Advice needed What to request in a disclosure - Page 4



Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: Advice needed What to request in a disclosure

  1. #61
    smergy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    waterloo
    Posts
    2,208

    Re: Advice needed What to request in a disclosure

    Forum Sponsor
    Good read. At least you didn't address anyone "your majesty".

    Remember, its not personal, its just the job, they do this day in day out and everyone tries for the sympathy card. Their job is to represent the state and get a conviction, that's it. They want guilty pleas, not-guilty means they need to do actual work. PO court is a circus at the best of times from what I've seen. Filing for an 11b would be definitely be worth looking into (I've never done it), but from recollection there are public cases with reference to it. Prepare to sight existing rulings with similar (or better yet shorter) time periods where cases were dismissed. Canadian law is precedent based, which is why researching previous cases for this filing may be key to making it stick.
    64 degrees of lean? Pffff I do 90.

    - 2015 R1 "Nessie"
    - 2010 VFR 1200F

  2. #62

    Re: Advice needed What to request in a disclosure

    Quote Originally Posted by Krime View Post
    UPDATE***

    I'm realizing that the May, 2019 adjournment date will put out to just under 1 year and 6 months from the date of the ticket. I'm wondering if this would constitute an 11b? Another interesting thing is that the crown mentioned how the disclosure is everything they have - only the officer's notes (which do include the radar type, hours of calibration before and after, etc) and that there was no dash cam video. I was not referring to the dash cam video in my request specifically as I was informed that I was being video taped by the officer during the stop (who was wearing a body cam). Wonder if this is something I should ask for.

    Hopefully I made the right calls here and made the situation better for myself, something I was questioning the entire time. After my brutal conversation with the crown where it looked like I didn't have a chance in hell in defending myself, I was tempted to go up and speak with her again and potentially settle on the lesser charge.
    No because you caused the delay when you asked for an adjournment. As i said before, you want the crown to ask for it so you can play the 11b card down the road. Seems like you did a solid job outside of that.
    14' GROM - Stretched & slammed beast
    17' FZ09 - Totaled by a left turner
    15' R3 - Sold but missed.
    "Don't confuse my attitude with my personality. My personality is who i am, my attitude depends on who you are."

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Oshawa/Thornhill
    Posts
    3,027

    Re: Advice needed What to request in a disclosure

    The OP "may" still have a case for an 11b, as it was the crown who initially asked for an adjournment. The problem the OP may have with an 11b is the crown sought a ONE WEEK adjournment, but then it was the OP who requested more time, (which now jeopardizes their bid for an 11b), IMHO, OP you should have taken the one week.

    Body cam video likely doesn't exist, or it contains nothing to bolster the crown's case. The only way you can challenge you didn't get "full disclosure" is IF the crown attempts to introduce the video as evidence against you. If the crown, does not plan to introduce it into evidence then they need not provide it as evidence.

    As for the officer's notes not making mention of the device or calibration times, may or may not be an issue. If he/she is a "Traffic Officer" I have seen JP's rule that the officer did calibrate the device. The way they get around it is a traffic officer does radar every shift, and testifies that they use the same device and can likely recite the device make, model etc. They then testify they calibrate the unit at the beginning and end of EVERY shift. MANY JP's now accept this as evidence of the device and calibration being done. So I wouldn't "count" on that as being an "out".

    You have now, committed to challenging the crown's case, meaning any possible "deal" is off the table. Unless there is something, glaringly wrong, (wrong name, wrong DL # etc). FYI wrong veh info including plate # is NOT sufficient to get a charge tossed as the officer testifies he identified you so the charge stands, (it is not "an element of the crime" to list the wrong vehicle etc anymore.

    So as long as the officer shows for trial, your best option at that point is address the crown, (before court starts), advise you hadn't received the disclosure until the date of the adjournment. Now that you have reviewed it, your prepared to plead guilty. They are likely to say ok, but there will be NO deal. AT that point best you can do is ask the JP for a period of time to pay your fine.

    As stated above don't take the Crown, "being rude" a personally. They deal with hundreds of people per week all with a "story" that they have heard thousands of times. Just like when an officer pulls you over for speeding they have heard and seen it all...lol At times it gets old rel quick and they aren't always courteous. Nothing personal from their point of view. The prevailing thought running through their minds is "yeah yeah I have heard this before let's just get this done and over with.

