My point was that trying to attack the truth of the lines not being 1/2 mile apart is fruitless because they are in fact 1/2 mile apart.
How does that come out in court? I expect it will come as part of one of the officer's testimony. They will say the lines are 2640 feet apart. They will say that they have personally measured them and they know the distance. They will say that they checked the calibration on the timer and it was correct. They will say that the times conversions they used were calibrated and are accurate. They will say that they've done all their training and their training is accurate and they've been shown to be accurate in their work.
Here is how it happens:
Officer testifies that your speed was XX mph.
"Explain how you computed that officer."
I had a stop watch and from observation of your vehicle I used a stop watch to calculate the time it took you to travel from this mark to that mark.
"using what tools?"
blah blah blah, and the marks are 1/2 mile apart?"
"how do you know the marks are 1/2 mile apart?"
I was told . . . . bingo.
"objection, hearsay. He was told that the marks are 1/2 mile apart, the distance is an essential part of his computation, and its hearsay.
judge pro tem looks at you. S/He says "not sure how to rule on this."
May I voir dire the officer on his knowledge? [Certainly, counsel"
"officer, can you tell me how you know the distance is one-half mile?"
blah blah blah, we were told by the State Highway Department that they painted hte marks 1/2 mile apart on the freeway.
"Ok, so you did not do it? You did not measure the marks yourself, correct? "
True.
"your honor, its is textbook hearsay. There is no document here to prove the fact, no business exception, nothing other than the testimony of the officer that someone else told him the distance and he used that fact to measure speed. I move to strike the testimony and exclude any further testimony derived from hearsay."
At that point the evidence is stricken. If its not then it gets stricken on appeal. Its clear error. At that point the officer can only testify as to his estimate of your speed. That is easily attacked as well. Was his attention on a) flying the airplane b) the stopwatch or c) estimating your speed?
The next point of attack is the stopwatch. Is it certified? By whom? Will a second matter to your speed? You bet it will.
How would you disprove any of that after they make the statement? You can't. All you can do is ask the questions and hope they fail to give the right answer.
disprove? you don't have to disprove anything. The State has to prove your speed. If the evidence they relied upon is stricken and they can't use time over distance, and they've already testified thats what they did? You are not guilty.
