Please don't flame. Help me Understand

[Cat_Doc]

Again I am sorry if I have insulted any of you it was not my intention far from it.

Apology accepted.

[Deputy757]

Don't you think a laywer would love to have that kind of ammo on a testifying cop?

Mr. Liberal Laywer: Did you not cite Mr Dork for speeding?
Cop: Yes I did I clocked Dork going 95 in a 70.
Mr. Liberal Laywer: Well what would you say if I have several witnesses that are preprared to testify that they observed you speeding out of your jurisdiction several times over the last year?. Care to explain that to the court. Not a likley scenario? Maybe but I don't know about you but I would never want to be in that postion.

First, saying "Did you not" is horrible grammar. But I digress.
The above interlude would never occur. Any prosecutor worth his/her salt would immediately object on the grounds of relevance. The fact that you may or may not have been observed speeding has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the defendants case.

[Group9]

Mr. Liberal Laywer: Well what would you say if I have several witnesses that are preprared to testify that they observed you speeding out of your jurisdiction several times over the last year?.

I would say that you need to go back to law school and retake the course on the Rules of Evidence.