|
Hello,
I just got out of a bench trial, in which I *know* the officier was
lying based on evidence from a car manufacturer that I was not allowed
to submit as evidence.
The Car information was from the actual Subaru Web site and was
printed directly from that web site.
When I crossed-Examined the officer and caught him, I then started
presenting my evidence. The states attorney objected on grounds of
hearsay. I was not prepared for that and did not have the ability to
justify the exception for this document. Is there anyone out there
that can point me in the right direction in determining the exception
to Manufacturer Web Site documentation?
I'm not an attorney, and the ticket was only 75 bucks, but man, it is
the pricipal of the matter that the cop is lying.
Thanks for your help...
Bob
|
| |
| |
On 15 Dec 2003 13:03:12 -0800, Bob Erwin <berwin@msbob.com> wrote:
Hello,
I just got out of a bench trial, in which I *know* the officier was
lying based on evidence from a car manufacturer that I was not allowed
to submit as evidence.
The Car information was from the actual Subaru Web site and was
printed directly from that web site.
When I crossed-Examined the officer and caught him, I then started
presenting my evidence. The states attorney objected on grounds of
hearsay. I was not prepared for that and did not have the ability to
justify the exception for this document. Is there anyone out there
that can point me in the right direction in determining the exception
to Manufacturer Web Site documentation?
There is no applicable exception.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
From: berwin@msbob.com (Bob Erwin)
Hello,
I just got out of a bench trial, in which I *know* the officier was
lying based on evidence from a car manufacturer that I was not allowed
to submit as evidence.
The Car information was from the actual Subaru Web site and was
printed directly from that web site.
When I crossed-Examined the officer and caught him, I then started
presenting my evidence. The states attorney objected on grounds of
hearsay. I was not prepared for that and did not have the ability to
justify the exception for this document. Is there anyone out there
that can point me in the right direction in determining the exception
to Manufacturer Web Site documentation?
I'm not an attorney, and the ticket was only 75 bucks, but man, it is
the pricipal of the matter that the cop is lying.
Thanks for your help...
Bob
You are joking, right? Come on....out with the rest of the story.....I cannot
IMAGINE what a web page (which is basically an ad) would have to do with
proving an officer lying.....this has GOT to be good!!!
|
| |
| |
Bob Erwin wrote:
Hello,
I just got out of a bench trial, in which I *know* the officier was
lying based on evidence from a car manufacturer that I was not allowed
to submit as evidence.
The Car information was from the actual Subaru Web site and was
printed directly from that web site.
When I crossed-Examined the officer and caught him, I then started
presenting my evidence. The states attorney objected on grounds of
hearsay. I was not prepared for that and did not have the ability to
justify the exception for this document. Is there anyone out there
that can point me in the right direction in determining the exception
to Manufacturer Web Site documentation?
I'm not an attorney, and the ticket was only 75 bucks, but man, it is
the pricipal of the matter that the cop is lying.
Thanks for your help...
Bob
Technically I would believe it would be hearsay.
How did the officer know his side of the story? Perhpas you should have made
him give up his source of information.
If that source was a website, his testimony is also hearsay.
What you need to do is to get a hold of is the actual manual the information
came from.
Then that can be presented as factual.
Without knowing more of the details of the testimony, no one can really say
what is allowed and what isn't.
|
| |
| |
truckinsp@aol.com (Truckinsp) wrote in message news:<20031215180808.01860.00000987@mb-m18.aol.com>...
From: berwin@msbob.com (Bob Erwin)
You are joking, right? Come on....out with the rest of the story.....I cannot
IMAGINE what a web page (which is basically an ad) would have to do with
proving an officer lying.....this has GOT to be good!!!
|
| |
| |
From: berwin@msbob.com (Bob Erwin)
:) Yeah, pretty much the officer wrote me a ticket for sqealling
tires..I'm a 28 year old male who gets no joy in squealing tires and
did not hear my tires squeal in the first place...the vehicle is a
Subaru Baja All Wheel Drive vehicle. I questioned the officer on when
I squealed my tires and he said as I accelerated from the stop sign.
Based on my research from the Subaru Site, it is known that AWD
systems in these vehicles transfer power independently to each tire
intelligently "Before the Slippage occurs". (also the fact that this
is a 160 horse power vehicle on a heavier body also prevents me from
"lighting up the tires". :) The pavement was dry that night, and
again, I did not hear myself squeel. I have even tried to squeel this
vehical and have been unsuccessful, but also when I explained that to
the judge, the District Attorney objected to that statement as well.
I had 5 points in this document that were pretty much thown out of
court. I was pretty depressed because I *thought* I had something to
dispute, but as I found out today, logical information really won't
help you, unless you absolutely know what you are doing...it makes
disputing a traffic ticket completely pointless, unless you hire an
attorney, which does not make any since. I guess I learned the hard
way in this case.
Since, I was not aware of my Hearsay problem, I asked the Judge for a
continuation, however, he denied that as well, stating that I had
plenty of time (17 days) to gather evidence for my case.
Granted, I guess it is an "Ad". But maybe someone can tell me how to
handle something like this in the future? Could I have called subaru
and get a "certified document" of testing on the All Wheel drive
system? What should I have done differently (Besides getting an
attorney).
