cwc@mhuxd.UUCP (Chip Christ) (02/07/84)
_ Sounds, to my layman's ear, like that judge is asking for just that-- a "federal case". It's been shown time and time again that those radar units used for clocking traffic can be really flakey (I think I read or saw of a case where a tree was clocked at 65 mph). To refuse to examine documentation bearing on the validity of the evidence used to find the motorist guilty of speeding is asking for an appeal (unless, of course, the driver was outrageously guilty, like doing 80 in a 40 mph zone). Any thoughts from legal types? Chip
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (02/09/84)
A very good friend of mine got the same kind of justice in Southern California several years ago, right after that book came out. He had witnesses who swore that he was under the limit, but the judge declared him guilty. He was allowed to talk to the judge in his chambers after the trial, where the judge said he sympathized, but could not set a precedent which could call into question all the previous cases involving the radar. The judge said that my friend could, of course, appeal; whereupon my friend left, remarking that he "had had enough justice for one day." -- Lyle McElhaney (hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmc