|
|
|
Jewish World Review Feb. 3, 2006 / 5 Shevat, 5766 Two Too Many: How many lawyers does it take to contest a speeding ticket? By Gene Weingarten
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
On my way to Atlantic City recently, I got popped for doing 82 in a 65 mph zone. Within days, I received a letter from the state of New Jersey voiding the ticket, apologizing for having treated an out-of-town visitor so rudely and admitting that the use of speed traps to produce local revenue is nothing more than shabby opportunism. Ha-ha. I did receive several letters from New Jersey, however. They were from lawyers offering to handle my "case" for $350. These letters informed me that, without an attorney to protect their rights, people with speeding tickets can face dire consequences, including high fines and an increase in insurance rates. Se habla espaņol. The fine for pleading guilty by mail was $180. The lawyers' fee to fight the ticket was $350. It supposedly made sense, if you could avoid points on your license. I phoned two of the lawyers, and allowed each to try to sell me his services. It proved interesting. They were nice guys who talked like dis, see? And what I got was two succinct lessons in ethics and the law, Jersey-style. Case One: Greg the Lawyer Greg: What I'll do is negotiate it down to 69 miles an hour. So you won't get points. Me: I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that. It's not true. I was going 82. Greg: Hey, this is called plea negotiation. It's like anything else. How come people get to plead to pointing a weapon, when actually they shot someone? Me: Will the prosecutor go for that? Greg: Unless you called the cop "Smokey the Bear" when you were by the side of the road. Me: Why would they agree to bargain, if they have me dead to rights, which they do? Greg: Because I am an attorney. In this court, they give preferential treatment to people with lawyers, because they feel you're penalized already by having to pay a lawyer. Me: So, basically the court is encouraging people to hire lawyers. Greg: Me: Sweet, eh? Case Two: Ed the Lawyer Ed: See, no case is a sure winner and no case is a sure loser. That's where negotiations come in. That's where I come in. Me: But I'm not sure what there is to negotiate. I was guilty. I was going 82 in a 65 zone. Ed: Okay, I'll explain. You were guilty, right? Of speeding, okay? But were you also being careless? Sure, you could say that. There are lots of statutes — the cop could have given you that, careless driving. But did you get a careless driving ticket? No. So maybe we say to the court, well, if he had picked that one out of the hat, you would have entered a guilty plea for that. And the court says okay. That way the prosecutor gets his guilty plea, and he puts a check mark in his win column, but you also get a check mark in the win column, because you didn't get any points. Me: It all sounds so sleazy. Like a game. I'm not sure I'm ethically okay with this. Ed: This is not a matter of ethics. Me: It's not? Ed: It's about facts. See, you were depending on your speedometer, and he was depending on his radar detector. You're both relying on devices, and devices aren't perfect. Me: But his device said I was going 82, and so did mine! Ed: Okay, but let's say it goes to trial. They have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In a utopian world, everything would go perfect, and everyone would know that, and everyone who was guilty would just plead guilty. But what if the officer got caught in a hurricane and didn't show? Then they wouldn't have a case because he couldn't show his certification as a radar operator. It would be dismissed. Me: But if I went to trial, I would have to testify that I was going 82. I'm honest. Ed: That's not a problem. Me: Why? Ed: Because then I wouldn't put you on the stand. Fuhgeddaboudit . I paid the ticket.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
© 2006 WPWG |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
