My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Wisconsin.
Follow up to a prior question, different direction than the original questions so I have started a new post to continue the discussion.
Burden of proof in WI for civil matters is clear and convincing evidence (higher than preponderance of the evidence). I don't know specifically know what this changes for a trial, but it must be a good thing. For example, if I challenge the calibration, it would require more proof than "Officer X said it was done," such as actual documentation?
If I'm reading the law right, I can motion under s. 804.09 to test the speed measurement device, tuning forks, and any other pertinent items - if the court allows (there must be a catch - but at the same time, denying the request could be seen as a denial of proof). My understanding is I am entitled to discovery if I move for it, including inspection of the device(s) used in question, which sounds rather broad.
My expectation would be to only receive a copy of the ticket and the officer's notes. But what I'd plan to request, if allowed, is the officer's arrest history and logs, make/model/serial/manual of the radar device and tuning forks, police car in use, maintenance/service/calibration logs for radar unit, vehicle, forks, and speedometer (if moving radar), officer's radar certification, and to also inspect all pertinent items in question.
This brings up a question as to evidence that establishes foundation. I've read elsewhere that I technically don't have to ask for such evidence in discovery (as it could be self-incriminating as such). Does this mean that if the prosecutor doesn't bring it on their own accord that would have any effect in my favor? Is asking for it at the time of trial enough? Or is this an armchair law fallacy, and the result could be that they get a continuance to provide said documents, or worse try to state that because it was not requested that it is assumed as some type of assent to its validity? I've seen arguments that it may fall in my favor to ask for said evidence at trial even and not request discovery as a sort of ambush tactic. But I've seen posts here that decry that approach as an easy way to lose a case.
My next step is a pretrial conference with the prosecutor, who is also a local attorney. He handles all discovery requests, rather than the court itself - I'm not sure if this is common practice in smaller jurisdictions. They will likely offer a plea at the conference, so I'd like to be prepared for it. I haven't found any mention of a format for discovery and the clerk people didn't have any answers or forms for me. I believe there is a time limit on discovery that will expire soon after this meeting, so I'd rather present it at the time of the meeting if we cannot come to amicable terms on a plea.
The office told me they don't have too many cases go to trial (only one day per month for this jurisdiction) and I'm looking at December for a court date. I don't know whether this is meaningful, but it almost makes me wonder if they'd bring most/any foundational materials to trial unless I request them when they have bigger fish to fry (other things like DUI cases seem to be the bulk of cases that actually go to trial) or little to no people actually arguing speeding cases aside the cliche "I didn't do it" testimony without any proof or request to prove foundation, which as we know is an immediate fail.
I'm open to thoughts, suggestions, and tips as to how to proceed here.
Follow up to a prior question, different direction than the original questions so I have started a new post to continue the discussion.
Burden of proof in WI for civil matters is clear and convincing evidence (higher than preponderance of the evidence). I don't know specifically know what this changes for a trial, but it must be a good thing. For example, if I challenge the calibration, it would require more proof than "Officer X said it was done," such as actual documentation?
If I'm reading the law right, I can motion under s. 804.09 to test the speed measurement device, tuning forks, and any other pertinent items - if the court allows (there must be a catch - but at the same time, denying the request could be seen as a denial of proof). My understanding is I am entitled to discovery if I move for it, including inspection of the device(s) used in question, which sounds rather broad.
My expectation would be to only receive a copy of the ticket and the officer's notes. But what I'd plan to request, if allowed, is the officer's arrest history and logs, make/model/serial/manual of the radar device and tuning forks, police car in use, maintenance/service/calibration logs for radar unit, vehicle, forks, and speedometer (if moving radar), officer's radar certification, and to also inspect all pertinent items in question.
This brings up a question as to evidence that establishes foundation. I've read elsewhere that I technically don't have to ask for such evidence in discovery (as it could be self-incriminating as such). Does this mean that if the prosecutor doesn't bring it on their own accord that would have any effect in my favor? Is asking for it at the time of trial enough? Or is this an armchair law fallacy, and the result could be that they get a continuance to provide said documents, or worse try to state that because it was not requested that it is assumed as some type of assent to its validity? I've seen arguments that it may fall in my favor to ask for said evidence at trial even and not request discovery as a sort of ambush tactic. But I've seen posts here that decry that approach as an easy way to lose a case.
My next step is a pretrial conference with the prosecutor, who is also a local attorney. He handles all discovery requests, rather than the court itself - I'm not sure if this is common practice in smaller jurisdictions. They will likely offer a plea at the conference, so I'd like to be prepared for it. I haven't found any mention of a format for discovery and the clerk people didn't have any answers or forms for me. I believe there is a time limit on discovery that will expire soon after this meeting, so I'd rather present it at the time of the meeting if we cannot come to amicable terms on a plea.
The office told me they don't have too many cases go to trial (only one day per month for this jurisdiction) and I'm looking at December for a court date. I don't know whether this is meaningful, but it almost makes me wonder if they'd bring most/any foundational materials to trial unless I request them when they have bigger fish to fry (other things like DUI cases seem to be the bulk of cases that actually go to trial) or little to no people actually arguing speeding cases aside the cliche "I didn't do it" testimony without any proof or request to prove foundation, which as we know is an immediate fail.
I'm open to thoughts, suggestions, and tips as to how to proceed here.
Speeding Tickets: Discovery in Wisconsin
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire