if i go to court and a police officer testifes and is brought back again and admits to the first testimony was incorrect on his part and he is now changing it; shouldn't he get in trouble for perjury? if he is the one and only so called witness ( it is a dui case )shouldn't the judge then throw the case out? the officer lied and admitted that there was no slurred speech, passed all tests except the pivot in the walk the line test. (cop demonstrated the so called pivot he wanted done, and almost fell in the court room) no irratic driving. stopped person stating the hit a curb while pulling out of the parking spot (pictures proved there was no curb) all happened in a private parking lot! no vechile codes violated.

Well then, what was your bac?

i am sorry i dont understand your question

BAC is Blood Alcahol content...

what was it?

.08 is the point you reach that you are over the legal limit..

I am guess this is not your first DUI.

this is first and it was .08

the whole thing is that the officer lied on the stand and admitted to it! isnt that perjury since he originally lied under oath! plus it is clear there was no probable cause to stop me. i was not on a public street, was in a parking lot and was only pulling out of a parking spot. to tell you the truth when i talked to other cops they said that it was clear entrapment!

So the officer testified in trial, and then something happened and so the officer came back in the same trial and admitted that his prior testimony was wrong? Can you elaborate on this? How did the officer's testimony become called into question?

Did the officer admit the prior testimony was just mistaken or did he actually admit that he knowingly falsified testimony. Only the latter is a crime.

A judge cannot just "throw out" a case because a witness gave wrong or falsified testimony. If the witness's testimony is deemed to not be credible than, on motion of either party, it can be stricken and its as if it never happened. If this testimony is necessary to prove the State's case than after the State rests, on motion of the defense, the judge can grant a directed verdict which results in an acquittal.

thank you very much.

originally this case was infront of a newly appointed judge. he is very green and even the other judges indicated so. at the supression hearing the officer was on the stand and was questioned about the whole thing. he indicated the probable cause to stop for dui was that when the person backed out of the parking space they hit the curb. even though the officer indicated defendent was cooperative, was not driving irratically or anything. he took person to hospital and drew blood within 1/2 hr of the inital stop. the attorney asked that the original judge be excused from the case because he denied the suppresion. he was glad to pass the case on to another judge. the other judger first asked why in the world they even have this case. well this time we produced pictures of the area involved and the office said that the defendent did not hit any curb cause there wasnt one there. the attorney asked if he wanted to retrack his original testimony from the supression hearing and he stated yes he wants to change everything because he was wrong

originally this case was infront of a newly appointed judge. he is very green and even the other judges indicated so.

What other judges?



at the supression hearing the officer was on the stand and was questioned about the whole thing. he indicated the probable cause to stop for dui was that when the person backed out of the parking space they hit the curb. even though the officer indicated defendent was cooperative, was not driving irratically or anything. he took person to hospital and drew blood within 1/2 hr of the inital stop. the attorney asked that the original judge be excused from the case because he denied the suppresion. he was glad to pass the case on to another judge. the other judger first asked why in the world they even have this case. well this time we produced pictures of the area involved and the office said that the defendent did not hit any curb cause there wasnt one there. the attorney asked if he wanted to retrack his original testimony from the supression hearing and he stated yes he wants to change everything because he was wrong

And your question is?

Sounds to me like the cop made a simple error.

The judge denied the suppression? That's almost unbelievable,,,, who's the guy think he is,,,, a judge or something?

how would this be a simple error? boy if we commit perjury then our cases are thrown out, but it is ok to lie on the stand esp if you are a police officer? he denied the suppresion based on what the officer originally indicated then he recanted his story so it has to go back to the original judge to re-review the additional evidence as well as the records in the court room where the police office admitted to being wrong