    A GREAT example of this, is I happened to be in court for a Section 810 hearing, (Peace bond hearing). One of the persons was called up. He was asked do you have the restitution money today. He advised the JP he didn't. Said he just didn't have the funds. The JP said, ok this your third time appearing without the money, she then read off, in the first time, you said you needed time to get the funds together, second time you claimed you "lost" the money order, on your way to court. Third time, the person sending you the money were late doing so. "DO NOT show up in this court without the money next time or it will NOT go well for you". Now some would view that as threat, but in reality this clown is just wasting the courts time and jerking everyone around. He NEEDED to be set straight. The JP didn't take it personally, she was just trying to get her point across as strongly as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evoex View Post
    No because you caused the delay when you asked for an adjournment. As i said before, you want the crown to ask for it so you can play the 11b card down the road. Seems like you did a solid job outside of that.

  4. #64

    Re: Advice needed What to request in a disclosure

    Appreciate the thoughts. It's funny how easy it is to take it personal. At the end of the day I walked out thinking what a crappy job it would be to be a crown prosecutor, you're showing up to work all day and having to put on a face (although I'm sure it comes more naturally to some) to intimidate and be confrontational. No thanks.

    Evoex, I realized immediately after I'd verbally requesting the adjournment towards the end, that it was not good. At the very end I should have stated for the record that the adjournment request is due to the lack of disclosure from the crown... which is the reality here (and the most frustrating part). They messed up by not attaching the appropriate materials (or lied that it was sent knowing it wasn't), in either case that seems like a critical enough, or glaring enough error on their part that would place the blame on them - hence why I thought having it dismissed didn't seem as far fetched at that point. I'm hoping I can still leverage this somehow for the 11b, because again the adjournment is because of the lack of disclosure which falls on the crown... I'd done my due diligence. Seems so cut and dry to me, but what do I know (seriously... a drop in the bucket compared to who I'm up against).

    Hedo, looking back I'm not 100% certain the crown requested the adjournment, she may have worded it as 'it's our understanding that the defending is requesting adjournment'. She used this 'it's our understanding that...' in all the subsequent cases, so there's a good chance she did it with me. I was caught off guard when the adjournment was mentioned based on my prior conversation with her which is why I don't remember the specifics... just that my gut was to immediately fire back with 'I'm requesting a dismissal'. Regarding the officer's notes, to clarify he has all of the information regarding calibration times, etc. documented. His notes are extremely thorough and you can see they've been written in a failsafe way to ensure the charge sticks... he's done this a few times no doubt. It's just a shame I didn't actually receive it when I asked for it, because I would have had the opportunity to better assess if I thought I had a fighting chance, and may have decided to take the reduced adjustment.

    At the end of the day, no real regrets so far. Feel good about giving it a go (equipped with the help from you guys) and to stand my ground as best as I knew how. The way I see it is that it was the right opportunity to do so, the stakes were not very high considering the difference for the original offence of speeding would be 11km/hr more and 3 points (vs. 0) if I was found guilty at trial, not something that will change things in the eyes of insurance.

    I'm wondering if it makes sense to still look into a paralegal at this point – especially after the JP was highly suggestive of it. I sat up at the front to watching the 5 paralegals do their negotiations with the crown... it was interesting. The negotiations were super quick and all of them ended up pleading guilty (for their clients) to a reduced speed (15km over, no points - like mine was originally - and then one pleaded guilty to disobey a road sign although that fine was set at $400 because apparently the original speed was very high). Now that I'm in this situation, if there's no going back to the original charge and all a Paralegal does in these situations is to plead guilty anyways (often to a lesser charge which I'd imagine is impossible now) then I don't see the point... but maybe I'm wrong. I'd consider a paralegal if they could get the charge dropped, but otherwise I can't see how it would make sense.
    Last edited by Krime; 08-25-2018 at 12:15 AM.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Oshawa/Thornhill
    Posts
    3,027

    Re: Advice needed What to request in a disclosure

    Just to clarify, the disclosure wouldn't have benefited you in better assessing your position on taking the original deal. Once you requested disclosure the deal was off the table, just as it is now. The crown offers the deal only at first appearance as an "incentive" to keep the court process moving quickly. Once
    you request disclosure then they "feel" it has "wasted" their time and the deal is no longer an option.

