Always Take Notes – I organize what I need to remember later. The Officer's testimony, a question I want to ask during Cross-Examination, what the State has proven and not proven, my Closing Argument, etc.

See if the Cop doesn't show up for Trial - easy automatic win. Prosecutors usually say the Officer is close by and ready to come in for trial. Sometimes that's questionable and the cop never shows; then I object to any postponement, case dismissed.

State fails its Burden of Proof — sometimes the Prosecutor forgets to ask the Officer to identify me, or say how fast I was going, or say what the Speed Limit was. When the State rests, I make a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Evidence, pointing out the mistake. By rule, the Prosecutor cannot ask more questions once they rest. I make sure to object if they try.

Look for a Law or Regulation Error

I can argue the 25mph Speed Limit doesn’t apply because the street is in the suburbs or the 25mph School Zone Speed Limit doesn’t apply because the children weren't coming or going from school or weren’t visibly at recess (NJ 39:4-98).

I can argue the Speed Limit signs were not placed according to regulations (NJAC 5:21-4:13) provided in the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES: 2B.13 – Speed Limits and Sign Requirements 7B.01 to 7B.11 – School Zone Sign Requirements

I can argue there was an inconsistency with the Department of Transportation's Engineering study for that stretch of road.

Object to and scrutinize Testimony – At first I’m unsure of when to Object, but I need to be respectfully assertive. I listen carefully to the Prosecutor's questions and the Officer's statements. When I hear something wrong, I STAND UP. Then I say, "Objection, Your Honor," and explain why I'm Objecting. The Judge either agrees with me by Sustaining or disagrees with me by Overruling. When in doubt, I Object.

Common Objections

Motion to Exclude Witnesses - Technically not an Objection but used when there is more than one witness (more than one officer) for the State. This means that whoever is not testifying at the moment has to wait outside the courtroom, out of earshot, so they can't hear the other witness speak. This keeps the witnesses from influencing each other’s testimony.

OBJECTION: Independent Recollection - If the Officer is testifying and starts reading from the ticket, notes, or anything, I interrupt and Object for Independent Recollection. I ask to see the notes as well. A witness does not have credible memories if they simply read their testimony. There is a way to lay the proper foundation to read from notes where the Officer admits he/she can't remember the details of the case, wrote them down after giving the citation, and needs to refer to notes to refresh his/her memory. But if the Judge gives the State too much advice concerning this or anything else, I Object - Coaching.

OBJECTION: Hearsay - When an officer, or any witness, testifies to something they didn't personally observe - this is Hearsay. What the cop with the radar gun (or the pilot in the traffic airplane) said to the Officer that pulled me over is Hearsay. What an eyewitness told the Officer is also Hearsay. There are exceptions to this rule. The Officer is allowed to quote what the Defendant said, (Q: "Do you know why I stopped you?" A: "Because I was speeding.") This is exactly why I ask for Defendant’s statements in my Discovery Request.

OBJECTION: Foundation - This powerful and often used objection happens when the officer, or any witness, testifies to a fact that relies on other facts that haven't been proven. For example, if the Officer says his speedometer showed a speed of 75 mph... the speedometer calibration needs to be introduced as evidence first. If the cop says the Radar clocked my vehicle going 75mph... the Officer's training, proper use of Radar, and Radar unit calibration need to be proved first. If the Officer says my car appeared to be speeding or the visual estimation of speed for the defendant's car was 75mph, I Object and ask for proof of training and skill.

If the Officer says the Speed Limit is 25mph, I Object and ask how they know what the Speed Limit is - (STATE v. MORGAN JR (2007) - "...defendant did not object to the officer's testimony as to the lawful speed limit, the judge...was permitted to infer from that testimony the speed limit was “legally ordained.”) At that point the State can show what the speed limit is by statute or a DOT Engineering report. If the officer says they saw a Speed Limit sign - that by itself is assumed to be the correct speed limit unless there is any evidence to the contrary.

OBJECTION: Irrelevant - This Objection is used when the testimony has nothing to do with Speeding. If the Officer says the defendant’s car smelled like marijuana or he had a bad attitude... it's irrelevant to the case.

Witness Qualifications or Testimony Error

The Officer has no proof of Radar training or wasn't trained properly. The Officer can't remember enough details about the stop to be a credible witness. The Officer was occupied with too many things at once to pay attention to my speed. The Officer didn't testify to children coming or going from school or that he could see the kids at recess; so the 25mph Speed Limit does not apply.

Error with the Radar

The Radar Unit wasn't calibrated or used according to the operating manual. The Radar picked up a different vehicle. There was an obstacle between the Officer's vehicle and my vehicle. The Radar signal bounced off my vehicle and then hit something else before reflecting back to the Radar unit. There was a hill or a curve in the road. There were power lines or a cell phone tower close by.

Object to the Radar and Tuning Fork Calibration

Certificates In order to prove the Radar Unit was in working condition, the State will try to admit the Radar Calibration Certificate. Even though the document is Hearsay, the Rules of Court make an exception because they are Business Records (Records of regularly conducted activity). However, the Defendant can still challenge the Declarant (person who made the Business Record), their qualifications, and their methods of data collection. Rule 803 (c)(6)

Generally the Declarant doesn't come to Court and the Officer can't answer questions about the “circumstances of preparation” (Cop doesn’t have firsthand knowledge, Objection - Hearsay). If there is no Declarant to verify the preparation of the Calibration Certificate, the Judge may not allow it into evidence and the case has a great chance of getting dismissed.

Many times the Tuning Fork Calibration Certificates don’t meet Federal minimum standards (US DOT NHTSA RADAR SPECIFICATIONS 2.2.2 – Tuning Fork Calibration Certificate Minimum Requirements). These are found in the Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s SPEED MEASURING DEVICE SPECIFICATIONS - DOWN THE ROAD RADAR MODULE.

Error with the Visual Estimation

The Officer's testimony of defendant's mph, time observed, and distance travelled doesn't have the same results as the basic math formula: Distance = Rate x Time. It seemed complicated at first, but this technique has successfully been used to show error in Officers’ perception.

For example, during cross-examination of the Officer:

Q. Your visual estimation of my speed was 75 miles per hour, right?

A. Yes

Q. How long did you watch my car going 75mph?

A. About 10 seconds

Q. You had a clear view of my car the entire 10 seconds?

A. Yes

Q. Were there any obstructions between you and my car during those 10 seconds?

A. No Q.

How far did my vehicle drive in those 10 seconds?

A. About 800 feet

During closing arguments, the basic math formula of “distance equals rate times time” can be used to impeach the officer. For example, if someone was driving 75mph for 2 hours, they would end up driving 150 miles (75mph x 2 hours = 150 miles).

There are 5280 feet in a mile. 75mph times 5280 feet equals 396,000 feet per hour.

There are 60 minutes in an hour. 396,000 feet per hour divided by 60 minutes equals 6600 feet per minute.

There are 60 seconds in a minute. 6600 feet per minute divided by 60 seconds equals 110 feet per second.

So 75 mph is 110 feet per second.

The officer testified that he observed the vehicle going 75mph for about 10 seconds.

110 feet per second x 10 seconds = 1100 feet. But the officer also testified that the vehicle traveled 800 feet during that observation. The Officer’s distance testimony contradicts itself.

The math seems a little complicated at first but can be practiced at home before trial. There are also online calculators that do the calculations automatically. Manually the formula is:

Estimated MPH x 5280 (feet in a mile) divided by 60 (minutes in an hour) divided by 60 (seconds in a minute) = FPS.

FPS x Seconds Observation Time = Distance Traveled.

Another way to do the calculations:

800 ft divided by 10 seconds = 80 ft per second

80 ft per second x 60 seconds = 4800 ft per minute

4800 ft per minute x 60 minutes = 288,000 ft per hour

288,000 ft per hour divided by 5280 ft per mile = 54.5 mph

The officer testified that his visual estimation was 75mph. Again the officer’s testimony contradicts itself. And conflicting testimony from the citing officer shows reasonable doubt concerning defendant's speed.

SUPPORTING CASE LAW: UNITED STATES v. SOWARDS United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. No.10–4133. Decided: June 26, 2012 "...it was clear error for the district court to find that Deputy Elliott's “difficulty with measurements is immaterial to his estimate of speed as that did not depend on time or distance.” J.A. 121. This finding rings in the absurd because one cannot discern a speed of a vehicle measured in miles-per hour without discerning both the increment of distance traveled and the increment of time passed. Indeed, the very definition of speed derives from the mathematical formula of distance divided by time. See, e.g., Warboys v. Proulx, 303 F.Supp.2d 111, 116 n. 6 (D.Conn.2004) (“To calculate average speed, one divides the distance traveled by the time it took to travel this distance. [distance ÷ time = speed?]”). This Court may properly take judicial notice of this formula.

5. Trial Strategy