Actual audio transcript of a speeding ticket trial held in the Atlanta Municipal Kourt on February 13^th, 2006. Below is a word for word transcript of the audio recording to help you better understand what is actually being said, and what to expect in a typical speeding ticket trial. Below the transcript is the Georgia $peedingTICKETKILLER commentary as to what went wrong, and what the defendant missed. This is COPYRIGHTED information exclusive to the Georgia $peedingTICKETKILLER.com website.

Click Here to start the recording with streaming audio. (slight delay of about 20 seconds), click here to download the audio.

Prosecutor: All those intending to testify in State v. John Crawford, citation no. 2563117, please raise your right hand. Your not testifying? (Question from prosecutor to defendant). OK
Prosecutor: Do you swear or affirm testimony to be the truth the whole truth only the truth under penalty of perjury?
Officer: Yes I do.
Prosecutor: Officer please state your name for the court
Officer: Officer F. Jenkins, City of Atlanta Police Dept., Fulton County
Prosecutor: And were you so employed on Dec. 6^th 2005?
Officer: Yes ma’am, I sure was
Prosecutor: Did you have occasion to see Mr. John Crawford on that date?
Officer: Ahhhh, Yes, I did.
……unintelligible
Officer: Yes, I did.
Prosecutor: Is Mr. Crawford in court today?
Officer: Yes he is. He’s standing in the black sweater.
Prosecutor: OK
Prosecutor: And did you have occasion to stop Mr. Crawford on that date?
Officer: Yes, I did.
Prosecutor: Could you please explain to the court what brought him to your attention?
Officer: I was at Freedom Parkway and Ralph McGill. I was using a speed detection device. I saw his vehicle traveling at a higher rate of speed than the cars that were around him. I got him doing 59 in a 35.
John Crawford: Objection, Your Honor!
Judge: What’s the objection?
John Crawford: One second. The defense objects to the admission of this laser evidence, due to the fact that the state has failed to lay proper legal foundation.
Prosecutor: You Honor, the State has not introduced anything, only the officer’s testimony.
Judge: Hold the objection, make it later. Overruled. Go on.
Officer: 59 in a 35. Uhh I am certified with this laser detection device.
Prosecutor: You used a laser?
Officer: Yes I did.
Prosecutor: You do have permit issued by the Georgia Dept of Public Safety allowing you to run this laser device?
Officer: Yes I do
Prosecutor: Is Freedom Parkway and Ralph McGill approved location to run a laser device?
Officer: Yes it is.
Prosecutor: Was that laser device calibrated before your shift on Dec. 6^th, 2005?
Officer: Yes ma’am, it was.
Prosecutor: Were there any errors in calibration?
Officer: No ma’am.
Prosecutor: Was that laser device calibrated after your shift on Dec. 6^th, 2005?
Officer: Yes ma’am, it was.
Prosecutor: Were there any errors in calibration?
Officer: No ma’am.
Prosecutor: Do you recall the grade of Freedom Parkway and Ralph McGill?
Officer: I’m not sure exactly. I know it’s less than 7 percent.
Prosecutor: Was there anything obstructing your view of Mr. Crawford’s vehicle that day?
Officer: No there is not.
Prosecutor: Nothing further, subject to redirect your honor.
Judge: Questions for the witness?
John Crawford: Your Honor, the defense waives cross-examination, to allow the state to rest its case.
Judge to prosecutor, Anything else?
Prosecutor: Were you able to be seen from 500 feet away?
Officer: Yes ma’am.
Prosecutor: And where were you at?
Officer: I was at the corner of Freedom Parkway and Ralph McGill I don’t know the exact . . . I was at 899 feet.
Prosecutor: Nothing Further.
Judge: What was the footage?
Officer: 899 feet
Prosecutor: That’s from where you were shot,… were you saw him
Officer: YES
Prosecutor: OK
Prosecutor: Where you plainly visible from 500 feet away?
Officer: Yes Ma’am I was.
Prosecutor: Nothing Further
John Crawford: Your Honor, since the state has rested, the defense motions for dismissal, due to the fact that the state failed to lay proper foundation for the laser evidence by not introducing a certified copy of a list of laser devices approved for use in Georgia by the Dept. of Safety.
Judge: Deny you motion.
John Crawford: Excuse me, sir?
Judge: Deny your motion.
John Crawford: Furthermore, . . . can I add to that?
Judge: Sure
John Crawford: Yes Sir
John Crawford: Furthermore I would like to add . . let me find this here. . .. That I’m requesting dismissal because the state has failed to enter into evidence the list of laser devices which I mentioned earlier which Georgia Code 40-14-17 requires this list must be introduced at the time of the trial in order for this laser evidence to be admissible. And this requirement has been backed up numerous times by the Georgia Court of Appeals. I would like also, uhhh the state failed to . . .I’d like to object to the laser evidence being entered into, being admitted because the state failed to lay foundation for it, by not producing a certificate of accuracy as required by the state. Nor did the officer produce a certificate, uh, certification of his training or his competence with it. He did not state that he was POST certified; he only said that he had . . or POST qualified—he only stated that he had certain general qualifications with it. Nor was, the permit was mentioned, but it wasn’t produced. And, that concludes it your honor.
Judge: Denial of the motion . . . only . . . to be held in abeyance . . . that motion to be held in abeyance. Denied Also.
Judge: Anything else?
John Crawford: No, your honor, that’s it.
Judge: Based on the evidence, I enter a guilty plea, a 150 dollar fine, plus surcharges.

