Cop's notes - admissible in evidence?

On May 7, 7:08 am, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:

> wouldn't you expect the cop to review his notes
> BEFORE testifying, so it was fresh in his mind, instead of reviewing
> them on the stand for the first time since the incident?

Not usually.  For one thing, even reviewing the notes is not likely to help the cop actually remember other details of the particular ticket incident.  So, for all practical purposes, the notes are the only substantive evidence available, and to get them into evidence, they need a "proponent" (a live witness, the cop) who can testify from present recollection that they are his notes, that he took them contemporaneously with when the incident occurred, and that they are fair and accurate.

For another thing, for reasons of efficiency cops are generally scheduled to come to court on the same day for several unrelated tickets which that particular cop issued to different people.  If he tried to review and memorize them in advance, he would still run the risk of mixing up the facts of case A with the facts of case B to be heard on the same day.

Thirdly, defendants often plead "guilty" or "guilty with an explanation" (in effect waiving trial but accepting a plea bargain at the arraignment stage) so that the cop does not have to testify, but the cop didnt know in advance that the defendant would do that, and so the cop has to appear in court anyway.  (If the cop doesn't appear, each defendant's case where the state is relying on that cop's testimony will probably be dismissed rather than rescheduled.)   

Or a defendant may not show up, or even if the cop is there, a judge may dismiss the case for some other reason.   So the cop is not going to waste his time reviewing particular notes until that particular defendant's case is called AND that defendant pleads "not guilty" and demands a trial, at which point the judge asks the state to present its evidence (i.e., for the cop to testify).   So there's no time frame in there where the cop _can_ review his notes between knowing that he will have to testify, and actually testifying.

Finally, the situation you describe relies on a different evidence rule, which allows virtually anything to be used to "refresh" a witness' present recollection.  Frex, you could wave a rose in front of his face and the aroma could remind him of some fact he needs to remember.   The witness with memory thus refreshed _is_ then competent to testify from his (refreshed) present recollection of the events he is testifying about.  Even an advance review of the notes would not do that for a typical cop in a typical traffic ticket case since he would still know nothing more than what was contained in his notes.

So, the cop situation is not "present recollection refreshed" but rather "past recollection recorded."  Apples and oranges.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685      (fax) 410-740-4300