1
3

[–] thelma [S] 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

I was there for a speeding ticket (I live in a neighboring state and got a speeding ticket). I previously had a kangaroo court hearing in the "traffic court" and was found guilty...I applied for a new trial and it was granted (many states have this). The new trial is moved to regular criminal court. I have done this several times...getting tossed into a courtroom where all kinds of criminal cases might be heard--last one I recall was a vehicular manslaughter charge (defendant won that case).

So I caught the end of this guy's rape case while waiting for my case to be called.

My case was rather quick...the state tried to get the certificate of calibration (COC) into evidence, I objected under State of Mass. v. Melendez-Diaz case (a ~2008 SCOTUS case) and the COC was not allowed into evidence. After the state rested I motioned for Acquittal based on the lack of evidence of the speed measuring device (LIDAR) not being calibrated and I won my case. Pretty quick, about 5 min. case.

0
0

[–] edistojim ago 

Congrats on the win ! Were you guilty?

0
2

[–] thelma [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I was found not guilty..so no I was not guilty (wink wink).

0
2

[–] UrCoolerOlderBrother 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I currently have a speed camera ticket I want to fight... please teach me your ways. What is Mass v. Mele-Diaz and why did that prevent the state from submitting the CoC?

0
1

[–] thelma [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Speed camera ticket ? LOL

Does the place (state/town) law say that the speed measured is prima-facia evidence or is automatically considered evidence? LOL

You have some research on your speed-camera case law. Have fun !

0
4

[–] thelma [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Melendez-Diaz ? A case that requires the person who signs a certificate relating to analytical instruments to actually needing to give testimony at trial.

It was a drug case (of course) related to lab equipment used where the state just gave the court a COC and the defendant demanded to examine the person who signed the COC. The lower court said it was not needed..SCOTUS said it was.

There are generally 3 ways for getting your speed in a Motor Vehicle (MV):

1) pacing - car pacing you duh

2) a speed measuring device (SMD)

3) timing you through a marked, known, distance

For (2) these fall into these two type of technologies:

a) RADAR

b) LIDAR

RADAR is calibrated by the user. LIDAR is calibrated at the factory that issues a COC, signed by someone

With LIDAR, for the COC to be admitted into evidence if that someone is not there then an objection to its admittance (COC) is appropriate. Never had one get admitted due to Melendez-Diaz case (face it-that someone isn't going to show up for trial). w/o evidence that the SMD was calibrated, its reading is garbage. In fact, I object to its reading even being admitted into evidence via objection - lack of foundation and relevance for its admittance.