Every court in Southern California

04/25/2018

In most cases, we subpoena records from whatever entity cited our driver. For example, on basic speed law cases (e.g. citation for 45mph in a 35mph zone. These posted speed limits require a valid and current engineering traffic survey to justify the posted speed limit and if the survey is bad, the area is deemed a speed trap. If so, the officer can NOT testify to speed and the court can't even rule any further on the case.

So we subpoena the original survey and certain documents from the citing officer. Quite often, when the entity gets our subpoena, they just don't bother showing up. Most of these officers have no problem facing a driver in court. But they DON'T want to face attorneys in court and for good reason. We challenge them on everything. Many times, if the entity ignores the subpoena and doesn't produce the requested documents in court, the judge will many times dismiss the action for non-compliance with lawful discovery.So the bottom line is that there's a lot more to it than just saying "I wasn't speeding". That will get you nowhere.

03/22/2018

I'm pleased to announce that by June of this year, or possibly sooner, I'll be taking over the firm and Sherman Ellison will remain as counsel. Looking forward to the change and the great representation will be the same. If anyone has any questions regarding vehicle code violations in California, please feel free to send me a message and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

01/27/2018

To give you a lttle glimpse inside some of what Sherman Ellison and I do in trial I'll give you a prime example. Recently I had a trial in the main traffic trial department of a major city Superior Court.

It was a routine "basic speed law" case. The driver was cited at 50 in a 35 mph zone.

Ok. We file a Subpoena ordering production in court for many things :) including the engineering and traffic survey justifying the posted speed limit (if it can) and, ultimately, proving that, because the survey did NOT justify the posted limit, it is therefore a speed trap. Under those circumstances (per the California vehicle code), the officers testimony and in fact the courts jurisdiction to even hear the case are both lost. End of story. (That's what my trial motions and motions in Limine said). Of coures we file them in writing with the court in addition to appropriate oral objections during trial) on the off chance an appeal may be necessary and we have to preserve the clients' rights to file a timely notice of intent to appeal or let it go.

Thereafter, my office affidavited her for prejudice in every case of ours that ever came up on her master calendar (her trial court) which meant any of our cases that came up had to be sent out to another courtroom. She never gets the wisdom of my nonsense LOL). Tough luck. It gets sent out TO a REAL trial judge. I was inevitably always sent out to one of two departments and I was thrilled with either trial judge. Why? They routinely try serious criminal felonies and when they see "lawyering" (stuff we do) they honor it by following the law which, in turn, I honor. That's all we ever ask for. A fair shake. I've also NEVER lost a case in that courtroom after that.

That original traffic trial court is jammed with two groups; Cops (who really don't know much about the law except for the rote memorization stuff which they don't really understand), and violators who know nothing whatsoever of the vehicle code. Didn't even read it. So after the cop testifies (he got you visually, by pace, radar, laser, psychic network, whatever) going 50 in a 35 mph zone and the commissioner looks at you angrily in the eye (for not initially pleading guilty and wasting all her precious court time) and says "the officer says you were going 50. How fast do YOU say you were going (sense the trap coming?). You blurt out. "Not one mile over 38. Nowhere near 50". The cop is dead wrong". Duhhhhhhhh Guilty. You just admitted you were were going over the posted limit but in reality, you may, in fact (and in law) might not have violated the statute even if you were going 50. Why? PM me and I'll tell you the secret you get into the very special, highly professional, extremely successful Law Offices of Sherman M. Ellision Cornflakes box.

Now, to me, the dismissal in this case should have been obvious to any practitioner PARTICULARLY AN OFFICER OF THE COURT and particularly a commissioner who does NOTHING BUT TRAFFIC CASES. Wow. For chrissakes. Why did she do it? How did she manage it? There is, on trial days, always a jury box FULL of officers and she truly hates to disappoint by dismissing a case with the LAPD, CHP, Sheriff's Dept. on and on filling the box.

She obviously wants the people (the officers) to win. Truly a hangin' judge in every sense of the word. I know that because my case was the last one to be called (she didn't want to educate the masses LOL). Ever driver lost their case except fo the ones whose officer failed to show up. THe rest may have had great defense but they'll ever know.

I was very tempted to write a scathing letter complaining about the HIGHLY prejudicial remark she made in open court to the Judicial Counsel but my compadre, with a cooler head at the time, talked me out of it. That's me. Tiltin' at windmills (and cops LOL).BUT, that's what we do (and as far as Ive seen doing this exclusively for the last 12 years) I've not seen anyone else do what we do or get the consistent results we get.

But that is why (a) our win rate is over 90% and (b) I have noticed in a significant number of cases in the last couple of years, that when those subpoenas start to fly and the officers records and his offices records are sought, all legal (just a pain in the ass) and they know we're on it, there is more of a likelihood that they (the police agency) won't comply with the subpoena (i.e.won't deliver documents we requested under seal to court) and the citing officer won't show up in court; calls in ("has the flu" or is "in training" that day; uh huh). Case dismissed. So, we take this stuff as seriously as a heart attack. Lot of officers just don't want to be bothered dealing with us in court.

We even took one aspect of a photo red light camera case all the way up to to the California Superior Court (See Grey v. Superior Court - https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20160601030
Grey vs. Superior Court 247 Cal.App.4th 1159 (2016) ) For the bookworms. Ok. That serious enough for 'ya? I'm billing all of you for this tutorial :D That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Howard E. Hirsch, Esq.

Law Offices of Sherman M. Ellison
The Sherman Oaks Galleria-Comerica Bank
15303 Ventura Boulevard, 9th Floor
Sherman Oaks, California 91403

Telephone: 818.994.8888
Facsimile: 818.780.8989

Websites: www.ShermanEllison.com
www.traffic-ticket-attorney.com
www.866speeding.com

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION OPINION LAVIN J. x2014 INTRODUCTION Petitioner Steven Edward Gray seeks review of an order...20160601030

12/05/2017

After using FB for a year or so I just found out I had a page here LOL. Who knew. Well for those of you who know me, you know what my 9 to 5 is all about. For those who don't, I and the firm I work with, defend people in traffic court for all infractions and misdemeanors. (Yes some of those tickets you get can land you in jail - one example, improperly using someone elses handicapped parking permit - judges do NOT like people who do this and punish them accordingly - you do NOT want an amatuer attorney with you on this one.

Do we take this stuff seriously? Serious as a heart attack. If you ever wind up in traffic court. Watch the lawyers. Watch what they do. See if ANY of them come into court with prepared trial briefs, motions in limine, subpoenas for witnesses and document? You won't see it with ANY lawyers but us. It IS a lot of work but then our success rate of over 95% suggests we're doing something right. (By success I mean either a complete dismissal or a substantial reduction in the charges and/or the fines rendered.

As an example, I recently had a case in which the driver was clocked at 103 (obviously exceeding California's speed limit which is 65 mph). That was a two point DMV violation that not only had a huge fine, but also empowered the judge to take away the drivers license for 30 days to six months. Ouch. How would you like to be unable to drive for that period of time? I got the court to reduce the charge of VC 22349(b) to a 22348(a) which not only saved his license, saved him a ton of money, but I also got the court to allow traffic school. THAT was a huge win because courts DO NOT have to grant traffic school even if you're eligible for it after trial if you lose. If the court decides you were going well over 20 mph above the posted limit, most will NOT grant traffic school. I got traffic school. 103 mph. I considered that a huge win as did the client. That's the kind of stuff we do.

Secrets of the trade: How did I do it? This turned out to be a "pace" case. This is where the officer sees you burning it up and decided to follow you. He pulls behind you (ideally in you blind zone so you can't see him if you're not paying attention) and, maintaning his constant distance from for a mile or so, he'll check his speedometer, get your speed and then turn on those nasty red fishbowls and you sober up really quickly :)

In this case, we subpoenaed the calibration records for his speedometer. Why? Well it does have to be accurate right? I mean, if you could potentially lose your license and a couple of thousand in fines, it had damned well better be accurate.

Well, as it turns out, the officers copy of the calibration doc was all I needed for my defense. The document itself (which I introduced into evidence our OUR behalf) suprisingly showed that, at 40 mph, there was a percentage error rate of plus or minus 2 mph. At 60 mph, the error rate was plus or minus 3 mph. You Perry Masons out there can see where where I'm going with this (as did the judge as it turns out). He said to the officer "you can see where counsel is going with this can't you? If it's that inaccurate at 60 mph it's not unreasonable to say that, at 103 indicated mph, there could be an error rate of plus or minus 3 degrees"? The officer said (as he had to) :yes". That made my day. So that's kind of what I do during the day.

Now as to lawyer watching in court, count the attorneys who simply plead their client guilty and ask for a low fine and traffic school. How many did you see? ALL OF THEM. As far as I know, we are one of the only firms (if not the only firm that does what we do. They take a very low fee for the appearance and might have as many as 50 "clients" for that appearance, but those attorneys are not doing any for you that you couldn't do yourself by appearing on your own behalf and save the fee.

How serious are we? We took a red light camera case issue to the California Supreme Court. That serious enough? 'Nuff said.

If any of you have any traffic case questions, please feel free to PM you question and I'll do my best to get back to you. Note any answer will be based on California law and extended horse sense and I couldn't reference any foreign state statutes but I can give you a general approach based on the fact pattern you give.