"Ticket Recipients who challenge citations have their cases heard in an unfair court proceeding commonly known as District Court 'Speed Camera Day', where dozens of defendants have their cases heard in an assembly line manner. Because the burden of proof for speed camera tickets has been lowered below that of a criminal case, below that for even ordinary traffic violations, defendants are essentially 'guilty until proven innocent'. Judges have in some cases made statements to the effect that 'the only acceptable "not guilty" plea was if someone else had been driving their car at the time the ticket was issued, and to present that driver." At Speed Camera Day hearings the government is free to present evidence without supporting witnesses, something which would normally be a violation of the "Rules of Evidence". In some cases defendants are found guilty even when they have proven that required operating procedures were not followed. In many cases even when a defendant requests the "operator" of the camera to appear, in the manner described on the citations, judges have instructed that those operators need not testify, something which goes against several supreme court rulings on the spirit of the "Confrontation Clause" of the US constitution.
http://www.mddriversalliance.org/p/arguments-against-speed-cameras.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause
It is still a crackpot theory, but at least someone tried before. The judge probably has ready made answer for you. Do not have too much hope.
The odd is stacked against you.
