Appealing a judgement

[raza619]

After initially appearing in court for minor traffic violation, I pleaded not guilty and requested trial. When I appreared for trial. Before the judge heard any cases he told everyone that if it was your word against the police officer he was going to believe the police officer... is that even legal? I want to appeal his judgement can a judge make that type of blatant statement?????

 

[Just Blue]

After initially appearing in court for minor traffic violation, I pleaded not guilty and requested trial. When I appreared for trial. Before the judge heard any cases he told everyone that if it was your word against the police officer he was going to believe the police officer... is that even legal? I want to appeal his judgement can a judge make that type of blatant statement?????

AS you didn't bother to list your state, as required by this site, I must assume you live in another country. U.S. Law Only.

 

[quincy]

After initially appearing in court for minor traffic violation, I pleaded not guilty and requested trial. When I appreared for trial. Before the judge heard any cases he told everyone that if it was your word against the police officer he was going to believe the police officer... is that even legal? I want to appeal his judgement can a judge make that type of blatant statement?????

Yes. A judge can say that.

Why did you plead not guilty? Did you have evidence to show the ticket was undeserved?

In court, an officer's word carries more weight than the word of a defendant. If you intend to fight a ticket, you must be able to demonstrate to the court why the ticket was issued in error.

 

[raza619]

Thanks for your reply!

 

[quincy]

Thanks for your reply!

You're welcome, raza619. Thanks for the thanks.

Good luck.

 

[HighwayMan]

Basically the judge was trying to convince the defendants that it would be in their best interests to take a plea and avoid trial.

 

[AgentSmithers]

I've heard of this happening before, but is this not the reason why CCP 170.1(a)(6)(i),(ii),(iii) exist? I've never filed a 170.1 on a judge before but I figure there would have to be an action you could take before trial is the judge says that he clearly takings one side over the other?

 

[Zigner]

I've heard of this happening before, but is this not the reason why CCP 170.1(6)(i),(ii),(iii) exist? I've never filed a 170.1 on a judge before but I figure there would have to be an action you could take before trial is the judge says that he clearly takings one side over the other?

First of all, you have no idea if this would even apply. Even as a guess, you have less than a 2% chance of being in the correct state.
Second, that statement by the judge does not show any lack of impartiality. It is simply stating the FACT that evidence (testimony) from an unbiased expert witness is given more weight than testimony from a biased self-interested party to the matter.

 

[AgentSmithers]

First of all, you have no idea if this would even apply. Even as a guess, you have less than a 2% chance of being in the correct state.
Second, that statement by the judge does not show any lack of impartiality. It is simply stating the FACT that evidence (testimony) from an unbiased expert witness is given more weight than testimony from a biased self-interested party to the matter.

I love how you always respond like a cheerleader that just had her moves stolen from the other team in "Bring it on". Yes there is no state in the OP post, but once he/she discloses the state we can assist them further.

People on the defense and Prosecution are suppose to be Biased, Not unbiased. If they were both unbiased they would be giving evidence to assist the other side. The judge is the one that is the one to be unbiased. The point on this one is just going to be subjective. If the Judge has a line up of 15 officer's v. 15 citizens and then he states on record that he's going to believe them over the Citizens before he even knows if any of the citizens are even police officers/expert witnesses themselves doesn't that shoot off any red flags in your head that the judge is Biased for the prosecution side?

 

[Zigner]

I love how you always respond like a cheerleader that just had her moves stolen from the other team in "Bring it on". Yes there is no state in the OP post, but once he/she discloses the state we can assist them further.

People on the defense and Prosecution are suppose to be Biased, Not unbiased. If they were both unbiased they would be giving evidence to assist the other side. The judge is the one that is the one to be unbiased. The point on this one is just going to be subjective. If the Judge has a line up of 15 officer's v. 15 citizens and then he states on record that he's going to believe them over the Citizens before he even knows if any of the citizens are even police officers/expert witnesses themselves doesn't that shoot off any red flags in your head that the judge is Biased for the prosecution side?

Your hypothetical scenario is hogwash. The police officer is not on the prosecution, he is merely an unbiased witness (and yes, he's considered an expert). The problem with your fairy tale scenario of 15 citizen-police officers is that, even if the defendant is also in law enforcement, his testimony is considered to be made in his own self interest, whereas the police officer who issued the citation is considered to be simply testifying to the facts without bias.

Read the OP again, you'll see that what the judge said is, in effect, that the defendant had better have some evidence beyond "I wasn't going that fast, I swear."

