The Arresting Officer Does Not Show
There are three situations:
States where the officer is required to testify: In most, but not all States the officer must show to give testimony. Read the back of your ticket. If it it says anything to the effect that unless you do something the officer will not show and only a written report will be entered into evidence then you live in a State that does not require the officer to show.
In those bad States where the officer is not required to show I suggest that you do what it says to have him appear. I suggest you read Why would I want that miserable officer in court, Why?
In the States that require the officer to show you don't want to ask for extensions as to your trial date. This will negate the advantage you have. If the officer does not show, you ask for a dismissal. The prosecutor will try to argue that another court date would be more appropriate. You argue " Your Honor, the trial is today, the defense came prepared. It is of no fault that the prosecution is unprepared and if they are unable to proceed I motion for dismissal"
Dismissal will be granted provided that you did not postpone your trial date or ask for an extension. In that event the prosecutor will say. "Your honor, the court has in the past granted the defendant a continuance, it is only fair that the court now grant one to the prosecution as well". The Judge will grant the continuance. Where you would have had a dismissal, you now have a continuance.
Situations where there are two officers required: I this situation, one officer took the readings and the other did the arrest. Both officers must show. Only the officer that took the reading can testify as to the readings and to the fact that the officer that pulled you over actually pulled over the correct car.
The officer that pulled you over must testify because he is the arresting officer. Without his testimony the case must be dismissed.
If either officer does not appear, ask for a dismissal arguing as to why both officers must testify.
Two officers must always appear if a aircraft was used. The pilot does not unless he is also the officer taking the speed measurement.
In vascar you may have to ask the officer on the stand if two officers were used and if he says yes, ask for the dismissal.
States where unless you subpoena the officer he can simply send in an affidavit: Again, you have to read the back of your ticket. You want the officer to show and must do what it says to make him or her show. Why would I want that miserable officer in court, Why?
If you did what the ticket said to do and he does not show then ask for dismissal. You will have to prove that you did what was required for him or her to show.
If you missed the deadline to do what was necessary of forgot then: Ask the questions as outlined. When the Judge denies the questions or they can't be answered because you are asking them with no one there say: The Officer chose not to show and in his stead sent an affidavit. If the affidavit was to be complete he or she should have anticipated these questions, provided the documents required and so forth. The document can not make objection to my questions and as such teh prosecution must bear the shortcomings of it's prosecution by relying upon an incomplete affidavit that does not address all reasonable questions. Defendant motions for dismissal.:
OK, enough is enough now. I am certain that your head is spinning with all this information. Take a break and when you come back go to the DEFENSE of your choice.
BTW (by the way - I know that some of you will find grammar errors in all these documents - That is inevitable and I make no apology. I read write and speak English, French and German fluently and sometimes I transpose subconsciously when I write. When I proof read I can't catch it all because to my mind it is correct in at least one language. If you can read and write in three languages then you can criticize. _ Roland)