|
|
|
|
#1
10-14-2008, 10:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
OT: Speeding Ticket Help Attorneys
Basic traffic violation speeding.
Okay have done some of my own research. I have found out about my rights to a speedy trial. I believe this right has been over looked and I would like to try this as a defense. My first appearance was on 20 June 2008 I signed an ADVISEMENT OF RIGHT, PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, NOTICE OF FUTURE COURT APPERARANCE. Listed were several rights and one particular stood out: _______Defendant waives speedy trial. This was the only right with the line bar next to it as if I was suppose to initial it? The other five rights below this line item are spelled out explicitly. (I hope this makes sense.) I did NOT initial this line item; but I did sign the document. Anyways my court date is set to be on 17 Oct 2008. It is my understanding less than 45 days is considered a speedy trial. Counted out on a calendar this is 118days w/weekends 85days w/out weekends. Can I enter a Motion to Dismiss due to denial of right to a speedy trial. Also I have hit a road block, I am trying to subpoena documents for my right to discovery and nobody can tell me how to officially do this I talked to the first appearance center and they transferred me to the D/A’s office. I talked with 4 different folks at the D/A's office and still nobody knows. Do you think the judge will grant me a continuance for discovery purposes? I realize this is for information purposes only; NOT legal advise. Thanks in advance for any help, Satellite 
|
|
#2
10-14-2008, 10:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where you speeding?
__________________
Atmsao (according to my semi anonymous opinion)
|
|
#3
10-14-2008, 10:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you sped, pay the fine, go to traffic school and move on with your life. If you didnt speed, can you prove it? Write a check, go for a bike ride..You will feel better in the morning. Just sayin' Steve
__________________
Livin’ the dream ( just like Mike )
|
|
#4
10-14-2008, 10:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I was speeding, I was going downhill and had started slowing down, by the time I noticed the police car I looked at my Speedo and noticed I was traveling at 55mph. He gave me a ticket for 70, I don't know if I was going that fast or not I assume so. I don't care about the fine or points, it is the insurance premiums. I haven't had a ticket in a decade my family makes fun of me for never speeding or breaking any traffic laws. If I get traffic school for a deferred sentence then I am all for it; but I am NOT going to roll over.
I don't think my insurance should go up because I got a speeding ticket I mean I am NOT a worse driver than I was before I got the ticket. Insurance is nothing more than legalized extortion and I already pay enough even with a perfect driving record. Satellite
|
|
#5
10-14-2008, 10:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
S,
My advice: Don't get all worked up about it. It's not worth the aggravation. If you have evidence of being innocent then go ahead and fight it. If not, just pay the ticket and move on. Unless you already have a bunch of points on your license, in which case you need to talk to a real traffic lawyer. The vast majority of us speed at one point or another. I got a ticket a few months back for rolling through a stop sign, I did it. I admit it. there was no traffic for half a mile in each direction, but I did not stop and he caught me. I paid the money and forgot about it. Louis
|
|
#6
10-14-2008, 11:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
10-14-2008, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
traffic school
8 hrs=no point, hidden from insurance company, can sometimes be done over the net
12 hrs=no point, visable to insurance company but current company will not care, only if you get new insurance. can sometimes be done over the net. I don't think your defense will work. the cop will show because he gets time and a half. have fun. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees all persons accused of criminal wrongdoing the right to a speedy trial. Although this right is derived from the federal Constitution, it has been made applicable to state criminal proceedings through the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the due process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to a speedy trial is an ancient liberty. During the reign of henry ii (1154–1189), the English Crown promulgated the Assize of Clarendon, a legal code comprised of 22 articles, one of which promised speedy justice to all litigants. In 1215 the Magna Charta prohibited the king from delaying justice to any person in the realm. Several of the charters of the American colonies protected the right to a speedy trial, as did most of the constitutions of the original 13 states. The Founding Fathers intended the Speedy Trial Clause to serve two purposes. First, they sought to prevent defendants from languishing in jail for an indefinite period before trial. Pre-trial incarceration is a deprivation of liberty no less serious than post-conviction imprisonment. In some cases pretrial incarceration may be more serious because public scrutiny is often heightened, employment is commonly interrupted, financial resources are diminished, family relations are strained, and innocent persons are forced to suffer prolonged injury to reputation. Second, the Founding Fathers sought to ensure a defendant's right to a fair trial. The longer the commencement of trial is postponed, the more likely it is that witnesses