FINALLY, amost six months after the fact, jurisprudence has run its course.
Went to court today for the trial. Two cases ahead of mine, both quickies that were pleaded out.
There were 4 witness for the case....the lady I hit, the 17 year-old girl who hit me, and the hot 30-something that hit the 17 year old that hit me.
First to testify was the 17 year-old that hit me. Gawd, teenagers are STOOPID!!!
I mean, REALLY STOOPID. After the judge asked her a few preliminary questions he asked "How fast were you going?" "About 40-45 mph" the girl replies. "How close behind were you?" from the judge. The idjit teenager replies "three or four feet." The judge, a bit taken aback about the statement, asks again "how far away from Mr. Howard's car were you?" "Three, maybe four feet" she replies. "And how fast?" again the judge asks. "I wasn't speeding, sir...no more than 45" is the reply.
Thank you, the judge replies and then asks "were you cited in the accident?"
"No, sir" is her reply.
So, after the first witness, the judge has determined that the person who hit ME was following too closely, AND didn't get a ticket for it.
Then the next witness, the lady whom I hit, comes in. Basically tells the judge she was hit one time, and the damage on her car is less than $100 on a '98 Lexus. She's dismissed.
Then comes my ace-in-the-hole....the guy who runs the body shop that fixed my car. Complete with photos, insurance documents, certification statements as an accident re-constructionist -- the whole nine yards.
Using the photos, he describes to the judge how that 90% of the $6000 in damages to my car occurred to the uni-body frame in the REAR of my car, including buckled floor panels, to the point the floor pan of the trunk had to be replaced because it was folded around the spare in the tire-well, while the VISIBLE damage to the car was the bent hood, grill and broken lights on the font of the vehicle.
The judge asks him "as a certified accident re-constructionist, what do you determine from the accident damage?" "Easy, your honor" he replies. "The vehicle was struck with significant impact from the rear and driven forward in to the vehicle in front. Nothing else could explain the cosmetic damage to the front of the vehicle along with the catastrophic damage in the rear."
He's dismissed, and I'm called to testify.
"Mr. Howard, give your account of what happened" the judge says.
"I'm stopped in traffic, and get slammed into the rear, driving me forward in to the first car" I say.
He sits me down and calls on the LEO who wrote me up. Well, guess who didn't bother to show up!?!? Mr. Smart-Ass-Know-It-All Officer who decided I was at fault because my car's grill was damaged, but didn't bother opening the truck to see that my car's rear end was shorter by about 1 foot.
"NOT GUILTY! HAVE A NICE DAY!"
Took almost 6 months to conclude this nightmare, but it's all over.
What really grinds me is two things -- (1) the charging officer never showed up for my pretrial hearing OR for the trial, and (2) the girl who hit me wasn't cited for causing $6000 in damages to my (wife's) car because SHE was doing what I was charged with -- Following Too Closely.
Sometimes....JUST sometimes.....ya get a break in life.
Now I don't want my forum LEO buddies to think I have an axe to grind against police, but the officer NEVER replied to my lawyer's emails requesting a conference to give him a chance to pull the citation, based on the accident re-constructionist's determinations, and he never showed up at the pretrial hearing OR the final disposition hearing. I guess it's just the arrogance of the little prick, assuming MY guilt, because the front EXTERIOR damage on my car was worse than EXTERIOR damage in the rear. I can still hear him today "Mister Howard, my experience as a Police Officer tells me you were at fault because of the damage to the FRONT of your car." Sheesh!!
Oh well, back to work!
