Fight Your Ticket
Out-of-Date - But Still a Resource

If you haven't read the Links page section about Fight Your Ticket, please be sure to do so.

These are my additional comments about Fight Your Ticket and Win in California, by David W. Brown, 10th, 11th and 12th Editions only (I strongly advise you not to use an edition before the 10th).

I have arranged the comments by subject matter, with the subjects that are the most useful, or on most people's minds, coming first.

A:  Additional Entries Needed in FYT's Index

11th Edition -

Discovery 10/5 - 8, 10/21 - 23, 10/26, 10/30 - 41, 11/13, 16/5
Speedy trial 10/21 - 23
Taping a trial 10/28 - 30, 12/4 - 5, 16/16
Waiving time (for speedy trial) 10/21 - 22

12th Edition -

Discovery 155 - 159, 174, 176, 179, 185 - 195, 229, 320
Speedy trial 173 - 175
Taping a trial 181 - 183,  269, 336
Change of Venue 169, 176, 181, 195, 320, 357 

B:  Traffic School and Second Offender Traffic School

1.

Traffic school:  In Chapter 9, at the end of "Infraction Option # 1," all three editions say,

"Note, however, that by pleading not guilty you give up your right to attend traffic school and have the charges dismissed."

That's misleading.  It makes it sound like there's no chance of getting traffic school once you've pled not guilty.  I agree that by pleading not guilty you do give up your automatic right to attend traffic school - the granting of it becomes a matter of the judge's discretion.  But it's been my observation that most judges will still grant it if you ask at the beginning of the trial session - and many will grant it even after they've found you guilty.

2.

Traffic school:  In Chapter 9, at the end of "Infraction Option # 2," all three editions say,

"But remember, once you've pleaded not guilty, you have forfeited your opportunity to attend traffic school."

That is flat-out  incorrect.  See Comment # 1, above.

3.

Traffic school:  In Chapter 9, at the end of "Infraction Option # 5," the 10th and 11th editions say,

"Warning:  If you decide to fight (by pleading not guilty), you usually forfeit the option of having your case dismissed in exchange for attending traffic school."

"Usually" exaggerates the risk.  See Comment # 1, above.

In the same location (end of Option # 5), both editions say,

"(See Chapter 10, Section A2e.)"

That should be "Section A3e."

4.

Second Offender traffic school:  In Chapter 9, in the middle of "Infraction Option # 5," all three editions say,

"Note:  Traffic school cannot be chosen as an option more than once in an 18-month period."

1 - 4, overall.

The net effect of the repeated warnings is that readers are discouraged from fighting their tickets.

5.

Traffic school:  In Chapter 14 (Section B3 or page 300), all three editions say,

"You might remind the judge that the law says a judge can't routinely apply a policy against traffic school for those who go to trial and lose.  (People v. Wozniak (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d Supp. 43)"

This is important information to have if you are going to trial, and I do not understand why the Wozniak decision is mentioned only one time in the whole book, and then only "way in the back."
There is also a question as to whether the Wozniak decision, and an earlier decision, People v. Enochs,  are "precedent" in all of California, or just in Los Angeles County;  the abbreviation "Supp." in the case cites indicates that the decisions came from a lower-level appeals court, whose decisions may or may not be accepted by courts in other counties.

C:  Police Trickery

1.

Fake Tickets:  All three editions fail to mention, anywhere, the existence of Fake/Snitch Tickets.

D:  Discovery and Evidence

1.

Discovery:  In Chapter 10 all three editions have a 9+ page motion form entitled "Notice of motion for preclusion of testimony...."  This is the type of motion you would file if the city fails to provide the Discovery you requested.

I have looked up all the case cites given in the motion, and many citations bear typographical errors.  Additionally, there are no case cites newer than 1993, something that is likely to make a judge, even one who is not a legal scholar, suspect that he is not being presented with the latest and best law on the subject - even if indeed it is the latest and best.

2.

Discovery:  In Chapter 10 all three editions have a couple of motion forms where it says "plaintiff's motion" instead of "defendant's motion."  The forms are entitled:
A.  "Order granting defendant's motion for preclusion of testimony..." and
B.  "Order granting defendant's motion for monetary sanctions."

3.

FYT mentions the Best Evidence Rule several times but does not discuss it at any length, nor do the 10th or 11th editions index it.

E:  Defenses

1.

Defenses:  Neither the 11th Edition, which was published in 2005, nor the 12th Edition, which was published in 2007, mentions Assembly Bill 1022 of 2003 (effective Jan. 1, 2004) or the extensive changes it made to VC 21455.5; nor did they discuss the potential avenues of defense opened by those changes.

F:  Tear-Out Forms

All three editions contain tear-out copies of standard legal forms that are now readily available on the Internet.  To avoid having its readers try to use forms that may have become out-of-date, FYT should delete the tear -out forms and simply instruct its readers to obtain the forms on the 'Net.
An example:  The 12th Edition carries a tear-out copy of SUBP-002, a Subpoena Duces Tecum form, which, on July 1, 2007 (a couple of months before the 12th Edition appeared in stores) was superseded by the very different form CR-125.  See the Getting Records page for details about CR-125.

G:  Appeals

All three editions fail (Chapter 16) to make it clear that most traffic courts will accept a stenographer's transcript as the Settled Statement on Appeal (assuming there was a steno present).

---------------------------------
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net