When I finally got my date in court, there were about five people ahead of me - all of whose cases consisted of their word against the (same) officer's. An assistant DA was there to prosecute the tickets and in every case established the officer's experience, familiarity with the area, notetaking, etc. All lost.
On my turn, I proceded to establish his location, which was on a cross street just south of the clearly-marked beginning of the SZ. I was travelling north-bound in a 35 mph zone when he clocked me. He actually pulled out from the cross street, travelled across the southbound lanes, and stopped his motorcycle in front of me. We were both at a complete stop and the beginning of the SZ was still ahead of us. Therefore, it was impossible for him to have recorded my speed inside the zone. I also presented photographs showing the relative loactions of the cross streets, school zone, and traffic signs. I felt good.
Then the assistant DA got up and tried to get me to concede that my recollection could be faulty, that the officer may be more familiar with the area in question, and that it was possible that he could have been on a different cross street inside the school zone. I politely held firm and maintained my version of events.
Then he put the officer on the stand. After establishing his bona fides, he asked for the officer's version of events. Sure enough, the officer stated under oath that he was on a different cross street that was well inside the SZ. And that, of course, he clocked me inside the SZ. My heart sank into my stomach. If he had shut up then it would have been solely my word against his. and I had already witnessed whom the court believes in those situations.
But he didn't shut up. He went on to embellish, "I could not have been on the street that the defendant alleges, because there is a solid median there. I would have had to jump the median with my motorcycle to get to the northbound lane." Or words to that effect. Suddenly, I felt like Perry Mason.
When I got to cross-examine the officer, I reminded him of the pictures I had submitted to the court. I actually walked up to him and asked him to identify which intersection had a solid median and which did not. He had to concede that his recollection was not correct and that perhaps he was mistaken about his initial location. I promptly sat down and shut up.
The judge then made a statement about how I probably did commit the infraction, but there was enough doubt in the officer's testimony that he had to dismiss the ticket. I was a little irked that the judge still thought I did it, but had enough sense to keep that to myself. The officer actually had a mini-outburst (he said Damn! or Man! or something like that loud enough for me to hear across the courtroom - and also pounded the table once with his fist). Needless to say, he was not pleased. That was delicious.
All in all, the end result was extremely satisfying - even though it was only a lousy 8 MPH over ticket. It was also a little scary, seeing that I would have easily lost if the officer had just kept his lies straight.
However, 15 years ago when I fought my traffic ticket in court, the testifying officer either was mistaken or was perjuring himself when described the reading showing on the radar gun which I had demanded to see. It so flummoxed me that he would lie that I botched my case and lost.
Now I realize that cops are human too and during court trials on TV or in the newspappers, I take what they say under oath with a grain of salt.