In keeping with the theme of the previous post, I feel it's the appropriate time for the previously promised 'red light camera ticket' story...
I'd be afraid to ask C-Rock what he would consider the happiest day of his life, because I'm fairly certain the day he single-handedly defeated a city of Atlanta prosecutor in civil court would far outshine our wedding day or any other the two of us have shared.
Before getting married, our respective homes bordered the north and south ends of downtown Atlanta. Though only separated by a few miles, the journey could take anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes. One day, C-Rock arrived in a huff because he was fairly certain he had gotten caught by a red light camera. Sure enough, the ticket came in the mail a few weeks later along with a black-and-white photograph of his vehicle in the intersection. Do we think C-Rock decided to go ahead and pay the 75 dollar fine boys and girls? HECK NO! Don't be ridiculous.
As soon as the citation arrived, C-Rock buckled down in front of the computer for endless hours of internet research. He learned that because such violations are considered civil cases when brought to court, the burden of proof is much lower for the prosecution. He also learned that he did not have a right to 'plead the fifth' as there are no protections against self-incrimination in a civil violation case. When his court date finally arrived, he found himself in a group of five other defendants. C-Rock happened to be last and he watched as the prosecutor went down the line following the same procedure with each individual. First, the accused was called as a witness, then he or she was shown the picture of the respective vehicle in question running the red light, then he or she was asked if they owned the vehicle pictured. One by one, the defendants confirmed ownership and then, having admitted guilt, were sent to pay the full fine. When it was C-Rock's turn on the stand, he was shown the picture and asked if he owned the vehicle. He answered that he did not know. When questioned, he explained that the vehicle in the picture appeared white, while his vehicle was, in fact, not white. The prosecutor pushed further and asked, "Are you the owner of a Jeep Cherokee with license plate number XXX-XXX?" Again, he replied that he did not know. When the prosecutor incredulously pressed him to expound on his response, he truthfully explained that he did not have his license plate number memorized and could not answer with certainty whether he was the owner of the vehicle in question. When asked why not go outside and take a look at his plate, he truthfully explained that he had ridden his bicycle to court that day.
There was an extended period of back-and-forth between the prosecuting attorney and the judge, who (luckily for C-Rock) was a good humored fellow who insisted, "We are on a quest for the TRUTH here!" whenever the prosecutor tried to say that C-Rock was being a jerk and wasting the court's time. Ultimately, the prosecutor decided to call a recess so that she could obtain his vehicle registration documents. After a 45 minute recess, she returned with a witness, who was the clerk from her office. The clerk had pulled up the registration for the vehicle in question and presented a printout showing C-Rock as the owner. Though it looked like the final nail in the case against C-Rock, he was not ready to concede. He jumped at the chance when the judge gave him the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. He asked her what gave her the authority to pull such records. She explained that she was certified to do so and showed both him and the judge her certification. After examining the document for a moment, C-Rock brought the judge's attention the fact that her certification document was expired. The judge concurred that this document did not give her the authority to pull records. She explained that she had recently been re-certified, but had accidentally brought the expired certification. The prosecutor was forced to call a second recess.
Another half an hour later, the prosecuting attorney and her witness had returned to the stand. Again, C-Rock was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. This time she did provide a current certification, but C-Rock noticed that there was a line reading 'Not valid if the above is not signed' which it was not. C-Rock pointed this out to the judge and he agreed. C-Rock then asked that the trial be thrown out as the evidence was in inadmissible. By this point, the prosecutor was outraged! She furiously accused C-Rock of perjuring himself when he claimed the vehicle wasn't his. Further, she argued that even if the evidence was inadmissible, it could be used in this civil case because it directly contradicted some of his statements. C-Rock pushed back arguing that the evidence did NOT directly contradict any of his statements as all he had ever said was that he 'didn't know'. Despite the prosecutor's furious exclamations that C-Rock was 'making a joke of this court', the judge thought it over and agreed by ruling that since C-Rock had never denied owning the vehicle in question (only stating that he was unsure as to the ownership) that the evidence could not be used.
C-Rock describes his day in court as "one of the most satisfying triumphs of his life". I'm not claiming that there is any direct relation, however, we have noticed that the camera at this particular intersection is no longer there. The take home here? Don't memorize your identification numbers kids.
No comments:
Post a Comment