by Guest » Mon Nov 15, 2010 02:51 am
So I was recently in a traffic accident, fairly minor, but I rear-ended someone. I was cited for Failure To Maintain Assured Clear Distance. Is there any reason I shouldn't just plead guilty and pay the fine? It seems pretty cut-and-dry.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 04:27 am Post Subject:
Is there any reason I shouldn't just plead guilty and pay the fine? It seems pretty cut-and-dry.
Sure, it "seems" pretty cut-and-dried today. But just wait until the other party finds a lawyer who wants to sue you for $1,000,000 for the pain and suffering of his client, his client's $500,000 in chiropractor visits, treatments, physical therapy, and more. Then you'll wish it had only been cut-and-dried.
You don't want to plead GUILTY, you want to plead NOLO CONTENDERE ("no contest"). A guilty plea is a free pass into civil court -- the party who you rear-ended goes in and says, "You don't have to decide whether the defendant caused the collision, she already pleaded guilty. All you have to do is decide how much it's worth."
On the other hand, if you plead NO CONTEST, they would first have to prove that you caused the collision before you could be held financially responsible. Doesn't mean you won't be found responsible, but anything could happen in civil court with a jury -- just ask OJ Simpson.
So DON'T plead guilty, and DON'T just pay the fine (same as pleading guilty). Appear at the hearing and plead NOT GUILTY (hoping that the officer doesn't show up for the trial, in which case your citation will be dismissed -- but if he shows up, then you want to change your plea to NO CONTEST instead) or plead NO CONTEST and throw yourself on the "mercy" of the court. You might even pay a smaller fine than the clerk of the court would charge according to the fine schedule.
If you don't understand any more than this, you'll be fine (until you end up being sued in civil court): DON'T PLEAD GUILTY OR PAY THE FINE -- PLEAD NO CONTEST/NOLO CONTENDERE and pay whatever the judge tells you to pay.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 04:52 am Post Subject:
Thanks for the advice. I should have been a little clearer: reading the ticket, it says that a plea of 'No Contest' waives my right to a trail by judge and/or jury and will result in a conviction on my driving record. It looks like pleading 'Not Guilty' allows me to appear before the court. So you're recommending I plead 'Not Guilty,' right?
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 06:50 am Post Subject:
No, I'm NOT recommending you plead not guilty (although you are free to do so). It's not a problem to plead NO CONTEST. Nolo contendere IS the same as a "guilty conviction", but is entered as something other than GUILTY in the official court records -- and a plea of no contest cannot be revealed (except by you inadvertently) in a civil court trial.
Think of it this way: it was a rear end collision, with you being at the rear -- what other defense do you have -- "I was blinded by the sun"? You failed to maintain a safe following distance -- guilty.
But when you have committed a tort (such as an auto collision, the civil equivalent of a criminal act) that also involves a criminal or other offense (like following too close), it is the primary reason to plead NO CONTEST -- so that you are not legally presumed to be responsible for the event that brings you to civil court -- where someone is trying to get at your money.
If there is no possibility of being found not guilty at trial, you should avoid pleading not guilty and take the no contest route. That's what I meant by "throwing yourself on the 'mercy' of the court."
Yes, there will be no "trial" or other waste of the court's time. But you will still appear before the judge, who may be favorably disposed to you and give you a lighter fine than if you had gone the trial route. Your fine cannot be more than if you paid it without thinking, because there are maximum penalties attached to all such offenses.
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:35 pm Post Subject: No Contest
Most courts no longer accept no contest; Mine allows only guilty or not guilty. I'm in similar situation, but the vehicle in front made the last minute stop on 50mph highway and I was actually driving within at least 1 1/2 car distance, so was not tailgating.
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:43 pm Post Subject:
at least 1 1/2 car distance, so was not tailgating
That is not the correct rule as the distance changes based on the speed. It's a 2 second rule. I'd say a distance of 20' at 50mph is no where near enough room for even the best of conditions.Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 04:54 am Post Subject:
Most courts no longer accept no contest
Since when?
I was actually driving within at least 1 1/2 car distance, so was not tailgating.
LOL! The old "rule" used to be 1 car length for every 10 mph, but even that is insufficient.
At 50 mph, your vehicle is traveling 73 feet, 4 inches per SECOND. Typical panic reaction time is about 0.75 - 1.25 seconds, so your vehicle has traveled between 55 and 100 feet BEFORE you even begin to brake. Factor in the stopping distance, and yours and the other vehicle are destined for the repair facility or the salvage yard.
A little more following distance next time.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 02:10 pm Post Subject: responses
I went to court and asked about the "No Contest" and they said no must be "guilty" or "not guilty".
Actually, the damage was very minor on my front. The body is in one piece. As for the other vehicles, no trip to the salvage. Repair shops, yes.
So what would be the option that you recommend? Guilty or Not Guilty?
Add your comment