I've been to traffic court. I'll tell you how it will go. The judge will pretend to listen to both sides, and say "it is your word against the officer's, and I have no reason to believe that the police officer is lying."
In traffic court, you are not innocent until proven guilty. You are guilty, and must prove your innocence. If it is your word against the word of a police officer, you are the liar. It doesn't matter if the officer is wrong. You have to prove him a liar. That's how it has worked every time I've been in traffic court.
Yes and no. I once fought a ticket that had 2 flagrant flaws on its face plus the time of issue was impossible.
I told the judge the truck was green, not brown: Didn't matter.
The truck was a two-door, not a four door: Didn't matter.
I was testifying in court at the alleged time of the ticket: Didn't matter.
Do we see a pattern emerging here?
The good thing is: I DID beat the ticket, but only after raising a "reasonable doubt" argument. I asked the cop if he'd checked the accuracy of the radar gun AFTER my vehicle exited the beam. The cop said no, the judge shook her head and dismissed the ticket, and I even got a "thumbs up" from several of the other cops in that courtroom as I walked out.
>>I've been to traffic court. I'll tell you how it will go. The judge will pretend to listen to both sides, and say "it is your word against the officer's, and I have no reason to believe that the police officer is lying."<<
Not in a high profile case. And proving this officer wrong would not be too difficult, especially with the attorneys that would probably love to handle this case gratis to make a name for themselves.
If it can be proved through documentation that this speed is not possible, the kid will win.
You're 100% correct. The only way to win is if the officer fails to show up. I've had that happen twice and everything was dropped. Of course if we didn't show up there'd be a warrant issued.