A very pleasant young lady retained me for what I thought initially was a simple traffic case. In short, she was coming out of her driveway. She is waived into traffic by a stopped car. A guy goes around the stopped car and hits her causing a serious multi-car accident. My client is cited.
She takes the case very seriously (not that I don’t). She has photos, maps, etc… . She tells me, as does the driver of the vehicle who waived her in who agrees to attend trial, that the officer NEVER interviewed either one of them.
At trial, the officer tries to testify as to what other parties said. The Judge agrees with me that he cannot do that. He then tries to tell the Judge what my client told him. I approach the bench and inform the Judge that my client will testify, as will the independent witness, that the cop never spoke with either one and that the officer is basically about to lie on the stand. She says let it go and cross examine him. She got the message. Even on my cross, he maintains that he did speak with both my client and the other witness.
The Judge granted my motion for acquital based mostly on the facts that the officer cited my client under a statute that didnot apply to the facts as they happened. It also did not hurt that she suspected he was not telling the truth throughout the case.