Re: Washington State Radar (Not Long)

[dismiss@earthlink.net (The Judge)]

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!!!********NOTE********THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!!!

I am sure most of you do not care about this, and I am not going to engage
in an ongoing "legal discussion," but I need to clarify what Linus has
stated in the previous message:

1. With respect to Linus' comments about Foundation and ER 901, the Ct. of
Appeal, Washington, DIVISION ONE stated in Bellevue v. Lightfoot, et al.,
75 Wash.App. 214, 877 P.2d 247 (Ct. of App. 1994), that no foundation is
needed about the general acceptance of radar devices in the scientific
community. (reliability of radar for speed detection purposes has long been
established, and court can take judicial notice of reliability).

2. From the above case, as well as others in Washington, it is clear that
radar will come in when the proper experts testify as to the gun's
calibration.  Regardless of the strange facts of Roberts, it now appears
the gun will almost always come in (See Lightfoot, et al.)

3. No, Roberts did not overrule Peterson, and I never said this.  Peterson
is an aberration in the case law.  It is now a subject of judicial notice
all over the state that radar guns will satisfy the Kelly-Frye test, and
are known to be scientifically reliable.

4. In criminal law, there are so many changes in the case law that it is in
your best interest to rely upon the latest cases if the newer cases are on
point.  I think that much has changed since the Peterson decision, and I
question reliance on it now that the issue has been addressed twice in the
past two years (by both Div. 1 and 2).

5. It is clear that if you do not like what is being used against you, you
must object to preserve your rights and record the issue for appeal.

6. DO NOT ASK for a "motion for summary judgment" or "failure to state a
claim" at the end of the trial in a criminal proceeding.  These are CIVIL
PROCEDURES and DO NOT APPLY in criminal proceedings.

I just think that Linus' opinion is somewhat unclear, in that remember
radar IS admissible in Washington, regardless of the nuances of each
appellate decision.

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!!!********NOTE********THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!!!

The Judge

'90 80Q
'85 5K (real son of a bitch; gone and forgotten)
'84 VW Scirocco 16V Wolfsburg Ed.

                         ^
             O-----------O-----------O
            /\           |           /\
           /  \          |          /  \
          /    \         |         /    \
         /      \        |        /      \
         |______|        |        |______|
                   ------O------
                   /           \
             The Ol' Scales of Justice