WA Lawyer gets Both Speeding Tickets dismissed!
Late June, I had managed to get myself 2 tickets within a week which were to be contested at the Bellevue Court and one at the State court. The fines for the infractions were initially to about $300 (total) though the potential damage it could do to my insurance given that I drive a sunset-6spd 350Z Touring could have easily sky rocketed.
Enter Jeannie Mucklestone a lawyer who specializes in traffic-law in the state of Washington.
2 short Emails later the guidance she gave me was to snail-mail her the original citations and copies of the notice of hearing that I would receive from the courts. An agonizing silence that last 4 wks later - I get the good news snail mailed to me by her:
From the City Court: "The judge dismissed your case because my motions to suppress evidence were granted and there was not enough evident to find you committed the infraction..."
From the District Court: "The judged dismissed your case because the State did not meet their burden of proof after our motions to suppress were granted..."
What was really awesome about this (expensive) experience was that Jeannie absolutely minimized my involvement once I had her represent me. She took all the burden on her, didnt even have me go to the court during the hearing (both times) and got a great result. Brilliant and impressive.
The obvious question in my head - What does "Motion to suppress evidence" really mean?
Howe & Howe from NJ state: (The paragraphs below are cited from Howe&Howe's web pages)
"A motion to suppress evidence is a legal proceeding designed to challenge evidence on constitutional grounds."
How would this exactly work in a court?
"Defense counsel initiates the motion to suppress evidence by filing formal papers with the court. The prosecutor and defense counsel then submit legal arguments in an official document known as a brief. If there has been an arrest or a search without a warrant, then the prosecutor files the first brief. In the prosecutor’s brief, he or she must justify each step taken by the police. The defendant then responds with a legal brief explaining how and why the police violated the defendant’s constitutional rights."
"After the briefs are submitted, the court then holds a hearing with testimony and exhibits to resolve any contested issues. The state has the burden of proof at the hearing. If the court grants the motion to suppress evidence, then the prosecutor is barred from using the challenged evidence against the defendant in court."
Interesting read. And from experience - Great strategies on paper is one thing, to implement them consistently to get desired results is entirely another. And on that regard Law and Business have the same concept.
Thank you Jeannie Mucklestone :)