I'm glad to provide you with a laugh...I think probabaly after I pay
my ticket that is now more than double, I can eventually laugh at my
stupidity. :)
Thanks,
Bob
Hmmmm....I didn't realize "squealing tires" was a traffic violation but then I
don't know every city's laws.....there are a LOT of things that can make tires
squeal.....what you could have done is gone to your local Subaru dealer and got
a signed statement (deposition) from a certified mechanic explaining the AWD
system....that CAN be brought into a court of law......it is ALWAYS best to get
a human to back up any claim you have....
Good luck to you in the future...
|
| |
| |
On 15 Dec 2003 22:25:59 -0800, Bob Erwin <berwin@msbob.com> wrote:
Based on my research from the Subaru Site, it is known that AWD
systems in these vehicles transfer power independently to each tire
intelligently "Before the Slippage occurs". (also the fact that this
is a 160 horse power vehicle on a heavier body also prevents me from
"lighting up the tires". :) The pavement was dry that night, and
again, I did not hear myself squeel. I have even tried to squeel this
vehical and have been unsuccessful, but also when I explained that to
the judge, the District Attorney objected to that statement as well.
It certainly wouldn't have been hearsay.
Since, I was not aware of my Hearsay problem, I asked the Judge for a
continuation, however, he denied that as well, stating that I had
plenty of time (17 days) to gather evidence for my case.
I guess you could have appealed, but unless you are planning
to go to some length to get your evidence in, it seems pointless.
Granted, I guess it is an "Ad". But maybe someone can tell me how to
handle something like this in the future? Could I have called subaru
and get a "certified document" of testing on the All Wheel drive
system? What should I have done differently (Besides getting an
attorney).
Even that document would have been hearsay. Watch some court TV. When
the state introduces lab results, they always have them presented by
someone from the lab.
I'm glad to provide you with a laugh...I think probabaly after I pay
my ticket that is now more than double, I can eventually laugh at my
stupidity. :)
You didn't do anything stupid. But you do have the makings of a nice
anecdote to tell. Now with a few re-tellings, you should be able to
beef it up into something that will get people rolling on the floor.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:51:02 -0600, Richard <anonymous@127.000> wrote:
Technically I would believe it would be hearsay.
How did the officer know his side of the story? Perhpas you should have made
Think man, think. The officer was testifying to events he claims to have
observed and the poster wants to prove those events could not have happened.
The officer was in court, hence his testimony is not hearsay.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
I just got out of a bench trial, in which I *know* the officier was
lying based on evidence from a car manufacturer that I was not allowed
to submit as evidence.
The Car information was from the actual Subaru Web site and was
printed directly from that web site.
When I crossed-Examined the officer and caught him, I then started
presenting my evidence. The states attorney objected on grounds of
hearsay. I was not prepared for that and did not have the ability to
justify the exception for this document. Is there anyone out there
that can point me in the right direction in determining the exception
to Manufacturer Web Site documentation?
I'm not an attorney, and the ticket was only 75 bucks, but man, it is
the pricipal of the matter that the cop is lying.
Your print of the website was hearsay because it was an out-of-court
statement. That's an oversimplification, but it will do for this
discussion. The best solution would have been an expert witness. There are
other solutions, but the expert witness is the best. You should rent the
movie: "My cousin Vinnie."
McGyver
|
| |
| |
Nice try, Bob, but I'm not surprised by the Judge's ruling (at least as to
the web site content).
Meanwhile, you learned a valuable lesson: Police always lie on the stand.
Even when the defendant is a "nice" person. Even when the defendant is
innocent.
And ESPECIALLY when it's just for a minor offense. You might think they'd
"save" their lies for "important" cases, but instead, they make a point of
punishing anyone who fights a minor ticket, by commiting blatant and often
gratuitous perjury against them.
Judges know this, but they have to pretend they don't know it, or else the
whole system would fall apart. Can't create a record reflecting the fact
that Officer So-and-so is just a lying sack, can we? No, especially not over
a minor case, when it could come back to haunt everyone later.
Tell your friends. And be sure to remember it, next time you're on a jury.
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:51:02 -0600, Richard <anonymous@127.000> wrote:
Think man, think. The officer was testifying to events he claims to have
observed and the poster wants to prove those events could not have
happened. The officer was in court, hence his testimony is not hearsay.
Isaac
It was not clearly stated how the officer was relating his testimony, either
as an observer of the facts, or from another source.
It was only mentioned that the evidence to refute the testimony could not be
entered as it was deemed to be hearsay.
Since the officer is relating his observations, a cross examination could
only be applied to those statements.
Persons on the witness stand who have observed certain things, have been
known to fabricate facts in order to establish damning evidence.
This is why other evidence is introduced to show that the statements made
could not be true.
Unfortunately, a web site is not the most factual of places to obtain such
evidence.
Unless, the author of the website is called in and testifies as to his
knowledge of the subject.
Which would have been a better approach. To bring in an "expert witness" who
could refute the officer's claims.
|
| |
| |
Thanks for everyone posting back. I have lived and learned...if there
is a next time, I will be more prepared.
Thanks,
Bob
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2003 15:59:52 -0800, Bob Erwin <berwin@msbob.com> wrote:
Thanks for everyone posting back. I have lived and learned...if there
is a next time, I will be more prepared.
A very healthy attitude.
And don't squeal your tires anymore. :
)
Isaac
Thanks,
Bob
|
| |
| |
|
