|
Prepared Statement
A prepared statement will help you from saying umm and uhhh and can also keep you on track for what your arguments are. The idea is to tell the court what your going to tell them, tell them each point during your testimony, refer to a list of questions you can use when cross-examining, and then tell them what you told them if you are given the opportunity for a closing statement.
During your trial, you should have a prepared statement to read to the judge.
Here is an example of a prepared statement I might use. You can use a similar statement.
Statement by the Accused:
YOUR HONOR, I am licensed by the state of North Carolina to operate
motorcycles in the state.
I was ticketed with an accusation that I violated the helmet law. I was wearing a helmet. I was not in violation, and ask for the case be dismissed.
I am accused because my helmet did not meet the approval of the citing officer. The officers disapproval is based on subjectivity and does not refer to a clear standard applicable to the motorcycle rider. In this case, the state must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
1. The helmet I was wearing failed to comply with a clear and applicable standard.
2. The standard is one that I can reasonably reference in order to ensure compliance.
3. The state must also prove that I failed to attempt a reasonably good faith understanding of the law prior to operating the motorcycle.
The basis for my defense is that both the law and federal standard is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to give adequate notice regarding the conduct it proscribes and fails to set forth an ascertainable standard of guilt.
The helmet statute, GS 20-140.4, references Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”) No. 218. As an average person of reasonable intelligence, the statute was vague, and is still vague, to me. It does not appear to be a clear and applicable standard. An average person of reasonable intelligence has no idea what FMVSS 218 is. I called the Governors office and asked the person on the phone, what is FMVSS 218. The person was not able to answer.
In good faith, I have done additional research to find out what FMVSS 218 is. I have discovered this is a standard which is applicable to manufacturers, distributors, and importers of helmets. Since I am not a
manufacturer, this is not a standard for me to comply with.
The standard allows manufacturers to use a self-certifying process. Most helmets available to the motorcycling consumer are not tested by any federal agency. To actually conduct testing of helmets there is a portion of the standard which describes the testing in engineering terms. Proof that my helmet does not meet Federal standards requires expert opinion and actual testing of this helmet. As part of the testing process, the helmet is destroyed. The testing is nothing that can be done either on the side of the road by a law enforcement officer, and cannot be done by the consumer or motorcycle operator. I also offer proof that my helmet was not tested, because I still have it, and it was not destroyed.
Expert opinion is not proper testimony unless the helmet was actually tested. To my knowledge, there is no case law in this state to support the use of expert opinion without actual testing when a technical test
is required by law to prove compliance with a standard.
At this time, I would like to inform the court that I object if the prosecution uses the term DOT Approved, or DOT sticker. Unless the state can provide evidence to counter my evidence that the DOT does not approve helmets, and unless the state can prove that the presence or absence of DOT Approved stickers are proof of compliance and non-compliance, I contend that case precedence as observed in California versus Richard Quigley should apply. In that case, Superior Court Judge
Michael Barton found that “there is no such term as DOT Approved, in fact or in law.
Therefore, I respectfully request that you find me NOT GUILTY. Additionally, I motion that the court document this finding because I do not want to appear before the court again on the same charges from the same officer if I am lawfully a helmet.
Note that I can actually say all these things since they are true for me. They might not be true for you, so you will have to customize this for yourself.
Disclaimer: Biker Court is not lawyers, so you should consuilt an attorney.
|
|
