Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site hocsl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!hocsl!dmt
From: dmt@hocsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.bicycle
Subject: Re: BIKERS RIGHTS and the LAW: Full Trial Synopsis
Message-ID: <166@hocsl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Oct-84 13:58:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: hocsl.166
Posted: Mon Oct  8 13:58:23 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Oct-84 03:57:19 EDT
References: <873@druxj.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 21

REFERENCE:  <873@druxj.UUCP>

> OK-- so the judge gives his verdict.  He compliments me on my 
> case preparation then tells the officer that he testified that
> he followed us  for one and a half block starting at the 
> 1800 block, but that the citation was issued for the 2200 
> block of the street.  So, his stories didn't jive and guilt
> was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.  I am AQUITTED
> by a technicality.

Granted, I wasn't there, and you were.  But from your account, your
acquittal wasn't on a "technicality".  Your story and the officer's
were in violent disagreement as to the facts.  The judge, to render
ANY VERDICT, had to decide whom to believe.  Since the officer's story
had inconsistencies (factual, not technical) the judge decided to believe
you.

(If my interpretation is correct, it is even possible that the judge
gave the officer a private dressing down after the trial. At least,
I can hope so.)
			Dave Tutelman