- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 796
Ok Mr. Lawyer, go fight the Ohio Supreme court. Challenge their decision! Go right ahead! It is not my interpretation of the law, it is the Ohio Supreme court's. I am just reporting to you what they decided. If you do not like it and think it is unconstitutional then you should challenge the decision.
Nothing is 100%, sorry was inbad mood, I was a dick to you I apologize
In his dissent, Justice Terrence O’Donnell wrote that a police officer’s credibility – just like that of any other witness – is to be determined by the jury or other fact-finder, which can believe all, part, or none of the testimony. “Thus, I would assert that a broad standard as postulated by the majority that a trained, certified, and experienced officer’s estimate of speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding eclipses the role of the fact-finder to reject such testimony and thus such testimony, if found not be credible, could, in some instances, be insufficient to support a conviction.”
This dissent hits on what I meant.
We all know the dissent has no impact on the case at bar, but his train of thought is mine as well. In the case you cited the supreme court held that a trained officer's testimony is sufficient to meet the burden of proof, but a jury does not HAVE to always believe the officer if they question his credibility. A jury can always question a
witness's credibility. This case does not force a jury to always believe the officer, if they don't believe him they wont convict.
Case addresses burden of proof and what meets that burden
Last edited: