Here we have a can of worms. Forty percent of you will face a trial where there is no prosecutor. Unconstitutional, yes. Shameful, yes. But it is a fact nonetheless.

In States like Oregon, Washington and California speeding has been decriminalized. That is it carries the same weight as spitting on the sidewalk. You can't go to jail for it but they sure can nail you with a heavy fine and court costs.

There are a few other States that have decriminalized speeding and there are some considering doing so. In either event it is immaterial to your defense which states have and have not decriminalized speeding with the one exception, Oregon. If you are an Oregon speeder you should read this as well OREGON.

Communities are doing away with the prosecutor even where speeding has not been decriminalized. The reason is obvious, save money. Prosecutors cost about $20 a ticket and the communities would rather pocket the money themselves. Besides without a prosecutor you are at a serious disadvantage if you don't know what you are doing.

A prosecutor separates the Judge from the case allowing the Judge to be "a fair and impartial trier of facts". Without the prosecutor the Judge or arresting officer has to act as prosecutor. Under the constitution that is not allowed. Nonetheless they do it and there is little you can do about it.

You can turn this to your advantage but you have to be bold. To proceed without making a challenge will doom your defense. You must make a challenge even though you know you will loose the challenge. Making the challenge sets the tone, it puts the Judge on notice. Notice that you know that what he is doing is immoral, illegal and contemptuous of the constitution and the concept of fair justice. He will now be more then likely to rule in your favor even if you present a bad defense. In other words you have gained a presumption that is not defined but can give you a edge.

When you approach the bench as in a trial with a prosecutor with the copies of the case law, hand the first copy to the judge. With the copy reserved for the prosecutor, look around the room and ask "Where is the prosecutor, this is his copy". The Judge will say one of these four things:

A judge is always allowed to ask questions but only a prosecutor is allowed to enter items into evidence. The fact that the Judge may be asking questions is a given in a case where there is no prosecutor. However he may not object to questions that you may ask of the witness because that is reserved for prosecutors only. You see, in an objection, both sides get to argue the objection and the judge decides the outcome. a judge can not rule as a impartial trier of facts an objection he makes himself.


These are suggested responses to the answer the Judge will give when asked where the prosecutor is.

There is no Prosecutor: "Your honor, if there is no prosecutor, who will present the peoples case?"

He will give one of the remaining three answers from above.

I will be acting as prosecutor: "Your Honor, with all due respect that is in violation of more constitutional amendments then Carter has Liver Pills. It is improper and a violation of my rights for you to act in the multiple capacity of impartial Judge, Jury, and prosecutor. I motion for dismissal or at least recusal of yourself as you have already indicated that you side with the prosecution by acting as prosecutor in this case." (recusal is the legal term for the removal of a judge because of a conflict of interests)

He may grant you your motion or tell you that the trial will continue his way. If he grants you your motion, go home, you have just won. If he does not say: "I want the court to take notice of my objection to you acting as both Judge and prosecutor." Continue with the trial.

The Officer will be acting as prosecutor: " With all due respect your honor, I doubt that the officer has a law degree, is a member of the bar and is permitted to act as counsel at trial in a court of law in this or any other State. Besides, he is the witness, how can he be the prosecutor at the same time? Is he going to ask himself questions, make motions, enter items into evidence or object to my questions? I motion for dismissal and object to the officer acting as prosecutor."

The Judge will most likely deny your motion and tell you that the trial will proceed anyway.

I am just going to ask some questions to get the facts: " that is ok then provided you do not object to my motions or questions because that is the job and purvey of a prosecutor".

If anytime during the trial he makes an objection say: "Your honor, with all due respect that objection is the purvey and function of a prosecutor. Are you now going to act as prosecutor and Judge simultaneously?" If he says yes then read the response from I will be acting as prosecutor.

You have now set the stage. The Jude is severely handicapped by making an issue of his dual capacity. I he makes any objection to anything even if he said that he was acting as prosecutor as well as Judge say. " Your honor are you now acting as prosecutor or Judge". Say that every time he objects to anything.

The trial will proceed in a method similar to a trial with an prosecutor except there will be no prosecutor asking the questions or making objections. At the end of the trial the Judge will not give a closing argument but you retain your right to make a closing argument.

If the Judge makes a ruling before you give your closing argument say: "Your Honor, you have rendered judgment without allowing the defense to make a closing argument.. "I motion for a mistrial." He has no choice but to grant the motion because if this went to appeal he would look like a absolute incompetent idiot.