Mitigating circumstances question

[808blogger]

I would suggest you can get rid of the case even before entering a plea, I would avoid entering a plea at all costs.

[oink]

I would concur with Bob's suggestion. It is the most practical suggestion as I don't believe you are trying to make a political statement but resolve your situation with the best chance of a satisfactory outcome.

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[KeaauRich]

I'd go with Bob's advice. The jurisdiction/standing approach may be legally correct, but it may also set you up (in the judge's eyes) as someone trying to game the system. Seems to me, if you go down that route, you have to have the legal background to respond to follow-ups from the judge -- and I'm guessing it'd be easy to get tripped up. Besides, I'm not sure that I'd want to take legal advice from someone who says "what I typically do when I go in (to court for traffic tickets)..." <As Marc does at 1:05 in the third video>. In my opinion, if you're hauled into court enough times to develop a personal strategy, you may not be the most upstanding citizen to begin with.

If you really do have a clean background and are sincere in your explanation, I think the Judge will take that into account and treat you appropriately. Or the officer may not show up...

[808blogger]

Well marc made it a point at one type to test out his theories, and actually many people do, successfully. he now consults and goes to court with people to fight with them

It does not have to be a political issue, if you are going to plea, offer a NOT GUILTY atleast.

and yeah you might make a judge a little upset with you but if you constrain him within a logical framework, there wont be much he can do,

and yes you cannot use his approach unless you have studied court for a while and under. The judge will test you, because in reality it is a big game, and traffic court is a kangaroo court.

[oink]

IMHO, suggesting to someone like Alex to follow the advice on the video is irresponsible. Again IMHO, in the vast majority of situations it will result in an unfavorable result for the person who is the recipient of the traffic citation. You are asking Alex to sacrifice his time and money to further your own political objectives. In some jurisdictions (I don't know about Hawaii) the judge has the option to raise (or lower) the amount of the fine. You are shooting craps and with poor odds.

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[Kapohocat]

Bob's sounds good. Simple. To the point.

In going to family court when I worked in DV, the judge doesn't want to hear about your mother in law, or why you dog was hanging out the window, or that you were late to a fire, or anything.

[Bob Orts]

Alex, what actual violation were you cited for? Does it state the code that was violated?

[808blogger]

from a legal point of view bobs advise is wrong

"You honor, I will not dispute the testimony of the officer, as I was not in his/her vehicle and therefore have no idea what he/she observed. This is the fact as it occurred."

"It was not my intention of passing in a no passing zone and I had fully intended to complete the pass while still in a passing zone."

I am not a lawyer, but i am a student of reading, and i enjoy reading about law a lot. The reason you are in court is simply because the officer observed something and cited you for it. By not disputing the officer, his testimony (the ticket) will be accepted and hence you will be found guilty, you have to be. the judge may offer some discretion in terms of a fine, but he is required to find you guilty. There is nothing about HRS in the left side passing section that says anything about the word "intent" so the defense of i didn't "intend" to end up on the wrong side of this line is going to get you a guilty verdict with a fine. I assure of that.

If you go and you ask QUESTIONS and challenge the ELEMENTS OF THE ACCUSATION which is basic behavior in a court room, you will get the point across that you understand what is going on in that courtroom. otherwise the "prosecutor" and the "judge" who are on the same team in a CIVIL (this is a civil violation) against you. That is like you suing somebody and having the judge be your boss or your best friend. Traffic violations are a civil matter, dont allow the setup of the courtroom to make you think you have committed a crime. This is no different than you suing your neighbor, CIVIL ACTION... ATLEAST ask the judge that, IS THIS A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL ACTION? once you see its civil you will realize that the action against you is not about any sort of crime at all.

I suggest you do what makes you comfortable, however i would just pay the ticket and not go to court, unless you really want to defend YOURSELF . traffic law does not include the word INTENT, like certain REAL CRIMES do.

[TheodoreJay]

Can't say exactly what your local traffic court is like. With my last ticket, since I was a generally a good driver, they automatically offered me a 1 point ticket instead of the 4 points which I gladly agreed too (less points and lower fine). At that point no officers were involved. If you fight the ticket then the officers will typically show up (at a later date) to state their reasons. Your best strategy is to see if you can plead to a lesser charge or show clear evidence that you are not guilty at all. When in doubt always get further advice from your lawyer or insurance agent.

[Alex]

Thank you,everyone for all your help.

Bob Orts - I can not thank you enough for your time and priceless advice!

This forum is lucky to have a member like you!

I am going to follow your advice.
Only I am afraid to go in court because at the time of the citation I couln't find my wallet with the DL.I had other documents to confirm my identity.The police officer was nice not to give me another citation for that.
Actually later I found it in the car,but it doesn't matter now.

Bob,my citation is HRS 291C-38:

Disregarding traffic lane lines (double solid yellow).