Why is it effectively impossible to contest a traffic ticket without a lawyer?
Emphasis on effectively.
Yes, it’s possible to learn the legalisms and procedures; the dance steps that are required in order to perform before a judge. But – like trying to learn how to tango – it is a dance few non-lawyers ever master. Which is, I think, precisely the point.
The legal profession is a kind of high-brow cartel that – like any other cartel – manufactures work for itself. Work that is not actually needed but merely required. Like tax preparation assistance, for example. No one genuinely Progressivism: A Prime... Check Amazon for Pricing. needs this “service” – taxes being illegitimate takings-by-force of other people’s money. But most of us have no choice but to hire (and pay) a tax preparer, else we’re forced to pay even more in taxes.
So it is also with lawyers.
Especially traffic lawyers. Against the State: An ... Best Price: $2.11 Buy New $8.56 (as of 03:10 EST - Details)
Why, pray, should anyone charged with “speeding” require the “services” of a lawyer to present the relevant facts to a judge? It is not – as they say – rocket science. The cop – acting in his absurd capacity as the aggrieved party – presents his evidence that you were “speeding:”
The posted/legal limit on Electric Avenue is 35 MPH. He witnessed a blue 2009 Chevy apparently exceeding this speed, which he confirmed by use of radar or laser. He states that he pulled the vehicle over and identified the Real Dissent: A Libert... Best Price: $8.48 Buy New $7.93 (as of 03:10 EST - Details) defendant (that’s you) as the driver and issued you a ticket for driving 44 MPH in a 35 zone, contrary to the law.
You produce evidence in your defense, in simple conversational English: A search of county records shows that the 35 MPH speed limit was posted without a traffic survey having been done, as required by law (the relevant papers are passed to the judge). Therefore, the posted limit is legally non-binding. Or, you have obtained records that show the cop’s radar equipment was not tested and calibrated – as required by law – prior to the date it was used in this case. Therefore, the accuracy of the cop’s radar reading is questionable – therefore, there is reasonable doubt you (the defendant) were in fact speeding.
And so on.
But, of course, this is not how it goes. If a Mere Mundane (as Well Grigg so accuratelystyles it) attempts to present relevant facts – even if “open and shut” exculpatory – without the flim-flam of proper procedure, the judge will summarily dismiss said facts as “irrelevant” or “out of order” or some such thing. Your defense hinges less on the facts than it does on how they are presented.