Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I live in a Houston suburb. I recently had a jury trial to fight a traffic ticket but lost. Given the widespread interest in the forum on how to fight traffic tickets, I post my experience below for your reference.
The message is pretty long. Here are a few quick points:
1. It is very difficult to win at court. So, prepare yourself well before go to court.
2. City's attorney (i.e. prosecutor) is more experienced in handling jury than regular people like you and me.
3. Prosecutor can choose to be the last person to speak to the jury before the jury goes to the back room to deliberate. Therefore, the prosecutor can make some very damaging statements to you at closing, and you do not have a chance to rebut.
4. Jury’s verdict must be unanimous. This is true for both GUILTY and NOT GUILTY verdict. In the event of a hung jury (e.g. 4-2 or 3-3, etc.), one group has to convince the other; otherwise nobody goes home. Generally speaking, it is much easier for jurors to finally agree on a GUILTY verdict in traffic violation cases.
5. Once sworn in, jurors are told that they are “officers of the court”. Accordingly, jurors tend to take side with the government and proudly deliver “justice” on behalf of the public. You may want to formulate arguments to offset this effect.
Here are the details.
In Texas, moving violations are considered as class C misdemeanor. So, the Texas Criminal Procedural Law governs the procedure. (Texas Transportation Code governs the substance.)
Being a criminal matter, an "arraignment" is the first court appearing after a traffic ticket. There are three ways one can plead - Guilty, Not Guilty, No Contest, after you get a chance to see the prosecutor. The prosecutor may show you a video clip recording your violation. If you are eligible for driving school, the prosecutor will likely push you to take that. In big cities like Houston or Dallas, some cases may get dismissed if the prosecutor does not feel the evidence is strong. However, in smaller towns such as the one I live in, the prosecutor never dismiss traffic tickets, unless there is a jurisdiction issue (e.g. when the police stopped you, you were outside of city line), or other plain errors that would render the ticket unenforceable. This is because traffic tickets are directly linked to the revenue of smaller towns, from which the police officer, the prosecutor and the judge all take salaries. If the township’s revenue does not meet expectation, something needs to be cut.
After the arraignment, if your plead is Not Guilty, you need to choose between “trial by jury” or “trial by judge”. Trial by jury is typically preferred, and recommended by many on the Internet, because city judges rarely take the side with defendants. They share a common interest with other city employees such as police officers and prosecutors. So, jury is pretty much your last hope. After I chose trial-by-jury, the court clerk issued me a notice of pretrial conference, which is typically set at 40 days after the arraignment. All discovery and motions must be completed before the pretrial date.
The pretrial conference was just a 2nd chance to speak with the prosecutor. The judge was not there. No agreement was reach with the prosecutor. Then the court clerk issued me a notice with a trial date, which is about 40 days after the pretrial conference.
On the day of trial, it is important to arrive on time, otherwise your case will be struck out. You will be given a 3rd chance to talk to the prosecutor to settle the case. If not, the court will proceed to establish juries. In my case, there were not enough jurors that day for more than 2 cases. So, the court clerk reschedules all but 2 defendants to a new trial date that is about 30 days later. Most defendants were unhappy, especially those who brought witnesses with them. But there was pretty much nothing we could do but to comply.
Finally, I got my jury on the 4th time I was at the court. The procedure begun with “voir dire” – asking a group of 12 candidate jurors to answer questions to see if they are fit to be jurors. The prosecutor being the plaintiff of the case went first. She asked if any juror knows the defendant (i.e. me) either socially or professionally. The prosecutor then asked if any juror lives in the same or nearby neighborhood with me – so after this question, the jurors pretty much knows which part of the town you live; this can be a double-blade sword depending on if your town has a division of rich are or poor area, etc. The prosecutor then asked if any juror had ticket recently, or contested ticket recently, or had “hard feelings” about the court recently. People who answered yes to these questions would increase their chances of being struck out as a juror for a traffic law case.
Because my ticket is for a STOP sign violation, the prosecutor then asked if any juror makes “rolling stops” at the STOP sign (i.e. slows down at the STOP sign but not reduces speed to 0mph). Three quarters of the candidate jurors raised their hands. The prosecutor then stated that the trial is not about how they drive every day, but how I drove on the day of the ticket. Therefore, if any juror does not feel comfortable finding me guilty because they have similar driving behavior as mine, they should not be the juror of this case. Most jurors said they will follow the law to find guilty. Those who showed hesitation were struck out by the prosecutor at the end of the voir dire. The prosecutor also asked the jurors how they feel if a person made full stop at the STOP sign, but he/she stopped over the stop line. Again, many jurors said they often stop at a position over the stop line, but would nevertheless uphold the law if the state proves the defendant had indeed run over the stop line. I did not ask any question during voir dire, so the case proceeded straightly into trial.
The prosecutor first called the officer as the witness. The officer’s initial testimony was that I did not make full stop at the STOP sign. Then the prosecutor showed the jury the video clip recorded by the camera mounted on the police officer’s patrol car. The video clearly showed that I made a full stop at the STOP sign. So the officer clarified his testimony by saying I did not make “proper stop” at the STOP sign. The officer admitted that there was no stop line drawn on the street, but charged me for running into the intersection or the crosswalk where pedestrians cross the street. On cross examination, the officer admitted that there was no crosswalk on my side, only a ramp at about 45 degree at the corner. The officer further admitted that the corner of the intersection is a big curve. This is important because I was about to make a right hand turn at the STOP sign. The head of my car had passed the STOP sign, bent a bit to the right (5 degree, approximately), but by no means my car had run into the crosswalk or intersection.
Thinking that the video recording speaks for itself and the police officer’s testimony is far from establishing the case "beyond any reasonable doubt", I chose not to take the witness stand and give testimony myself. All the key points I wanted to say had been shown by the video or the officer's testimony. So, the case proceeded to the stage of "closing statement". (On hindsight, this may be a big mistake. It could have given the jurors a wrong impression that I am afraid of being questioned by the prosecutor.)
In “closing statement” stage, each party has 10 min to summarize his/her case and make final arguments to the jury. The prosecutor is the plaintiff of the case, so she delivers the closing statement first. Under the Texas Criminal Procedural Law, the prosecutor has the option to divide her closing statment into 2 parts: an initial statement and a reserved portion to rebut the defendant's closing statement. Being the defendant, you and I only have one shot. This was what happened that day. The prosecutor made a brief statement in 1 min and said she would reserve 9 min for rebuttal. Then it’s my turn. I summarized the defects in the state’s case, showed a diagram of the streets and how the Texas law defines the term “intersection” and that I did not run into the intersection or the crosswalk.
The prosecutor then stood up and used her reserved 9 min for a long speech to the jurors. First, the prosecutor reminded the jurors that they are now all “officers of the court”; when they were sworn in as the jurors, they had each confirmed that they would uphold the law no matter how they normally drive during their personal time; and they should adhere to their oath. Second, the prosecutor stated that even though the law says “beyond any reasonable doubt”, but the city is not required to prove the case “beyond any possible doubt”. Therefore, it is ok if the case has some unclear areas, as long as the doubts are “possible” doubts, not “reasonable” doubts. Third, the prosecutor played the card of “what if there was a child playing at the corner of that street?” That pretty much sealed the deal. The jury returned in 5 min and the verdict was GUILTY.
On hindsight, there are a few things you may want to consider to increase your chance of winning.
First, you may want to educate your jury more about “beyond any reasonable doubt”. It is actually a very high standard – something like above 90% certainty that the accused defendant indeed committed that crime – think about the OJ Simpson case. However, with the prosecutor’s closing statement about “possible doubt”, untrained jurors is likely to mistake that as long as that the defendant has “likely” committed the crime, he/she is guilty. “Likely” is the standard for civil litigation – something like 51% certainty about a wrongdoing.
Second, you may want to remind the jury not to be overly excited by being the “officers of the court”. They are members of the public too. The court, the prosecutor, and the police all have a common interest in gathering as much revenue as possible from traffic violations. But the revenue comes at an expense of the public. The true question is whether there is really a risk to the public safety. For speeding violations with >10-15 mph above the posted speed limit, drink and drive, drug abuse, or hit and run, they all share a common feature of posing serious risk to the public’s safety. But for “technical” violations, such as not making full stops (0mph) at the stop sign, a bit over the stop line, 1-2 mph above the posted speed limit, they do not cause public safety issues. Tickets issued to such violations merely represent a convenient means for the city to collect more revenue for the year. If police officers all engage in this type of “easy” law enforcement, but let go of the difficult type of violations such as drink and drive, drug abuse, etc., our city will go down very quickly. Just think how many STOP sign tickets a police officer can write in an hour and how many drink and drive tickets a police officer can write in an hour, you will get the picture.
Third, you may want to say something during your closing statement to preempt the prosecutor’s speculative arguments “what if there was a kid”, “what if it was your kid playing on the street”? These arguments are defective in logic, but carries tremendous force when delivered by the prosecutor right before the jury goes to the back room to render the verdict. The point is that there was NO kid playing on the street when the ticket was issued. The prosecutor had just spent tons of time and energy establishing that the street was clear and nothing blocked the driver's view of the STOP sign or the intersection (the purpose: to establish that the driver had no excuse not seeing the STOP sign or the intersection). So, on this clear street, if there was a kid, you would see the kid and drive extremely careful accordingly. You would give way to the kid yards away from the STOP sign. The prosecutor is double dipping on the fact.