will disappear, memories will fade, and evidence will be lost or destroyed. Of course, both the prosecution and the defense are threatened by these dangers, but only the defendant's life, liberty, and property are at stake in a criminal proceeding. The right to a speedy trial does not apply to every stage of a criminal case. It arises only after a person has been arrested, indicted, or otherwise formally accused of a crime by the government. Before the point of formal accusation, the government is under no Sixth Amendment obligation to investigate, accuse, or prosecute a defendant within a specific amount of time. Nor does the Speedy Trial Clause apply to post-trial criminal proceedings, such as Probation and Parole hearings. If the government drops criminal charges during the middle of a case, the Speedy Trial Clause does not apply unless the government later refiles the charges, at which point the length of delay is measured only from the time of refiling. However, the fairness requirements of the Due Process Clause apply during each juncture of a criminal case, and an unreasonably excessive delay can be challenged under this constitutional provision even if the delay occurs before formal accusation or after conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to draw a bright line separating permissible pre-trial delays from delays that are impermissibly excessive. Instead, the Court has developed a Balancing test in which the length of delay is just one factor to be considered when evaluating the merits of a speedy trial claim. The other factors to be considered by a court include the reason for the delay, the severity of prejudice suffered by the defendant from the delay, and the stage during the criminal proceedings at which the defendant asserted the right to a speedy trial. A delay of at least one year in bringing a defendant to trial following arrest will trigger a presumption that the Sixth Amendment has been violated, with the level of judicial scrutiny increasing in direct proportion to the length of delay. A longer delay may be deemed constitutional, however, and a shorter delay may be deemed unconstitutional, depending on the circumstances. Longer delays will be permitted to accommodate the schedules of important witnesses, and to allow the prosecution to prepare for a complex case. Longer delays will also be tolerated when a defendant is dilatory in asserting the right to a speedy trial. In general, defendants must assert their Sixth Amendment right in a timely motion before the trial court. If the defendant fails to assert the right in this manner or acquiesces in the face of protracted pretrial delays, she or he may not raise the issue for the first time on appeal, unless the defendant's failure to raise the issue earlier was due to her or his attorney's Negligence. Defendants who delay prosecution by inundating the trial court with frivolous pretrial motions are also treated as having forfeited their rights to a speedy trial. The law does not allow defendants to profit from their own wrong under these circumstances. Delays shorter than a year will be ruled unconstitutional if the reason for delay offered by the prosecution is unpersuasive or inappropriate. Delays attributable to prosecutorial misconduct, such as the deliberate attempt by the government to delay a proceeding and hamper the defense, will run afoul of the Speedy Trial Clause. Prosecutorial negligence, such as misplacing a defendant's file or losing incriminating evidence, is also considered an inappropriate reason for delay. Additionally, delays shorter than a year will be deemed unconstitutional when the delay has severely limited the opportunity for the accused to defend himself. For example, the death of an alibi witness who would have been available for a timely trial is considered Prima Facie evidence of prejudice under the Speedy Trial Clause. Despite the strictures of the Speedy Trial Clause, criminal justice has not always moved swiftly in the United States. During the 1970s federal courts had backlogs of thousands of cases on their dockets. Lengthy pretrial delays clogged local jails at great expense to taxpayers. Increasing numbers of defendants were jumping bail while free during extended pretrial release. In 1974 Congress enacted the Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3161 et seq.) to ameliorate the situation. Unlike the balancing test created by the Supreme Court to evaluate a claim under the Speedy Trial Clause, the Speedy Trial Act establishes specific time limits between various stages of federal criminal proceedings. The act requires federal authorities to file an information or indictment within 30 days of a defendant's arrest. A prosecutor who knows that an accused is incarcerated at the time of indictment must take immediate steps to initiate prosecution. If a defendant enters a plea of not guilty, trial must commence within 70 days from the filing of the information or indictment or 70 days from the first appearance of the accused in court, whichever is later. Certain types of delays are exempted from the act's time limitations. For example, the act exempts delays caused by the absence of the defendant, the unavailability of an essential witness, or the conduct of a codefendant. Delays resulting from a defendant's involvement in other legal proceedings are typically exempted as well. Additionally, the act gives courts discretion to grant the prosecution a Continuance in the interests of justice. Courts are also given discretion to dismiss charges when a defendant suffers prejudice from a pretrial delay that is of a kind not exempted under the act. The