![]() ![]() The court relied on a previously decided case, People v. The prosecution had further failed to enter into evidence the traffic ticket bearing Delores’s name and any notes written by the officer at the time the ticket was issued, each a useful piece of evidence in corroborating the identity of the driver. Delores’s attorney cleverly pointed out that the officer’s description of the driver also matched another person present in the courtroom. Though the prosecution could prove that the driver had given the ticketing officer some identification and that the identification had been used to write the speeding ticket, the officer could not definitively identify Delores as the driver of the vehicle, admitting he had only briefly interacted with the driver over three months prior. However, one point of contention was pressed by Delores’s attorney: Could the prosecution identify Delores as the operator of the vehicle? She contested, and at her trial, the prosecution proceeded to establish each element of the speeding charge. ![]() Nicolĭelores Nicol was issued a speeding ticket for traveling 53 miles per hour in a 40 miles-per-hour zone. It is the job of an attorney to be aware of these exceptions and effectively apply them when circumstances demand it. The law is full of exceptions, partly for the purpose of ensuring common sense outcomes prevail. Though the law as written may often appear very rigid, it is not totally inflexible, as demonstrated in this case. The court concluded Frank’s defense was appropriate, and he was found not guilty of the charge of speeding. In other words, the court asked whether Frank faced imminent harm when the vehicle abruptly slowed in front of him (yes, risk of a rear-end collision) and whether it was more desirable for Frank to speed to avoid rear-ending the vehicle than it would be for Frank to avoid speeding and hit the vehicle from behind (certainly). The legal rule is that a defense to a criminal charge exists in emergency situations where the conduct in question is necessary to avoid an imminent injury and the desirability of avoiding the injury outweighs the desirability of not committing the offense charged. The court accepted Frank’s testimony and sought to resolve whether the vehicle slowing abruptly constituted an “emergency” that Frank could assert as a defense under law. However, the radar evidenced that the vehicle in front of Frank had slowed to 32 miles per hour when it passed through the radar zone. When cross-examined, the ticketing officer could not recall whether a vehicle in front of Frank was slowing abruptly. In court, Frank openly admitted to traveling at the rate of speed claimed by the officer but asserted that he traveled at that speed out of necessity, for he would have otherwise rear-ended a vehicle rapidly slowing down in front of him. Cataldoįred Cataldo was traveling 67 miles per hour on the open highway (the speed limit was 50 miles per hour) when his excessive rate of speed was captured by a radar and he was stopped and ticketed for speeding. This includes our understanding of these prior cases. As one of the leading speeding ticket lawyers in NY, we have a lot of experience in, and knowledge of ways to eliminate or minimize the consequences of a speeding ticket in New York. Below are ten instances of people who, with the help of skilled attorneys, beat the odds and avoided conviction for their speeding tickets. Despite these slim odds, receipt of a speeding ticket does not always have to mean conviction, hefty fines, points on one’s license, and potentially higher auto insurance rates. A high percentage of those given a speeding ticket (92.4%) are convicted of a traffic violation, with a mere 7.6% escaping conviction. ![]() In 2019 alone, 672,925 speeding tickets were given out across the entire state of New York. Potrait of a man driving a car without safety belt ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |