TruTV’s Jean Casarez reported this morning that in the trial of NJ State Trooper Robert Higbee she heard another state trooper testify that standard operating procedure (“SOP”) is to radio in a report while “filling the gap” (catching up with) between the patrol car and a speeding vehicle. I wonder if that’s what the jury heard the witness say, because it isn’t what I heard him say.

I thought the witness said SOP was not to radio in until the patrol car was close enough to the speeder’s vehicle to read the license plate and assess the risks. But, since I wasn’t listening as attentively as a reporter in the courtroom, I assumed I was wrong—until a TruTV commentator read aloud the NJ state police policy on stopping traffic violators. The commentator who read the policy concluded his remarks by interpreting the policy 180 degrees differently than I interpreted it.

This is a great example of why juries listen to testimony and then deliberate about it. People hear and understand things in a wide variety of ways. No trial is ever cut-and-dried. Cut-and-dried issues do not often make it into court.

The confusion seems to concern the definition of “pursuit.” A trooper follows one set of procedures to evaluate the situation (this was what Trooper Higbee was doing). Once the trooper determines to make a traffic stop, he follows a different set of procedures. The second set of procedures covers “pursuit.” Among these pursuit procedures is radioing in to dispatch and then turning on the siren and warning lights.

Isn’t it interesting that lawyers (such as TruTV commentators and reporters) can hear the same testimony that a non-lawyer juror does and come to two completely different conclusions? Isn’t it interesting that lawyers and non-lawyers can interpret a paragraph of police procedures completely differently?