French granted new trial over ticket

 

December 27, 2018

FRENCH

After being found guilty at both the Justice and District level courts, Plains resident Mark French has taken a speeding ticket straight to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana and they have agreed with one of his three arguments. French will receive a second trial at the District Court level.

French was successful in arguing that the prosecutor's comment to the District Court jury that he had already been convicted of the speeding charge in Justice Court was "'inappropriate' and 'prejudicial' and would likely 'inflame the jury against the defendant.'"

Based on this argument alone, it was concluded that "because the prosecutor stated prejudicial facts not before the jury's consideration, we reverse and remand to the District Court for a new trial."

On the other two of French's arguments, it was ruled that the District Court complied with their legal authority.

One unsuccessful argument filed by French was a "Motion to Dismiss Due to Lack of Particularized Suspicion and Lack of Corroborating Evidence" backed by his claim that he was not speeding and that there was "no particularized suspicion for the stop because it was based solely on Trooper (Zachary) Rehbein's uncorroborated account of what happened."

The Supreme Court ruling against this argument was reasoned that the jury would consider Rehbein's testimony and determine whether French was speeding or not, and that the evidence supported suspicion for the stop.

The second dismissed argument of French's was that the District Court abused its discretion when it did not allow him to argue that two or more witnesses must testify against a defendant in a criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court ruled that "neither the Montana or U.S. Constitution required the testimony of multiple witnesses to convict a person."

On March 8, 2016 French was cited by Montana Highway Patrol Trooper Rehbein for "exceeding the maximum speed limit by travelling 80 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour, night-time, zone," the case document states. It was here where French disagreed to have been speeding, arguing that he was only going 72 miles per hour.

According to French, upon asking for a printout of the radar reading, he was told there was not one but the Rehbein had visually determined French to be speeding and applied the radar to confirm his observation. French's beginning argument is that it is one man's word versus another, as neither one of them can "prove" anything.

Rehbein testified that he did observe a vehicle that appeared to be speeding in the night-time 65 miles per hour speed zone, and he activated his radar and "checked their speed at 80 miles an hour." He stopped the vehicle and asked for license, proof of insurance and registration. French provided his registration but did not have his driver's license or proof of insurance in his vehicle. Rehbein testified that he then issued a speeding citation to French.

He continued that his radar was functioning properly and that he did not have the ability to connect the radar to his dash-camera system nor was it capable of printing out the recorded clocked speed. He stated that after the stop, he performed a self-test to ensure the radar was working properly and created a "speed device log."

French feels the citation and conviction is unconstitutional and argues that "this is not about the money, it is about doing what is right. It is one man's word against another. I was not speeding. We need to start holding them accountable to the oath they have sworn into."

 

Reader Comments(0)

 
 

Powered by ROAR Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation
© Copyright 2024