“But this ruling means the burden of proof would be on the defense to show that the officer’s estimate was wrong.”
In other words, the defense is now carrying the burden to prove innocense.......
If this is such a good decision, why not just allow the officers to write down plate numbers to mail tickets later. Then they could get the multiple speeders and not be bound by their discression to pull one over instead of another...
Yes, that's the way trials have always worked. This ruling isn't changing any of that. Once the prosecution overcomes the presumption of innocence and establishes its case sufficiently (prima facie), it's then the defense's burden to prove them wrong.
All this case does is say that an officer's speed estimate can be used to establish the prosecution's case. It's evidence like any other, and can be overcome if the defense has something better.
The court ruling just says that a trained, experienced officer's speed estimate is more than a wild guess and can be used as prima facie evidence. If there's something more accurate available which contradicts his estimate, or if he is a proven perjurer, etc. etc., then the officer's estimate might not carry much weight at trial.
If a particular officer abused this credibility and got slammed a few times at trial, then his estimates would quickly lose any value in the future.