 

[AgentSmithers]

Your hypothetical scenario is hogwash. The police officer is not on the prosecution, he is merely an unbiased witness (and yes, he's considered an expert). The problem with your fairy tale scenario of 15 citizen-police officers is that, even if the defendant is also in law enforcement, his testimony is considered to be made in his own self interest, whereas the police officer who issued the citation is considered to be simply testifying to the facts without bias.

Read the OP again, you'll see that what the judge said is, in effect, that the defendant had better have some evidence beyond "I wasn't going that fast, I swear."

Ah, I see what your saying Zinger and that's not what the OP said in his post.
He said "if it was your word against the police officer he was going to believe the police officer". Not every statement made is in the defendants own self intrest and yes you can split hairs on that fact to say yes it is and I understand. But take this Scenario and yes this happened right before the case dismissed.

Officer Bruke: "Yes, I saw the defendant traveling eastbound down intersection 54 and viewed the vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed as I was at the intersection"..., blah blah blah, ... "Defendant said he was on his way to work"
Defendant During Cross Examination explained that the statement of location was completely inaccurate and that the cop was in front of him traveling in a completely different direction and that the lane was completely different, then testified to the route from his house to his work then the scenario was described along with the location he was pulled over. The defendant was dismissed of the charges once the judge started to question the officer more on if he remembered or not what happened clearly.

Yes you can say well that's a totally different scenario and it's rare.. Well no **** it's different and rare and that's what we are trying to protect against Zinger.. We find in this country that protecting the innocent from being falsely accused and ensnared by ambiguous circumstances is more important then convicting criminals. I know its sad to hear that yes some people will get away with murder.. We see it on the news all the time and I don't agree with it but that's how it is and that's the law.

The idea that a normal reasonable person can do to court and see the judge is not biased with the prosecution or the defense! An Expert witness does not mean they don't make mistakes, That means they are trained to look for certain things, takes notes as well as a flock of other things but that does not mean they're never mistaken and until their training overcomes human error it is improper to make a "Blanket statement" saying I will take the officers word over yours. In the scenario above if the judge did just that he would of convicted the defendant on a case that the "Expert Witness" clearly didn't remember and was reading from his notes on the back of the ticket.
Any particular statements, particular findings, and particular rulings can reveal a biased and prejudiced mindset. The idea that we disqualify judges isn't because the system cares about if the judge is truly biased or not (Even though that's obviously important) its made to support the Public confidence that they will have a Fair trial, if anyone in this forum thinks that that sentence is at all a great way to start off a fair trial I wish god speed on them, I'll take another judge.

 

[Zigner]

Ah, I see what your saying Zinger and that's not what the OP said in his post.
He said "if it was your word against the police officer he was going to believe the police officer". Not every statement made is in the defendants own self intrest and yes you can split hairs on that fact to say yes it is and I understand. But take this Scenario and yes this happened right before the case dismissed.

Officer Bruke: "Yes, I saw the defendant traveling eastbound down intersection 54 and viewed the vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed as I was at the intersection"..., blah blah blah, ... "Defendant said he was on his way to work"
Defendant During Cross Examination explained that the statement of location was completely inaccurate and that the cop was in front of him traveling in a completely different direction and that the lane was completely different then the scenario was described along with the location he was pulled over. The defendant was dismissed of the charges once the cop started to question the officer more on if he remembered or not what happened clearly.

Your scenario goes MUCH further than the defendants word against the officer. You can make up scenarios and facts patterns til the cows come home, but that is NOT was the judge said.

 

[AgentSmithers]

Your scenario goes MUCH further than the defendants word against the officer. You can make up scenarios and facts patterns til the cows come home, but that is NOT was the judge said.

Zinger, I think you and I ultimately agree on this topic and yes we can split hair and do stuff with cows or whatever but at the end of the day the idea is that we can go to court and hopefully get a judge that doesn't have their mind made up to the point where they can make a blanket statement's like the one the OP said above. I agree experts should have more weight in court for what they testify to, It seems that would be something clear to most people as well.

 

[Zigner]

Zinger, I think you and I ultimately agree on this topic and yes we can split hair and do stuff with cows or whatever but at the end of the day the idea is that we can go to court and hopefully get a judge that doesn't have their mind made up to the point where they can make a blanket statement's like the one the OP said above. I agree experts should have more weight in court for what they testify to, It seems that would be something clear to most people as well.

I disagree that the judge already had his mind made up - and that's our fundamental difference of opinion.