To plead guilty or not guilty? Headlights violation

[Stargate404]

I'm in Southern California and I was issued a citation for driving with my headlights off. The reason why is because I entered my car in a well lit parking structure and when I spun the dial that would turn my headlights and dash lights on, only my dash lights turned on but I was under the impression my headlights were on. This was not because of a technical malfunction but because there are two settings of my lights, dash and dash + headlights. I thought I turned it to the second setting but I had only turned it to the first setting (not enough force I guess). The street I drove on had no cars and no bicyclists on it and it was very well lit. No one was in danger and I could see perfectly. Where as newer cars have bright LEDs my car is old and has warm colored lights so it's difficult to tell from my point of view if they are on or off.

When the officer pulled me over he recommended I dispute the ticket, it seemed like he was just trying to fill his quota. The violation IS a point on my record and I am not eligible for traffic school.

TL;DR
I've scheduled an arraignment hearing but the question is how I should plead. I was under the impression that since the critical facts were not in dispute, pleading not guilty would result in a trial of the facts - were my lights on or not? the answer would very clearly be no, and I'd lose. If I were to plead guilty however, I'm told there is something called "guilty with explanation" where I accept that I'm in violation of the code, but the circumstances as well as the fact no one was in danger would allow me to ask the court for leniency. I spoke with an attorney in a free consultation and he recommends I go to trial and hope that the officer doesn't show up, he also says my testimony would be advantageous to me - but my testimony would damn me, unless I were to use my fifth amendment right, in which case I'd be unable to give my testimony.

 

[latigo]

I'm in Southern California and I was issued a citation for driving with my headlights off. The reason why is because I entered my car in a well lit parking structure and when I spun the dial that would turn my headlights and dash lights on, only my dash lights turned on but I was under the impression my headlights were on. This was not because of a technical malfunction but because there are two settings of my lights, dash and dash + headlights. I thought I turned it to the second setting but I had only turned it to the first setting (not enough force I guess). The street I drove on had no cars and no bicyclists on it and it was very well lit. No one was in danger and I could see perfectly. Where as newer cars have bright LEDs my car is old and has warm colored lights so it's difficult to tell from my point of view if they are on or off.

When the officer pulled me over he recommended I dispute the ticket, it seemed like he was just trying to fill his quota. The violation IS a point on my record and I am not eligible for traffic school.

TL;DR
I've scheduled an arraignment hearing but the question is how I should plead. I was under the impression that since the critical facts were not in dispute, pleading not guilty would result in a trial of the facts - were my lights on or not? the answer would very clearly be no, and I'd lose. If I were to plead guilty however, I'm told there is something called "guilty with explanation" where I accept that I'm in violation of the code, but the circumstances as well as the fact no one was in danger would allow me to ask the court for leniency. I spoke with an attorney in a free consultation and he recommends I go to trial and hope that the officer doesn't show up, he also says my testimony would be advantageous to me - but my testimony would damn me, unless I were to use my fifth amendment right, in which case I'd be unable to give my testimony.

Let's see now. . . . . . if you invoked your right to remain silent, you wouldn't be able to give your testimony. Mmmm? GOOD THINKING, sport.

 

[Stargate404]

Let's see now. . . . . . if you invoked your right to remain silent, you wouldn't be able to give your testimony. Mmmm? GOOD THINKING, sport.

Exactly, so I don't understand why I should plead not guilty and then admit guilty through my testimony. I think that would just annoy the judge and possibly perjure myself but that's what the attorney recommended I do so I'm really confused and I don't want to pay more to see him again just to ask for clarification.

 

[Zigner]

Exactly, so I don't understand why I should plead not guilty and then admit guilty through my testimony. I think that would just annoy the judge and possibly perjure myself but that's what the attorney recommended I do so I'm really confused and I don't want to pay more to see him again just to ask for clarification.

Latigo was being sarcastic. Think of it this way. If you don't testify, that means that the ONLY evidence the judge (or whoever actually hears the matter) will have is the testimony given by the officer. You lose.

Why don't you simply take traffic school?

 

[Stargate404]

Latigo was being sarcastic. Think of it this way. If you don't testify, that means that the ONLY evidence the judge (or whoever actually hears the matter) will have is the testimony given by the officer. You lose.

Why don't you simply take traffic school?

I cannot go to traffic school because it's been 15 months since I last went to traffic school and 18 months is the limit California. If I testify, I will be found guilty because I will tell the truth that I did not have my lights on. Either way you look at it, I broke the law, however I believe the combination of the circumstances involved are grounds to ask for leniency from the court. I'm worried that if I plead not guilty but testify that I am guilty, I'll be perjuring myself.

 

[AgentSmithers]

I cannot go to traffic school because it's been 15 months since I last went to traffic school and 18 months is the limit California. If I testify, I will be found guilty because I will tell the truth that I did not have my lights on. Either way you look at it, I broke the law, however I believe the combination of the circumstances involved are grounds to ask for leniency from the court. I'm worried that if I plead not guilty but testify that I am guilty, I'll be perjuring myself.

If the judge allows it you can take traffic school twice within 18 months, Its just a standard timeline that they use as a rule of thumb. I've seen a couple cases were people are granted multiple 8 hour online traffic school courses within that time. However it's up to the Judge, The more meaningful you can make it to him the better.

File a written deceleration and see if the Peace officer bothers to respond. No need to put anything in the deceleration judging from what you've relayed in your OP. You don't really have a solid defense so I would put "I stand by my plead of Not Guilty" and see if a conviction rolls through. If it does file the De Novo and take it from there.

 

[justalayman]

I cannot go to traffic school because it's been 15 months since I last went to traffic school and 18 months is the limit California. If I testify, I will be found guilty because I will tell the truth that I did not have my lights on. Either way you look at it, I broke the law, however I believe the combination of the circumstances involved are grounds to ask for leniency from the court. I'm worried that if I plead not guilty but testify that I am guilty, I'll be perjuring myself.

In our justice system you must plead not guilty in order to have a trial. If you plead guilty there is no need to have a trial and with a traffic ticket the penalty is determined by law so when you plead guilty, all they care about after that is; have you paid your ticket yet? It is not considered perjury to plead guilty when you are in fact guilty.

 

[Stargate404]

Thank you everyone for your advice. I've decided I'd plea not guilty and set a court date.