TRIAL ENDS

Georgia $peedingTICKETKILLER.com Commentary

The defendant in this case missed objecting to the 1 critical item that MUST be proven in all criminal cases, that item being “Venue”. The state must prove in all criminal cases the name of the county in which the crime has allegedly taken place. At no time was Venue ever proven in this case.

Furthermore, at no time during the trial did the officer ever identify the defendant’s vehicle. That also should have been pointed out during the motion to dismiss. This is critical in a speeding ticket trial and should have been pointed out by the defendant.

Georgia law pertinently requires in ALL laser cases, that a certified list of approved laser devices be entered into evidence, or the laser evidence is inadmissible.

However, the Marsupial running this kourt does not seem to care about Georgia law or the opinions of our high kourts. Typical of kangaroo traffic kourts in Georgia.

It is clear from listening to this audio recording, that these speeding ticket trials being held in Atlanta Municiapl Kourt, are nothing but shams and charades.

The state MUST introduce this list at time of trial.

The list MUST be a certified copy, not just a copy.

Georgia Case Precedent laws “pertinently” requiring the admission of this Certified List of Laser Devices into evidence before laser evidence is admissible.

IN THE INTEREST OF B.D.S., A CHILD August 11, 2004 MAIN CASE LAW

[17] the admissibility of evidence of speed obtained by a laser detection device is governed by OCGA § 40-14- 17. The only foundation required for the entry of such evidence is the introduction into evidence of a certified copy of the DPS's list of approved laser speed detection devices.

Odum v. State April 15, 2002

[9] OCGA § 40-14-17 pertinently requires that the State introduce a certified copy of the DPS's list of approved laser speed detection devices. Given this foundation alone, independent of those required under OCGA § 40-14-4 as to speed determined by radar detection devices, evidence of speed measured by an "approved" laser speed detection device is admissible.

Van Nort v. State June 07, 2001

[18] So long as the state provides a certified copy of the Department of Public Safety's list of approved models of laser devices, then evidence of speed based on an approved model shall be considered scientifically acceptable.

In re J. D. S., June 08, 2005

[10]

J. D. S. argues that this evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, specifically asserting that the state failed to provide a foundation for the laser detection evidence. The only foundation required for the entry of such evidence is the introduction of a certified copy of the Department of Public Safety's list of approved laser speed detection devices. OCGA § 40-14-17; In re B. D. S., 269 Ga. App. 89, 91 (3) (603 SE2d 488) (2004).

Here, it is undisputed that the state failed to introduce the required list into evidence and thus failed to lay the proper foundation for the admission of the laser detection evidence. Accordingly, the state failed to present any admissible evidence to show that John Crawford was traveling at 59 m. p. h. and the trial court's finding in this regard is unsupported.

In virtually every laser trial we have observed, the state never had this legally required list, or if they did, it was NOT certified. The reasons for this are twofold. They do not bother because they know you do not know, and most of the judges and prosecutors do not know either.

I also find it interesting that the officer did not know the exact grade of the road, but knew it was less than 7%. How could he know this? A good cross examination question would have been to ask the officer if he even knew how to measure the grade of a road.

Also, real funny on part of the prosecutor was the question of BOTH before and after shift testing of the laser calibration. THIS IS NOT EVEN REQUIRED by Georgia law for laser, ONLY radar. When you listen to this questioning and answering exchange regarding this testing or calibration of the laser unit, it is clear the officer is plainly lying. This is typical of all Kangaroo Kourt’s in Georgia.

The defendant in this case however applied proper legal strategies against the states evidence and will eventually prevail in the appeals courts.

Click on the BUY NOW button to Purchase Your Copy of
the Georgia $peedingTICKETKILLER CD
via Major Credit Card Today!

Email Page

GuestBook

Send Me Updates

There are currently [ 9 ] citizens logged into "the Georgia $peedingTICKETKILLER.com" web site.