Checking in with the prosecutor? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Checking in with the prosecutor?

Relax

Well-known member
If I plan to go to trial no matter what, what benefit (to me) is there in checking in with the prosecutor? In my experience, they don't tell you (truthfully or at all) if the officer is there anyways and then try to strong arm you into a plea.
 

JavaFan

gringo diablo
Site Supporter
there is zero benefit in talking to the Crown if you want trial
send in the proper request for disclosure, then get ready
 

Relax

Well-known member
No, I mean on the day of the trial, do I need to check in with the crown? Or just go straight to the courtroom and wait for my turn. I realize at some point they court may break and the crown may again ask for people to check in - any benefit in continuing to ignore them?
 

JavaFan

gringo diablo
Site Supporter
you just show up on the day and wait until your case is called
if anyone calls your name, just indicate you are there

if Crown requests to speak about a resolution
up to you if you want to have the talk
if it were me I'd just do a lot of listening
see if they offer a reduced charge
do not give any evidence against yourself
 

Relax

Well-known member
Understood, but my point is - do I need to need to let the prosecutor know that I'm there at all. One strategy I heard is that if you don't check in with them, they don't know you're there, and may assume you're a no-show and release the officer or witnesses early.
 

Evoex

The God
Site Supporter
Understood, but my point is - do I need to need to let the prosecutor know that I'm there at all. One strategy I heard is that if you don't check in with them, they don't know you're there, and may assume you're a no-show and release the officer or witnesses early.
they get paid to convict you, sounds like a bunch of baloney.
 

Rossi86

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Understood, but my point is - do I need to need to let the prosecutor know that I'm there at all. One strategy I heard is that if you don't check in with them, they don't know you're there, and may assume you're a no-show and release the officer or witnesses early.
From what I've seen, the cop will be there till all cases related to him/her are called. What you're suggesting could be a possibility, but highly unlikely to work I would say. That would have to be one very anxious cop to get out of there before all his/her cases are called, the crown needs to make sure the cop will stay to take the stand if anyone wants a trial.

I remember one member here mentioning years ago that someone initially told the crown they will plead guilty, so the crown released the cop since there would be no trials, then when their turn came in front of the JP they stated "not guilty" and the witness/cop had already left the building, so they were forced to withdraw the charges - I do NOT know if this is a true story.

I would start with asking for disclosure, and proceed from there to look for any clues to fight the ticket. The witness not being there should be the last thing you should count on after preparing to go to trial.

If this is a small town courthouse, they will try pretty hard to convict you and collect the cash...
 

hedo2002

Well-known member
Site Supporter
You are required to advise the court of your presence, when they call your name. As a former copper I can tell you, the crown doesn't "dismiss" witnesses, Police or civilian, until there is a resolution of the case, (it is either put over for another hearing, which won't be the scenario in your case as you will be slated for trial), or the case is resolved, via a plea or a finding of guilt by the court

Now failing to advise the court of your presence, (remember there are OFTEN distraction in court), the crown calls your name, advises the court, that your case is slated for trial, but it appears you failed to attend. The JP then registered a ruling of GIA, (Guilty In Absentia). They move on. The entire scenario above can be finished in about 2 minutes.

In the eyes of the court you ARE an adult, and as such expected to act as one, it is NOT up to them to go "hunting" for you.

The other, scenario, of playing "hide and seek" with the court is you tick off the JP who, perhaps despite evidence simply renders a guilty verdict. Sure, you can appeal if that were to happen, BUT that will, (if you plan to be successful), several trips to the courthouse, as well as hiring a COMPETENT lawyer, (I personally wouldn't entrust an appeal to a paralegal, no matter smooth a talker they are).

IF you, (which one would assume by your desire to go to trial), have actual FACTS and evidence that would support a not guilty verdict, then forget about playing "childish games", check in, when the crown asks to speak to you, make it clear you intend to go to have the matter resoklved via a trial. Sit down and wait your turn. WATCH the proceedings carefully, to see if there are any things that seem to hang others, and what if anything seems to work he defendants favour.

