Why is officer allowed to sit at "prosecution" table in traffic court? (california)?

D

DrPepperRocks

New member
I live in New Mexico. And I have been to traffic court. From what I understand the Officer can sit as the prosecution because they have been semi-trained to be a type of lawyer. When I was in traffic court the second time, the judge informed me the reason why the DA wouldn't be involved was because I didn't have a lawyer as well.
So... they've taken the classes to allow them to be the prosecution, and it's cheaper all around to not have the DA involved.
 
First, I understand that at least in California, the DA or whoever is the "prosecuting attorney" does not HAVE to be present in court for traffic infractions. (people v. carlucci, 23...)

I also understand that the officer is a WITNESS ONLY. He is not there acting as prosecutor. (people v. daggett(1988) 206...)

So my question is:

If there is no Prosecuting Attorney present, should not that table be empty? If the officer is a witness only, should he not have to sit in the witness stand? I understand that if I am representing myself, I am the defendant. So I have the right to sit at the defendant table. I MAY or MAY NOT wish to testify myself. So my status as witness is optional.

I feel that the officer sitting across from me for the whole trial makes the appearance that the court is elevating his postition to be equal with that of the missing prosecutor.

Has anyone heard of one filing a motion to complain/direct the court to have the officer sit in the witness stand only? I would like to see how that rocks the boat!
 
Back
Top