In Tennessee the courts are pretty much run under presumption of guilt, the idea being that guilt is implied when the officer writes your ticket. Traffic court is more like an appeal after a guilty ruling :( so much for the scales of justice being balanced. A similar instance to what you've described happened to me a few years ago, and I must emphasize the importance of a well-scripted statement to deliver to the judge. Know exactly what you want to say and how you want to say it, placing emphasis on clear explanations. The judge hears the common arguments day in and day out, and also knows how to question the police officer to make most of them moot. On another note, be sure to respect the polieman and do not call him a liar or pig, etc. The judge and the policeman have probably known each other to some extent for a while. With luck you might get a judge with a grudge agains the officer who will dismiss the case just because. In my case he didn't actually even listen to what I said, and just asked the police officer questions about his radar gun calibration to skirt the issue. It felt like a total setup on the part of the state, like a routine they go through with any not guilty plea. With the "complicated" subject of doppler shifts in radar, a visual aid might not be a bad idea to get your arguments across, and explain what you think happened. As far as printed materials go, IME its best to use state-issued manuals if you can find them, as the judge could easily throw out any accepted text on the subject due to his own ignorance, but something published by the state department is a little more sound. Also if you ask politely and explain the situation to the judge, you can sometimes plea-bargain to a nonmoving violation with just a fine (no insurance premiums). I've also heard of people offering to make a charitable donation in the amount of the ticket, but I'm not sure how the legality of that works. If all else fails you can file an appeal, and make sure you get the appeal form in front of the judge - they hate that. ----- Original Message ----- From: > Does anyone know if traffic court is like criminal court, where the state must PROVE that you are guilty BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT? So, would it be enough to introduce SOME measure of doubt as to the complete guilt of the subject? This would be much easier then lets say a traffic court mentality of the civil courts which if I remember correctly is something like... you just have to show that there is reasable proof of guilt.. or something. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu