|
Added 1-30-10
2010
Appeal Decision - People v. Singh
This case is
an example of a "confrontation" (Sixth Amendment) defense (see Defect #
10 - D on the Home page).
This case
originating in the City of Newark is just the second
appellate decision,
anywhere in
California,
regarding the right to confrontation where the evidence came from a red
light camera. The first was in P. v. Bohl*.
This decision is final but has not been published, so cannot be cited
as precedent in other cases, except
possibly in other Alameda County cities.
The general issue of which
decisions get published, and which don't, is under study. See nonpublication.com
for more information.
Click on
these links for the documents in the Singh appeal
(chronological order):
Appellant's
Opening Brief (pdf)
Appellate Decision
(pdf) (also
see text, below)
This
is the decision:
|
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Date: January 6, 2010
Hon. Judge John True III, Presiding Judge
Judge Wynne Carvill
Judge Michael Gaffey
Michelle Esguerra , Deputy Clerk
People of the State of California, Plaintiff/Respondent
vs
----- Singh, Defendant/Appellant
Counsel appearing for Plaintiff: No Appearance
Counsel appearing for Defendant: No Appearance
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: RULING OF THE COURT
Action No. 4983 Trial
Court 5007----
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Similar to the affidavits
held inadmissible in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 129 S.Ct.
2527, there was no live testimony by any person involved in the
production of the Redflex Traffic Systems court Evidence Package (the
"Redflex Packet"). At most, there was Redflex Co-Custodian's
Declaration that the Redflex Packet was prepared in the normal course
of business and according to certain protocols. More importantly, since
the officer who had reviewed the Redflex film and photos was deceased,
there was no person to testify as to why a determination was made to
issue a citation. The sole testifying witness, Officer Hall was not the
officer who issued the citation and he admitted that "he does not know
what the business procedures of Redflex are, does not know how many
employees at Redflex process the Newark citations, and does not know
whether or not the documents in the court packet were prepared in the
normal course of Redflex business." (See Settled Statement p.2)
Moreover, Officer Hall did not know whether the documents were prepared
at or near the time of the alleged incident. Because the defense was
not able to freely and adequately cross-examine the witness on any of
these issues, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.
Remittitur to Issue.
Copies of this minute order mailed this date: January 7, 2010
Sherry Gendelman, Esq.
Attorney At Law
421 Grand Avenue, Suite A
S. San Francisco, CA 94080
Scott Jackson, DDA
District Attorney's Office
1225 Fallon St. 9th Floor
Oakland, CA. 94612
|
These materials may be freely copied and distributed, so long
as credit is given
to highwayrobbery.net .
---------------------------------
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net
|