Is it just your word against the officers in traffic court?

Question

I was taught that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

However I am hearing from friends that I have no chance.

FYI: In my county if the cop does not show up your court date is rescheduled at a time that is beneficial to him.

I want to thank everyone for their time and great responses. My court date was last night.

The judge explained to everyone that they can plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Then in a serious tone he said, "This is Hamilton County people and our officers take their jobs very seriously and they will appear in court."

I pleaded no contest for driving 65 in a 40 and guilty for expired plates. He was kind enough to ask me what happened and I explained that I was making a legal pass when the officer entered my lane a quarter of a mile away and I was forced to speed up to clear the lane for the officer.

He asked me how many days expired my plates were, to which I replied, "Five, and I was planning on having them replaced on payday." He asked if I did replace them and I said, "Yes your honor."

He dropped the expired plate ticket and reduced the speeding ticket to $54. With courts costs I paid $164 instead of $280.

I think judges can tell when someone is telling the truth.

Answer 1

Courts are different from location to location and judge to judge. They do generally accept the officers word as gospel. However, if you have a clean record and this is not a serious offense you can ask for deffered adjudication or probation.

If the circumstances are questionable (I was given a ticket for an illegal left turn once. There was a No Left turn sign but I U Turned. I took a picture with me to court and pointed out that there was no sign preventing the U Turn. The prosecutor pulled me aside and ask if I would be happy with 90 days probation and the ticket would be expunged from my record. I agreed and it was settled.

You can do that and hope the judge is in a good mood. Most times they just want someone that is polite and not argumentative. Throw yourself on your sword and ask forgivness, sometimes that appreciate this enough to let you off with a warning.

Good luck!

Answer 2

The State (in this case, the police) has a lower burden
of proof to meet with traffic fines than with traditional
arrests.

I believe they only have to meet "Is more likely then not"
rather than "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

Unless you are Mother Teresa, you are likely to be
considered less credible than a police officer, so unless
you have some evidence to contradict the state, you're out
of luck.

And if you think about it, that is as it should be. Theoretically
the police have no vested interested in your guilt or innocence.
They don't know you and they have no financial gain or loss
if you are found guilty or not.

You, on the other hand, have a very definite financial loss
to be effecting any evidence you provide (such as testimony).
That makes you less credible. It is in your best financial
interest to say that whatever the offense was didn't happen.

If the police officer knew you before hand, you might make
a case that he has a vested interest, but you'd have a pretty
high burden to meet. If the officer was "out to get you" and
you had evidence to that effect, than by all means provide
it.

Answer 3

In a real court, you are not guilty until proofen beyond a reasonable doubt.

But not in a traffic court, i know it is sad, you are guilty unless you can proof that you are not.
I been to traffic court many times, its very unfair system.
They cant help it, there are just too many cases, and they know that no one gets hurt too badly if they are wrong, so they move the case alone as quickly as possible.
If you slow them down, they will punish you more, but imposing the max fine and make you go to traffic school at the same time.
You end up paid double.
Just go to the traffic school and forget about it, being right doesnt always work in life.
Unless it is a big deal, like if you hurted someone, then get a lawyer.
Good luck./

Answer 4

Make sure you talk to the prosecutor before entering the court room. You can sometimes cut a deal with the him. If you think that you werent doing the speed that the officer said you were, ask the judge to find out when he had his radar detector calibrated last. That would be your only way out of a speeding violation. I've been pulled over for everything except for a DWI so far. If you need anything else, let me know aceospades480@yahoo

Answer 5

The judge will definitely be more partial to the officer and take his word above yours, simply because 1) It's his job integrity on the line, and if he's lying he could be in big trouble, 2) What does he care if you get nailed or not? He's just going to tell his side, and you tell yours, but theres a much greater chance that the offender (you) will lie or exaggerate, because its going to cost YOU the time and money, not the cop.
And finally 3) Two words...Dash Cam.

Answer 6

The burden of proof in traffic court is usually lower than in criminal court. Most states have de-criminalized the traffic code and made them civil infractions. The burden of proof is on the state and in civil court it is by the preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance can be analogous to 51% guilty compared to 90-95% guilty in criminal court. That is why it is so much easier for someone to be found guilty in a civil suit than in a criminal trial. OJ Simpson is a good case in point. It is VERY difficult to win your case in traffic court.

Answer 7

The burden of proof is on the prosecuters. Remeber "innocent until proven guilty" and another tip, they can only reshedule so many times. The is a statute of limitation on that. In FL is 90 days. Good Luck

Answer 8

No, sometimes it is your word against the officer and his or her video camera.

Generally speaking the judge has had the officer in his court many times. He already has an opinion of this officer's credibility. Be completely honest, judges are lied to all the time. They know when they are being played.

Answer 9

Yes it is. It isn't like he will even remember you. He reads the file right before he shows up. A lot of time they don;t show and then you win.

Bring a witness to say that they were in the car with you and than it is 2 against 1

Answer 10

Not always, but very often it is your word against the officer's. Sometimes the officer will have your offense on video or maybe even have a third party witness (this is quite rare unless there has been accident). In the case of accidents, you often have other witnesses and physical evidence of the accident.