Originally Posted by Handy
Why can't a the citing officer issue and affidavit saying that your speed was not reasonable and prudent to counter your affidavit? The officer could be considered an expert in the matter so that would be evidence to contradict your evidence.
What about legal proceedings where it is "The People Vs. Sgt. Duster", aren't the The People a person?
That is a good question. In my opinion, if the case were brought in the officer's name, as the injured party, this might be possible. But only if he had supporting evidence to clearly show his claim was valid. Video showing poor control of the vehicle, witnesses to dangerous or reckless driving, that sort of thing.
I think he would have to show in what way the speed was unreasonable or imprudent. This would require sworn testimony to some specific act committed by the driver to illustrate how the speed would meet this claim.
If the driver had no altercation with another road user, and the officer had no additional evidence to show how it violated "the peace and dignity of the state," (as the injury was described) I think that a cross examination of the officer could have him confirm this, and would undo any such a claim. Unless he lies while under oath. Then all bets are off.
Personally, I don't think the prosecutor wants the cop in the courtroom if there is any possibility their testimony might jeopardize the outcome.
Frankly, I was quite surprised that the officer wasn't invited to the sandbox on any of my visits. Though the prosecutor was unable to bring the case to trial, so I can see there was no need for the officer until the case reached that point.
Oddly, in the case paperwork the citing officer's name wasn't even on the summons to the County court at all. In fact, some officer (perhaps a supervisor) whom I had no interaction with had their name on the summons as the citing officer. I thought it was kinda weird, but had a few other volleys to throw across the net before needing to address this distraction.
As to the question of "The People" let's try to define this.
Is "The People" a singular flesh and blood person?
Are "The People" a registered corporation or association?
If not, then "The People" are not a "person" in the legal sense.
As with "The State of ..." they might be described as a "body politic" which wouldn't pass the test of being a legal person.
In your example, Sir SgtDuster the Guilty would be a member of "The People" as well as being the accused. (except in this instance the accused would have already admitted guilt and not appealed to a court of record to deny the existence of the plaintiff)