That 30 others were sighted only supports the prosecutions case. It's also more money for the commissioner's court. The lights being out may be a defense, since these visually impairing conditions are the responsibility of the city. If the police delayed city workers in the process of rectifying this condition than the city is complicit. Still, you have to prove it and use the proper legal format to have a chance at prevailing. If you have witnesses, produce them, but you will still have to conduct your case correctly. Otherwise it's just an excuse or explanation and you won't stand a chance of prevailing. Some judges will entertain explanations but only as considerations to sentencing and usually they have no impact, but it really depends on the explanation and the judge (or commissioner).
Remember, the best reasoning in the world won't win your case. Defendant in pro per: "Your honor I had to drive fast because my wife was bleeding to death and I had to get her to the hospital. Here is the doctor report saying I had to rush her in." Commissioner: " So you were speeding then-GUILTY!" You have to use the law. Prosicution witness [aka;cop]: "Your honor I have produced a traffic and safety survey carried out at 1200 Oak road" Defendant in pro per: "Objection! "Your honor the traffic safety survey carried out at 1200 Oak road is a different stretch of road with different conditions than on the 1800 stretch of Oak road where I was cited. [explain differing conditions] The prosecution witness's testimony is therefore lacking in foundation, since the report is not germane to the circumstances. I move the court to dismiss this case for lack of foundation." Commissioner: "NOT GUILTY."
This is only an example. Spend time in a law library or talk to a lawyer. Get the NOLO Book. Don't be one of those 99% of suckers who loose in traffic court because they don't know how to play the game.
Also. I'm not a lawyer and never worked for any lawyers. I'm just a guy who can read and yes there is corruption everywhere. |