Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dbth
Have to disagree again on this strategy.
What difference does it make that the driver knew he was speeding , the onus is on the government to prove it.
Your constitutional rights allow you to defend yourself and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.If you or your counsel don't think they can meet the burden of proof , dont give in.
If pleading guilty and paying the fine is in YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST (financially and/or emotionally), go ahead.
Otherwise , you are innocent until they can prove you guilty.
It amazes me that those who are so vehement about the 2nd amendment , will reliquish the 5 & 6 amendment so quickly.
Never give up your rights.
|
I agree that the onus is on the Government to prove its case, but remember that whether done in writing or in person on the stand, David will swear under penalty of perjury, to tell the truth about the incident. Several posts in this thread have complained that law enforcement doesn't play fairly in its highway enforcement or during the adjudication process. Somehow, however, we think it's O.K. for David to not play by the rules. David has already told us that he was speeding. We know that to be the truth because he told us it was. In the 986 forum's version of court, the Highway Patrol must come to court, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and accused gets to lie his ass off? Then the onus is on the Government to prove its case? Is that how it works? Apparently I must have slept through some of my classes.
Threaded Mode
