Unless the traffic case was considered a criminal matter, it was governed by traffic court's rules of evidence, which is basically civil court. It makes a difference what a person is cited for. A flashing red is the equivalent of a stop sign, not a stop light. The citation issue is real, not a trick. Traffic court is about discovery as well as about enforcement.

This is also why district attorneys are very careful how they phrase their indictments in criminal cases. They indict for the crime on which they believe they can get a conviction, based on the evidence. Justice is best served this way.

The district attorney in the heinous case on which you originally commented indicted for a capital crime in criminal court. He wouldn't have done that without the evidence to support it. Discovery takes place before the case even comes before the jury.

Executing people to prevent release on appeal is a vote of no confidence in the legal system and in all the officers of our courts, from the police right up to the highest judges in the land. If we don't believe we have a system that delivers justice, then every trial is a show trial. If we don't believe that the system sometimes errs and therefore that we should be cautious about execution in case we convict the wrong person, then we hold unrealistic ideas about human infallibility.

Execution is a bad idea on so many levels.