Speedy Trial Act has been held to apply to both citizens and non-citizens alike. See United States v. Restrepo, 59 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D. Mass. 1999). However, since the September 11th Attacks in 2001, the United States has sought to enhance the abilities of immigration officials and other law enforcement officers to prevent further terrorist attacks. Under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, the attorney general may certify a non-citizen as a terrorist if reasonable grounds exist to believe that the non-citizen has been engaged in terrorist activities. If the attorney general certifies the non-citizen as a terrorist, the act mandates the detention of the non-citizen. If the terrorist is deemed to be a threat to national security, or if emergency or other extraordinary circumstances are present, the federal government may detain the person for six months or longer. Accordingly, a suspected terrorist could be detained for a significant period of time without criminal charges or deportation proceedings brought against the suspect. Many state jurisdictions have passed legislation similar to the Speedy Trial Act. Like the federal act, most state legislation permits courts to provide prosecutors with additional time upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. Most state laws also authorize courts to dismiss charges that have not been brought within a reasonable amount of time following arrest or indictment. Thus, these defendants faced with an unreasonable pretrial delay have a number of constitutional and statutory provisions that may provide them with effective relief.
|
|
#8
10-15-2008, 06:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You either pay the COURT or pay a LAWYER. If you're trying to keep your premiums down, then visit the lawyer. The only way you're going to understand how the system works i.e., getting the documents you seek etcetera, is to go THROUGH the system. Reading a book is not nearly enough. Trust me, I've been there. It's practically worth it to go through the court system just for the education. I considered it like paying tuition for a class.
|
|
#9
10-15-2008, 06:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The cop will show as others have pointed out...it's a good, solid source of income for them. Go to the hearing and tell the story that you have told here....slowing down, first offense, concerned about insurance, etc. I wouldn't be surprised that the judge/magistrate sets a fine and doesn't assess the points. At the end of the event, raise your left arm and shout...."Viva La Sandanistas!" Just kidding on the last part....
|
|
#10
10-15-2008, 06:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
cops don't show for these things because the court now has what they call a court appointed officer who basically represents the officer's who issued citations to be contested. You should definitely contest the ticket, you will most likely at best recieve a reduced fine. Remember the judge sides up with the testimony of the officer and radar gun as evidence. A literal "speedy trial" would only aggravate the issue not in your favor, as they say can't fight city hall. Any way just for showing up you will represent doubt and the fine will be reduced. Here in Ma. if you don't have any incidents for something like 5 or 6 years they won't surcharge your first incident, at least thats what happened with me a year and half ago I got a speeding ticket. I contested it a year ago about 4 months after the ticket, reduced from 220$ to 100$ and I thought the same as you my insurance
 We'll that bill came and I actually paid less. I asked the insurance agent why and she said I don't know but its been so long since you had a driving incident that you qualify for no surcharge but remember that only happens the first time here in Ma. Not sure where you are, hope this helps.
|
|
#11
10-15-2008, 06:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
10-15-2008, 07:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The court gets the fine and you don't get points. If you want to do anything more sophisticated get a lawyer but then they cost as much as the increased insurance.
|
|
#13
10-15-2008, 07:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
In Rhode island, if you haven't had a ticket before (or one withing X number of years) you can invoke your "good driving record". They will let you off as long as you don't get another one within six months....as I remember it.
William
|
|
#14
10-15-2008, 08:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cut a deal with the officer when you get to court. Usually, the judge will give you an opportunity to speak with the officer off the record. Tell the guy you have no tickets in the past 10 years etc. and chances are he will agree to a plea bargain down to a "moving violation" will should not result in any impact on your insurance premiums. This will usually work unless you were way over the speeding limit. If you were going 70 in a 35 mph area you will have your work cut out for you.
That being said, I got a ticket two years ago and it increased by annual insurance premiums by a total of $20. It would have cost me more to take time off from work rather then write the check and be done with it.
|
|
#15
10-15-2008, 08:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Insurance is legalized extortion? You're right, just the man trying to keep you down. Go talk to the county attorney before trial, you will not win at trial, it is possible to cut a deal with the prosecutor.
__________________
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