    It will depend on how the adjournment request was documented by the court clerk. if they recorded it as you requesting which is likely, especially if the crown worded it as you indicated then the 11b option is gone. Doesn't matter WHY, you requested the delay, (even IF the crown messed up), once it is recorded as the defendant request then 11b is killed off. To fully expect to get an 11b, it would have to be crystal clear that it was the crown who requested the delay. Given, that the crown's position, (which is recorded in their file), that you were sent the disclosure, even if in Mar you try to argue the delay was triggered as a result of lack of disclosure, they will simply refer to the notes and maintain that you got it and messed up. Weather you did or didn't at this point is moot point, because their records indicate it was indeed sent. The crown was "lying" when they told it was sent, they have no true idea if it was or not they just go by what the file says. Again they have hundreds of dockets weekly so your just a number to them. Could be a clerk messed up, but their is no advantage to the crown to outright lie, (they get paid the same if they get a conviction or not)...lol

    As for a paralegal, IMHO, at this point it would be throwing good money after bad. They are going to get you basically nothing at this point. It is highly doubtful they would even get a reduction, (BUT, even if they got it reduced back to the original charge as you already said, it won't make a difference from insurance prospective). The crown, once again at this point has NO incentive to "play" with you or a paralegal, as they see it, (which I tend to agree, again after seeing THOUSANDS of cases go through the process), they are coming from a position of strength.

    Their records indicate disclosure was provided, the officer's notes, (as per you), seem to be rather detailed, again it sounds like it was a traffic cop that dinged you so yes he has written the same notes tens of thousands of times, and will likely be pretty impressive on the stand. So the crown will view this as a slam dunk for them. When it comes to notes, I used to jokingly say when compiling an impaired driving report, (which was my thing, I held the record, and may still today, for the most, 4 drivers by a single officer in a single shift for the Ottawa area courts), that I merely changed the names to accurately reflect the guilty.... it was a play on the old 1 Adam 12 show which stated the names were changed to protect the innocent... LMAO

    But again, this is all just my opinion, Albeit perhaps "slightly" more weighty, due to my time in the court system. Either way Good luck and god speed my friend...

    Quote Originally Posted by Krime View Post
    Appreciate the thoughts. It's funny how easy it is to take it personal. At the end of the day I walked out thinking what a crappy job it would be to be a crown prosecutor, you're showing up to work all day and having to put on a face (although I'm sure it comes more naturally to some) to intimidate and be confrontational. No thanks.

    Evoex, I realized immediately after I'd verbally requesting the adjournment towards the end, that it was not good. At the very end I should have stated for the record that the adjournment request is due to the lack of disclosure from the crown... which is the reality here (and the most frustrating part). They messed up by not attaching the appropriate materials (or lied that it was sent knowing it wasn't), in either case that seems like a critical enough, or glaring enough error on their part that would place the blame on them - hence why I thought having it dismissed didn't seem as far fetched at that point. I'm hoping I can still leverage this somehow for the 11b, because again the adjournment is because of the lack of disclosure which falls on the crown... I'd done my due diligence. Seems so cut and dry to me, but what do I know (seriously... a drop in the bucket compared to who I'm up against).

    Hedo, looking back I'm not 100% certain the crown requested the adjournment, she may have worded it as 'it's our understanding that the defending is requesting adjournment'. She used this 'it's our understanding that...' in all the subsequent cases, so there's a good chance she did it with me. I was caught off guard when the adjournment was mentioned based on my prior conversation with her which is why I don't remember the specifics... just that my gut was to immediately fire back with 'I'm requesting a dismissal'. Regarding the officer's notes, to clarify he has all of the information regarding calibration times, etc. documented. His notes are extremely thorough and you can see they've been written in a failsafe way to ensure the charge sticks... he's done this a few times no doubt. It's just a shame I didn't actually receive it when I asked for it, because I would have had the opportunity to better assess if I thought I had a fighting chance, and may have decided to take the reduced adjustment.

    At the end of the day, no real regrets so far. Feel good about giving it a go (equipped with the help from you guys) and to stand my ground as best as I knew how. The way I see it is that it was the right opportunity to do so, the stakes were not very high considering the difference for the original offence of speeding would be 11km/hr more and 3 points (vs. 0) if I was found guilty at trial, not something that will change things in the eyes of insurance.

    I'm wondering if it makes sense to still look into a paralegal at this point – especially after the JP was highly suggestive of it. I sat up at the front to watching the 5 paralegals do their negotiations with the crown... it was interesting. The negotiations were super quick and all of them ended up pleading guilty (for their clients) to a reduced speed (15km over, no points - like mine was originally - and then one pleaded guilty to disobey a road sign although that fine was set at $400 because apparently the original speed was very high). Now that I'm in this situation, if there's no going back to the original charge and all a Paralegal does in these situations is to plead guilty anyways (often to a lesser charge which I'd imagine is impossible now) then I don't see the point... but maybe I'm wrong. I'd consider a paralegal if they could get the charge dropped, but otherwise I can't see how it would make sense.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •