Trial - It's Not Me - Illegal Red Light Cameras

If you haven't already done so, please read Defect # 1 on the Home page

Hawthorne Docs Set # 6
"It's Not Me" Trial

This trial is an example of how close a judge can come to convicting you - when it may not have been you - and also is an example of what may be improper arm-twisting by a judge (see text in bold).
After the defendant deflected his attempt to get her tell the officers the ID of the driver, I believe that the judge must have remembered his obligation to make a decision on the defendant's claim of innocence. I think the judge's decision to stop his arm-twisting may also have been influenced by the fact that his words were being recorded by a stenographer.

This transcript copy was made by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) from the court reporter's transcript.
Explanatory notes by the editor are in double square brackets [[ ]].
This transcript may be freely copied and distributed, so long as credit is given to highwayrobbery.net .
Other transcripts are available at: WeHo Trial Transcript , Culver City Documents, and Sacramento Left-Yellow Appeal.

IN RE THE MATTER OF JOAN SPARROW

JANUARY 25, 2005

HON. JOHN R. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER

APPEARANCES

OFFICER MIKE MULLEN REPRESENTING THE HAWTHORNE POLICE DEPARTMENT;

JOAN SPARROW, DEFENDANT, IN PRO PER.

THE COURT: JOAN SPARROW

HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME?

MS. SPARROW: SPARROW

THE COURT: ARE YOU READY FOR TRIAL?

MS. SPARROW: YES.

THE COURT: OKAY. LET’S PROCEED WITH HER CASE.

OFFICER MULLEN: ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS THE INTERSECTION OF HINDRY AND ROSECRANS, NORTHBOUND HINDRY, TWO RIGHT-TURN POCKETS, [[TO]] EASTBOUND ROSECRANS. THE DEFENDANT IS IN THE 1999 CHEVROLET SEDAN AND IT’S LIGHT IN COLOR. THAT WAS THE DEFENDANT IN THE RIGHT LANE (INDICATING).

THE COURT: OKAY.

OFFICER MULLEN: I WILL REPEAT IT ONE MORE TIME. THE LIGHT IS IN THE RED PHASE THE WHOLE TIME AND THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO STOP, SIR.

I REST.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE OFFICER ABOUT YOUR TICKET?

MS. SPARROW: THE PICTURE IS VERY BLURRY SO I AM NOT REALLY SURE IF IT WAS ME DRIVING THE CAR AT THAT TIME BECAUSE I WORK ON HINDRY AND ROSECRANS. I AM BLOCKS FROM THAT LIGHT AND I USUALLY LET MY MOM AND MY SISTER BORROW THE CAR.

THE COURT: OKAY, WELL, THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN. WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF I CAN MAKE A DISTINCTION.

OFFICER MULLEN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS OUR CASE WITH THE CALIFORNIA I.D. PHOTO THAT WE COMPARED WITH THE DRIVER AND THE REGISTERED OWNER.

THE COURT: OKAY.

JUST HAND IT TO THE BAILIFF WHEN YOU ARE FINISHED.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT BEFORE I MAKE MY RULING?

MS. SPARROW: I HAVE JUST -- I WORK IN THAT AREA. I AM 2 BLOCKS FROM THAT LIGHT.

I AM JUST 21. I JUST GOT MY DRIVER’S LICENSE WHEN I WAS 18, AND MY INSURANCE IS ALREADY HIGH BECAUSE I AM YOUNG AND I HAVE INSURANCE ON MY OWN, AND THAT IS IT.

THE COURT: OKAY. NOW THAT YOU HAVE EXAMINED THE PHOTOGRAPHS, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT TO ADD?

MS. SPARROW: NO.

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO GO TO TRAFFIC SCHOOL?

SEE, IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR YOU TO GO TO TRAFFIC SCHOOL BECAUSE YOU PAID THE MONEY FOR IT, BUT WHEN YOU PAY THE MONEY FOR THE TRAFFIC SCHOOL, YOU COMPLETE IT, YOU SEND IN TO COURT THE CERTIFICATE, AND IT WILL BE DISMISSED

MS. SPARROW: I AM NOT SURE IF IT’S ME OR NOT. IT COULD HAVE BEEN MY SISTER. WE WERE SHARING CARS AT THAT TIME.

THE COURT: IT COULD HAVE BEEN YOUR SISTER? WELL, I AM GOING TO PRESENT THIS BACK TO YOU.

AND I WILL HEAR YOUR ARGUMENT AS TO WHY THIS PHOTOGRAPH PROVES THE CASE AGAINST HER. I CAN'T REALLY TELL, BUT I WILL LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

OFFICER MULLEN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, BASED ON THE PHOTOGRAPH FROM THE DRIVER’S LICENSE PICTURE AND WHAT WE SEE BEHIND THE WHEEL, THIS PERSON IS LISTED AS REGISTERED OWNER AS FAR AS --

THE COURT: BUT SHE CLAIMS THAT HER SISTER DRIVES THE CAR, AS WELL.

OFFICER MULLEN: WITHOUT SEEING HER SISTER OR A PHOTOGRAPH OF HER SISTER, THERE IS ENOUGH OF A RESEMBLANCE FOR US TO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ONE IN THE SAME.

THE COURT: BUT I HAVE TO BE CONVINCED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND I WOULDN’T WANT TO MAKE HER RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CITATION IF IT WAS HER SISTER.

ARE YOU TESTIFYING THAT IT WAS YOUR SISTER THAT WAS DRIVING?

MS. SPARROW: IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MY SISTER OR MY MOM BECAUSE MY MOM AT THAT TIME DID NOT HAVE A CAR EITHER SO USUALLY THEY WILL PICK ME UP, DROP ME OFF AT WORK AND USUALLY TAKE THE CAR, BUT THE CAR IS REGISTERED UNDER MY NAME.

THE COURT: THERE USED TO BE A TIME IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION WHERE THE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE AUTHORITIES AND THIS CASE WOULD BE DISMISSED.

DO YOU STILL DO THAT?

OFFICER MULLEN: REPEAT THAT.

THE COURT: THERE USED TO BE A TIME WHEN IF A REGISTERED OWNER COMES IN AND SIGNS AN AFFIDAVIT INDICATING WHO THE CAR WAS GIVEN TO, THAT THE CITATION WOULD BE REISSUED IN THAT PERSON’S NAME.

OFFICER MULLEN: THAT IS CORRECT.

THE COURT: WHY DON’T YOU TALK TO THE OFFICERS ABOUT THIS AND GIVE THEM THE INFORMATION AND I WILL DISMISS IT AGAINST --

MS. SPARROW: I AM NOT SURE IF IT WAS MY SISTER OR MY MOM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THIS MATTER WILL BE DISMISSED.

THANK YOU.

(END OF PROCEEDINGS.)

[[From official court transcript. Name of defendant has been changed.]]