Four, please consider taking the witness stand and giving your testimony at court. (Just be aware of tricky questions from the prosecutor.) It increases your credibility and shows your integrity. This is the case even though the law says that the defendant has the right to remain silent and is presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise. These are just legal principles. In reality, you need to prove you are innocent. You cannot count on the jury to have an in-depth understand that “the state bears the burden to prove you are guilty”. You need to prove you are not guilty. If you do not take the witness stand but merely point out the defects in the prosecutor’s case, the jury will likely “infer” that you are guilty.
Five, many jurors think traffic ticket is just for money. No jail time. This is true, and the court and prosecutor will repetitively emphasize on this to minimize the hard feelings the juror may have when returning a GUILTY verdict. But in Texas, traffic violations are class C misdemeanors. And misdemeanors are included in the “crime” definition of many state and federal laws. Therefore, strictly speaking, unless your ticket is dismissed, wiped off the record by attending driving school, etc., you have triggered many obligations and consequences under the state and federal laws. For example, if you are taking social security or medicare benefits from the government, a “crime” may disqualify you from further receiving these benefits. If you are an immigrant (legal), you are under an obligation to disclose any “crime” committed in the United States to the Department of Homeland Security. If you are a teacher or school bus driver, you may need to report any “crime” to your organization so they can evaluate your “moral integrity”. The reporting or disclosure may not disqualify you immediately, but tons of paperwork will follow, asking for explanations, court dispositions, court record, etc. People typically do not realize the seriousness of their traffic ticket and do nothing with their ticket. But a class C misdemeanor under the law carries serious implications, many unknown. You may want to spend some time educating the jurors on this topic so they do not think your case is “just a traffic ticket, pay the money, suck it up.”
Finally, the dollar amount. This is my second STOP sign ticket in 3 months. The first one was for not making 0mph full stop; the second one was for not stopping at the "proper" position. Both tickets were at the same STOP sign one block from where I live; and both times the "violations" are generally considered normal by regular people. That's why I chose to fight the second ticket. For the first ticket, I pled NO CONTEST and paid $204. For the second ticket, I pled NOT GUILTY but lost at the trial and thus I had to pay additional court fees. The final cost for the second ticket is $255. Both tickets will appear on my record for 7 years with 4 traffic points. So, there will be an increase in my insurance premium. Not sure how much yet. An online estimate shows an increase of about $250 a year for 3 years. Assuming that is correct, the total cost for my 2 tickets is about $1200. The City gets $450; the insurance gets $750. That would be my contribution to the economy.
Last edited by Michael94; 08-13-2010 at 10:20 AM..
Interesting case (and, yes, I did read all of it). It seems unfair that hte prosecuter can talk both first and last. Also, I think you should have questioned the prospective jurors. I would have asked how many of them were city or county workers and how many of them had paychecks that derived from revenue collected from defendants like yourself. Even if you couldn't get them bumped at least you would plant the image in the minds of the other jurors that the trial is really about revenue generation. So, how much was the fine?
I beat a speeding ticket up in Richardson with a jury trial. Mainly, do not admit in anyway you may have broken the law, or make up excuses, you will be guilty.
Just stick to your guns, have a good story that defeats the cop, you will win easy. Jurors side with the defendant because they have been in your shoes.
I hired an attorney for my last ticket. Speeding - 47 in a 35 - the "trap" is along Allen Genoa Road. Pasadena Cops LOVE to jump out in the middle of the street and point the lazer at ya, and motion you to pull over.....
Every. Single. Ticket. I have been given over the last 10 years have been by Pasadena cops. 3 of them on this same stretch of road. Yeah, you would think I would have learned my lesson by now - but that's not the point. LOL
I opted for a jury trial also - got all the info I needed to fight it in court. Of course all the information I found was out on the web...lol....
I went ahead and took the "deferred disposition" @ $150.00 - I was stressing on how much the trial was going to cost me....and by accidently sitting in the wrong room the day of my trial and seeing the jury pickins - I am glad I chose to opt out of that...what a bunch of degenerates that was.
All in all, the ticket would of been over this amount even if I had to pay out for defensive driving.
I also moved out of Pasadena, and avoid it like the plague. LOL
Michael94: I'm amazed at the amount of time and energy you spent fighting this ticket, including the time it took you to write your post.
I get about one speeding ticket every two years. I never contest it. I never go to court, except to ask the judge to let me take Defensive Driving. I spend a boring day in class, pay my fine and go on my merry way. No points on my record, no higher insurance costs, etc etc etc It's the price of my bad habit, and I'll continue to pay the price or I'll adjust my driving.
I sat on a jury once for a woman who "fought" a radar speeding ticket. Only car on the road! We the jury were so angry with her for wasting our time and the taxpayer's money that deliberation took 5 min and she got the max fine.
I happened to walk out of the courthouse with her, and asked her what motivated her to "fight" such an open and shut case. She was snookered into it by a defense lawyer who roamed the courthouse halls looking for clients. All things considered, she would have been better off either just paying the fine OR doing the defensive driving course.
Several years ago in Galveston County (TX City) I got a ticket like for running a stop sign but won when I challenged in court. I didn't see the stop sign because of overgrown trees obsuring the sign on a busy fast blvd until you were only 10' from the sign - not enough time to stop even if you slammed on the brakes. Personally - I didn't see the sign at all and just went through at full posted seen. A cop was waiting behind the trees in an obvious "speed trap" knowing that most people who had not been there before would go through the sign.
I was so mad at the obvious illegality of the speed trap, or at least perception of illegality, that I came back at the same time (dusk) and took several pictures at various distances from the trap. I thought I had a good case and said I was OK with a judge trial. All I had to do was show him my photos and he immediately through out the case even though the cop was there (glaring at me). He even said that he would contact TC and ask their maitainance dept to cut the trees back on an obvious safety hazard. Contrary to popular perception, there are actually some fair honest judges in TX!
Michael94: I'm amazed at the amount of time and energy you spent fighting this ticket, including the time it took you to write your post.
I get about one speeding ticket every two years. I never contest it. I never go to court, except to ask the judge to let me take Defensive Driving. I spend a boring day in class, pay my fine and go on my merry way. No points on my record, no higher insurance costs, etc etc etc It's the price of my bad habit, and I'll continue to pay the price or I'll adjust my driving.
I sat on a jury once for a woman who "fought" a radar speeding ticket. Only car on the road! We the jury were so angry with her for wasting our time and the taxpayer's money that deliberation took 5 min and she got the max fine.
I happened to walk out of the courthouse with her, and asked her what motivated her to "fight" such an open and shut case. She was snookered into it by a defense lawyer who roamed the courthouse halls looking for clients. All things considered, she would have been better off either just paying the fine OR doing the defensive driving course.
Quick reply to tdhg566's message:
In the past 16 years, I have never fought any tickets. Driving school and settlement were always my way out of traffic tickets.
This time, two reason pushed me to fight. (1) This is the 2nd ticket in 3 months at the same STOP sign. I typically get citations once every 3 years. (2) I was on 25% paycut due to slow economy. My wife does not work and I have 2 kids.
It just seemed unfair that everybody is suffering from the economy while police is stepping up the traffic law enforcement.
Just so you know, many court employees, judges, prosecuters HATE when people represent themselves. Hopefully you sharing your experience will help others in a similar situation. Lawyers are experienced with Court procedures and rules, and when one of us unfamilar with those procedures comes in we tend to slow everything down, because we're learning as we go.
I personally would have hired a Lawyer, which very likely would have saved you money both in court fees and insurance premiums, and also would have saved you time.
My lawyer always says "you might be able to beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride", Meaning you might be cleared of the charges against you, but you have to jump thru the courts' hoops to do so.
I very recently was able to get a ticket dismissed for failure to yield ride of way by hiring a lawyer, and I didn't have to pay the court a penny.
The fact is that most whop get a ticket by far are guilty of the offense. Attorney most rely on officers not sgowing or delay or settlement to get clinets offf really. Few even look at the case before trial because thiere are no satements taken.
#1:
I got a traffic ticket for "running red light" in Dallas suburb (which I did not committed and was unsuccessful to explain to the officer)
#2:
I went to the clerk office, requested "Discovery" form and asked for the following info:
(1) All notes and log files made by the officer
(2) Copy of any photos, diagrams and video
(3) Any witness or other written evidence
(4) # of traffic tickets issued by the Police Dept and the officer in the whole month
#3:
On Pre-trial date I went to the court pleaded not guilty, and sat down with the prosecutor to saw the video from the officer.
#4:
Among other things, the video clearly shows that traffic was still moving (on both side of the highway) after I crossed the intersection.. At the end - ticket was dismissed.
#5:
Lesson learned:
(1) I think only 3% people fight the ticket - 97% pay the fine, so if you are not guilty - don't be in 97%.
(2) Always ask for the 'evidence' - i.e. video etc. before the pre-trial date (you are entitled to receive all the evidence used by the prosecutor)
(3) Be prepare before the court date and stay cool
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We the jury were so angry with her for wasting our time and the taxpayer's money that deliberation took 5 min and she got the max fine.
