traffic violation, plus you're going to be doing shit like this much more often then you’ll Matlock someone.

Everything's ready: hearing is on the last possible day, I print out all my motions, I have a manila folder with all my documents, I watch “My Cousin Vinny” 7 times, and I’m ready to go. I sit in the courtroom forever. They run late. I listen to case after case, and I’m picking up on the nuance of it. I know the proper way to address the judge and the city's lawyer (counsel), I know the difference between testimony and argument, and I know that my plan is going to fail miserably. Whorelicker! I'm going up there with my requests and motions, they’ll deny them, citing some statute that requires them to provide only the discovery data that they will be using against me. Damn, I didn’t think this out enough.

I'm the last one there. I frantically read through the officers notes a dozen times as I’m called to the bench. It’s a crime to not present your insurance even if you have it; I'm guilty of that. A bunch of people were admitting as much and settling for a $25 charge. I resolve it the same. My motions get denied. I'm sworn in. I give testimony, which summarized was "I stopped." but to cover my bases I’m descriptive as possible about the length and grade of the road, and the cars and trees people around the intersection. Counsel reads the stop sign violation verbiage straight out of the city code as his closing arguments. It's my turn...

Holy shit...

Deep breathe...

"In my testimony, I contended that before proceeding through the intersection in question, I had come to a complete stop at the Eastern stop sign. This is in contrast to the evidence submitted in the issuing officer's notes. While I am certain that the officer's account is completely accurate from his perspective, because his documentation makes no mention of his following distance or the visibility between myself and him, it is impossible to determine conclusively, that when the officer sees me, in his words, "run the stop sign" it is in reference to the action of committing a stop sign violation, or while pulling through after coming to a complete stop. Therefore, the city has not met the burden of proof, and I request that this case be dismissed."

I blacked out for most of that. I had it down so well, I had to fake being nervous cause I thought the judge might find it endearing. She considers my remarks, "After seeing a dearth of evidence, I have no choice but to dismiss the charge," and there was fanfare and hugging and tears of joy, and no one was there. But another attorney waiting to work some administrative stuff told me I did an awesome job.

"I don't know. All I know is, I finally got enough money... that I can buy my way out of anything. I'm above the law! It's a great feeling."