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