Originally Posted By: joemikeb
Originally Posted By: honestone
This also shows, as I stated previously, that Texas wastes tax payers' money, by having a jury trial! In Washington, it is much simpler, cleaner, and there is no jury present when one contests it, or in some cases (like we did for my wife's bogus ticket), one can contest it via the mail. That is definitely a wise use of taxpayers' money.

Jury trial for a traffic misdemeanor in Texas is an OPTION chosen by the defendant. The prosecutor and the court would prefer NOT to have a jury trial as it takes too much time for too many people and costs too much money, but it is the defendants constitutional right.

The "ridiculous fine" you are so exercised by includes court costs. While I do not have the particulars of that case available to me but I would not be at all surprised the actual fine was $12 and the remaining $200 was in court costs. From personal experience, pleading nolo contendere (no contest) and taking the safe driving course runs in the neighborhood of $250 in tuition and court costs for a similar 9 mph over the limit. The difference is this option can be expunged from your driving record and will not effect your auto insurance rates. I can also say that 60 years of driving experience in Texas would lead me to strongly believe the actual violation was significantly more than 9 mph but the arresting officer chose to give the driver a break and wrote the ticket for the lower speed to keep the violation at a lower level.

Reading between the lines, this rather immature individual was mad because he had been caught speeding, plead not guilty and requested a jury trial because he thought a jury would be more sympathetic than a judge. He was wrong about the jury's sympathies which made him even angrier and like an acting out teenager he chose to pay his fine in this manner. I suspect he was even angrier that his tantrum did not even rate a mention in the local news.



I understand all that, given the way things are setup in Texas. (In actuality, yes, one can choose the option for a hearing, but that hearing is with a jury present. That's my whole point!) But, the model here in Washington works just as well, and for most traffic infractions, a trial WITH A JURY PRESENT is extremely, extremely rare. And that being the case, court costs logically (there's that word again. I truly wonder if folks can understand that) are WAY, WAY less.

Again, I cite the example, regarding the bogus ticket my wife received a couple of years ago. That process was extremely cost effective, smooth, and definitely saved the taxpayers money (and thus that jurisdiction could wisely spend their funds on WAY MORE serious crimes). In Texas, we would have needed to have a trial jury to argue our case. Man, talk about inefficiency!