Copyright all rights reserved

You can search this site



  • The parole evidence rule: Although primarily intended for contracts it applies to criminal cases as well. Simply put it means that if a document exists no oral testimony as to the contents of that document is permitted. The document must be entered into evidence for examination
  • The best Evidence Rule: If a document is presented, it must be the original. If the original is unavailable a copy is permitted provided it is certified as a true copy of the original. In other words, unless a copy is certified, it can't be presented as evidence.
  • Stating that a document exists is a form of HEARSAY evidence that is not admissible provided you make and objection. the court will not make an objection for you.  The real one


In Today's World a Radar Jammer Radar Detector is essential to prevent tickets  Radar Detector/Jammer



 Preliminary questions to a witness to establish admissibility of evidence i.e. "laying foundation" for admissibility. Fed.Evid.R.104 (Blacks Law dictionary)


In the previous lesson the prosecutor presented foundation as to the evidence by having the officer testify as to the calibration and accuracy of the radar gun. That evidence now is admissible and the court will rely on it to find you guilty, unless you use challenge that foundation to make that evidence inadmissible.


If you correctly challenge that foundation or shed legal doubt as to the accuracy of the evidence presented you will win. If not, you will loose.

To do that you must know the legal weakness of the foundation presented. A successful challenge is backed by High court rulings regarding the foundation necessary for a conviction in a speeding case.

One such High Court decision is St. Louis v. Boecker,  Boecker would make the foundation of the evidence presented on the previous page inadequate for admissibility.  Boecker like Miranda and Roe v. Wade is Case Law.


The Burdon is upon the party bringing forth the evidence to lay the foundation. In a speeding ticket trial that Burdon is upon the prosecution. When you blow holes into the foundation it is up to the prosecution to try to repair those holes. If they can't then the foundation crumbles and the evidence becomes either inadmissible or incompetent for the basis of a conviction.


Take the testimony from the previous page where the Officer opens the door to challenging the tuning forks by stating that he used two tuning forks for calibration. When cross examined you ask for the certificate certifying their last accuracy check by a facility approved to do such checks. That certificate is a requirement in the case law of St. Louis v. Boecker. If he can't produce that certificate, the ruling from the high court in Boecker makes the accuracy check using the tuning forks inadmissible. If the accuracy check becomes inadmissible the speed readings from the radar gun becomes inadmissible. If the speed readings are inadmissible there is no longer any evidence against you and the Judge has no choice but to dismiss the case.


Should he have the certificate the Tipmra teaches you in the Verification Defense how to make that certificate inadmissible. Here are some shortened sample questions to to give you an idea.


  • Officer, how many radar guns does your department have
  • How did you determine that this particular certificate is for the tuning forks you used that day
  • Please present a document showing the serial number of the radar gun you used that day
  • Please present a document showing that the tuning forks with the serial numbers indicated on this certificate belong to that gun
  • If you can't present the documents do you have any witnesses that can testify by direct personal knowledge that this certificate does indeed belong to the tuning forks that belong to the radar gun that you used that day



Lesson 3; The Charge Against You  CLICK HERE








Often Imitated but Never Duplicated