Good luck
 

micelli.i

Well-known member
Understood, but my point is - do I need to need to let the prosecutor know that I'm there at all. One strategy I heard is that if you don't check in with them, they don't know you're there, and may assume you're a no-show and release the officer or witnesses early.
That strategy works as good as the strategies for winning the lottery. Incredibly low chance of winning.

If you don't check in, when the prosecutor calls you, she will mark it as failed to appear. You then have to listen VERY closely, as the guilty in absentia matters are dealt with, typically first. If your name gets called, you have to rush before the JP and say you're there. You then have to explain why you didn't check in, when you were called. They will call you more than once.

A number of counties in Ontario require the officer to show up to court for the whole day, as that officer is a witness for all X number of tickets. So, the odds of the officer being dismissed prematurely are slim to nil, because most times, there are at least 1-2 matters that go to trial.

Also, the anecdotal story about a person saying they will plead guilty and then changing their mind AFTER the officer has been dismissed, is baloney. The prosecutor can easily request and be granted an adjournment because of the defendant, on account of bad faith conduct (i.e. said one thing and then did another).

There is a more rudimentary, simple and lawful way to "beat" the ticket. If Y number of people demand a trial, the system comes to a crashing halt. Without going into many details, when I got a ticket, years back, I asked for trial. Just when I was about to be heard, JP said the Court ran out of time. At the next court appearance, the prosecutor was staring at 4 or 5 people that wanted a trial (myself included). Officer was there for all matters. But, not enough Court time again. Prosecutor withdrew my ticket (and a bunch of other ones).
 

Relax

Well-known member
My main concern was the two witnesses - the other driver, and a third party. Now that the trial is over, here's the whole story:

I was approaching an intersection when the traffic light changed from green to yellow. It just started raining and I couldn't safely stop in time, so I coasted through. A car going in the opposite direction waiting to make a left turn decided to go at the same time, and my car went straight into hers. No witnesses remained at the scene, and I didn't have a dash cam which would have corroborated my story.

The police arrived about an hour later, and I gave a two-minute verbal statement as above. The other driver was with the officer for almost 45 minutes. When they were finally done, the officer came over to me with a ticket for "red light - fail to stop HTA 144 (18)". I was told that the other driver was shaken up and her story had some inconsistencies, and that the officer believed my story and wasn't originally going to give me a ticket. But then someone called the police and said they witnessed the accident, describing both cars, and said they saw me go through the red. This was the ONLY reason I was ticketed, and the officer was genuinely sympathetic.

I requested a trial and disclosure, hoping that the two witnesses wouldn't appear since the case relied on the testimony of at least one of them. In the end, I decided to check in anyway, and was advised that we would have another conversation when the crown's witnesses arrived. They never did, and when I was called up the charges were withdrawn.
 

hedo2002

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Not sure the left turner was at fault, in this case. The OP said it had started to recently rain and didn't feel it was safe to stop. He either entered the intersection, just as the light turned red, or at best JUST before it turned red.

Left turners, every time.
 

Evoex

The God
Site Supporter
Not sure the left turner was at fault, in this case. The OP said it had started to recently rain and didn't feel it was safe to stop. He either entered the intersection, just as the light turned red, or at best JUST before it turned red.
Maybe not legally, but common sense wise i'm drawing a blank.
 

hedo2002

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I agree... Just saying, we can't "blanket" blame all left turners...lol

Once again we agree...lmao

Well, likely last entry as I will at this time tomorrow, be sitting on Veradero Beach with some ice filled drink in my hand. Of course this is after just getting back from having 2 teeth, and a small piece of a third extracted....

Maybe not legally, but common sense wise i'm drawing a blank.
 

Evoex

The God
Site Supporter
I agree... Just saying, we can't "blanket" blame all left turners...lol

Once again we agree...lmao

Well, likely last entry as I will at this time tomorrow, be sitting on Veradero Beach with some ice filled drink in my hand. Of course this is after just getting back from having 2 teeth, and a small piece of a third extracted....
as the victim of a left turner, i am biased against them all. :devilish:

Cuba isn't my bag, but enjoy!
 

Top Bottom