Tleg93 wrote:
I know there are experts who do this and there's been some question about how fast I was travelling at the time of my accident. I say it was 50 and the police say it was more. The only thing that's at stake is a $30 dollar ticket for drivin at a safe speed.
Well, I think don't you or I would be able to use the calculations properly. And, if this is really only for the $50 ticket and not a lawsuit worth 10's of thousands, then it's not worth it to hire an expert.
I say this: The burden of proof is on the cop (theoretically). So, the best you can do is hold his feet to the fire about proving it. He does have the burden of making some kind of argument, even if it's a crappy one. I'm sure will be qualitative like this: "I'm an expert because I've seen so many accidents. From the skid marks and damage I saw, he must have been going fast." Not very good proof, but that's the real world and the judge will probably buy it.
You don't have to call him a liar, you just have to cast doubt on the rock-solidness of his proof. The most important thing is to have *un-emotional, well-reasoned, factual* points to make.
Did the cop actually measure the skid marks? (No he didn't)
What about the damage makes the cop think it was such a high-speed impact? Cast doubt on whether he knows anything more than a superficial look at the damage. Ask him for documentation of a detailed inspection of damage inside and out.
What would make your accident situation unusual? Anything unusual might put this out of the cop's experience, and cast doubt on his ability to make a good estimate. Was it rainy? Is there any thing unique about your tires? Was the braking zone uphill or downhill?
Also, try to find counter examples... dunno if that's even possible. For a debate, examples > analysis. So, if you could find pictures of cars roughly the size of the ones in your accident, with roughly the same extent of damage, where the speeds are known, you could use that as a counter example that shoots holes in the cops proof.
It's like OJ, you don't need to prove your point, you just have to cast doubt on the cop's point..
Like I said, *un-emotional, well-reasoned, factual*. Don't be an upset asshole who is obviously a newb to this. The judge has already seen that a dozen times that morning and it pisses him off.
. I was cited as above and am pleading not guilty as well, the speed limit changes from 55 to 45 there but it's less than 100 ft after the speed change. I think the officer is full of it because I was not 'moving' as he put it. The lady pulled out in front of me right as I was passing by. How she thinks she didn't do that is beyond me. I've also been subpeanoaed to appear as a witness against her at her hearing. 
please
