Traffic trial is minor, but it requires the same skills of more serious cases.
First, it would not help to challenge the law in the court. Much harder than arguing the facts.
Second, you have to have a theory of the case. That is, you have to be able to say in one sentence to the judge why the ticket should be dismissed.
You stand up, and start to speak: "You honor, the ticket should be dismissed because ..." How are you finishing that sentence?
Theory 1. The police was an unreliable witness, and there was no pedestrian to yield.
your emphasis would be asking the police exactly what he saw, the location, the pedestrians you were alleged not yielding, and what your version of the story is.
"I don't remember there was a pedestrian" is not enough. You don't remember because you were careless, judge could say. You have to be able to say "I know for a fact there was no pedestrian", can you say that without lying?
You can mention the "wrong" location, but that in itself can't prove anything. It has to be used to prove that the police was "unreliable".
Theory 2. The documented location of the incident was wrong? This is not a good argument. The cop can say it was approximate, this is not capital murder, nobody cared about the minor stuff.
Theory 3... what are you going to say?
First, it would not help to challenge the law in the court. Much harder than arguing the facts.
Second, you have to have a theory of the case. That is, you have to be able to say in one sentence to the judge why the ticket should be dismissed.
You stand up, and start to speak: "You honor, the ticket should be dismissed because ..." How are you finishing that sentence?
Theory 1. The police was an unreliable witness, and there was no pedestrian to yield.
your emphasis would be asking the police exactly what he saw, the location, the pedestrians you were alleged not yielding, and what your version of the story is.
"I don't remember there was a pedestrian" is not enough. You don't remember because you were careless, judge could say. You have to be able to say "I know for a fact there was no pedestrian", can you say that without lying?
You can mention the "wrong" location, but that in itself can't prove anything. It has to be used to prove that the police was "unreliable".
Theory 2. The documented location of the incident was wrong? This is not a good argument. The cop can say it was approximate, this is not capital murder, nobody cared about the minor stuff.
Theory 3... what are you going to say?
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
