Culver
City (cont'd), Sept.
11, 2003:
Size Doesn't Matter
During the trial of a ticket issued prior to the City's March
2003 posting
of larger signs, Comm. Amado ruled that since the picture of the signal
and the
lettering on the then undersized signs were the same size as those
required for
full-sized signs, the fact that the overall dimensions were too small
would not
matter.
Culver City (cont'd), Oct. 2, 2003: Who Gets
Traffic School
Getting Hard to Predict;
Commissioner Opines upon Effect of AB 1022 on Minimum Yellows
The Oct. 2 trials were heard by Comm. Amado. Sgt. Corrales
represented
the People.
Three of the eight cases were dismissed immediately, because
of bad
pictures. The remaining five defendants argued their cases and
lost. Four of them requested traffic school, two were granted,
two
not. There was no obvious difference in the cases between the two
granted
and the two not.
Defendant #1 : My small daughter in back seat spilled OJ all over
herself,
screamed, I turned to look, missed signal. School requested,
denied.
Defendant #2: The sun was in my eyes. I was putting visor
down
and missed signal. School requested, denied.
Defendant #3: An opposing left-turner waved me across, so I
proceeded.
Did not request school.
Defendant #4: Power to traffic lights was out two days
previously, it
could have affected signal the day I was ticketed. She
sensed
Comm. Amado wasn't buying her argument, requested school. Rather
than
ruling on the school request, the commissioner allowed Sgt. Corrales to
do
standard speech on how a traffic signal reacts to power outage.
Sgt.
Corrales admitted there had been an outage, but not at time of her
ticket.
Comm. Amado then asked her if she wanted to change plea. She pled
guilty,
was granted traffic school.
Defendant #5: This guy argued a long time - I have two full pages
of
notes on his case. Also, he was speeding, 54 in a 35, something
that is
rare with red light tickets. The yellow was too short, I
couldn't have
been in the intersection. He sensed that Comm. Amado wasn't
buying
it, so conceded guilt but complained that he hadn't been made aware
ahead of
time that there was video of him, and that he wouldn't have contested
the
ticket if the full evidence had been mailed to his house. Comm.
Amado
said: "I'm gonna let you go to traffic school because I
sandbagged
you."
Comm. Amado has granted "second offender" traffic school just once
during the ten months I have been observing his trials (see Sept. 4,
2003
entry, above). And during the trial session of Sept. 25, 2003, he
said,
just after granting (regular) traffic school to a defendant who
requested it
immediately after the conclusion of the officer's testimony: "Pretty
soon
we're gonna stop doing this."
(For more about traffic school policy, see the editorial in the
Letters/Comments section on the Links page.)
In
his
ruling on the claim of defendant #5 above
that the yellow was too short, Comm. Amado opined that the [then]
present
version of VC 21455.7 does not make use of the CalTrans chart of yellow
times
mandatory, leaving it to be advisory only, whereas the new
version
enacted by AB 1022 will in fact do so (once it is effective in January
2004).
I disagree. I think that AB 1022 has not resolved the 'advisory
vs.
mandatory' question. I think "Truth in Evidence"
prevails, and that, post-Jan. 1, judges who continue to consider the
chart as
merely advisory will be able to do so without restraint.
(For more about AB 1022, see the Action page.)
Culver City (cont'd), Oct. 16, 2003:
Defendant Beats 0.1
Ticket Using City's Own Video!
Five of the sixteen cases were dismissed immediately, because of bad
pictures. One more was an "it's not me" dismissal. The
balance, except for one, either pleaded guilty or were found guilty.
That one remaining case was interesting. But first, a little
background: At the beginning of every Culver City red light
camera trial
(or arraignment) session, the police are allowed to show a
city-produced public
relations videotape. The video tells us how great
Culver
City's camera program is, etc., and includes video of a signal
changing.
On Oct. 16, for the first time in my experience (and possibly
anywhere), a
defendant with a 0.1 ticket presented what I call a "filament"
defense (see newly-added Defect # 7 on the Home page), and won.
And she
did it in a very imaginative way. Initially she tried using the
color
photo printed on her ticket to convince Comm. Amado that both the amber
and the
red were on. But he wasn't buying that - he deflected her
argument by
asking Sgt. Corrales what color the light depicted in the still photo
was, and
the Sgt. answered "red," naturally. At this point she appeared
to be going down in flames - previously on this day Comm. Amado had
been
cutting off defendants' arguments and pronouncing them guilty the
moment they
faltered. But she had a plan B. She asked for the PR video
to be
put back in the VCR, and then she played the signal changing part of it
in
'slo-mo' or a frame at a time (I'm not sure which way, as the public in
the
pews isn't allowed to see the TV. For more about the TV access
issue, see Culver City
Documents). She showed that indeed there is a moment when
both the
red and the amber are on. Comm. Amado quickly said "you win"
and dismissed her ticket. Everyone in the courtroom clapped
loudly.
It remains to be seen how this case will affect the disposition of the
other
0.1 tickets Culver City has issued. See a decision by a pro tem,
at Dec.
18, below.
The
Oct.
16 tickets were at the following
intersections[4]:
Washington / Beethoven, 3 westbound, 1 direction not noted;
La Cienega / Washington, 1 northbound;
Jefferson / Cota, 1 eastbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times[4]:
0.1, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 1.2
Culver City (cont'd), Nov. 6 and 7, 2003: Pro
Tem Judges
Allow "OR" and Reasonable Bail, Traffic School After Guilty Verdict, and
Second Offender Traffic School;
But The Courtroom Doors Are Locked
The Nov. 6 trials were heard by Pro Tem James N. Bianco. Sgt.
Corrales
represented the People.
Before the trials began, there was one defendant up for arraignment,
who was
granted release "OR" pending trial.
Five of the fourteen trial cases were dismissed immediately,
because of
bad pictures. Another defendant said "It's not me" and had his
case dismissed. Another defendant was found not guilty after she
complained out that the second photo of her car did not show the red
signal.
Three defendants changed their pleas to guilty without arguing their
cases, and
were granted traffic school. Another defendant listened to Sgt.
Corrales'
testimony, did not ask him any questions and did not testify or
argue.
She was found guilty and was granted traffic school.
Three defendants were found guilty after making long arguments.
Two of
them asked for traffic school, which was granted.
The Nov. 6
tickets were at the
following intersections[4]:
Washington / Beethoven, 1 westbound, 2 eastbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 1 southbound;
Washington / Sawtelle, 1 eastbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times[4]:
0.1, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.5
The Nov. 7 arraignments were heard by a another pro
tem.
There were 57 arraignments "on calendar." He granted Second
Offender traffic school to all who asked for it, and granted $100
(total) bail
to at least three of the seventeen defendants who pled not guilty.
The courtroom doors were kept locked during the entire Nov. 7
session.
The bailiff said that this was done at the request of the pro tem.
Culver
City (cont'd), Nov. 13
and 14,
2003: More Pro Tems, Reduced Fines (!!!), "OR," Second Offender
Traffic School; and the Doors Weren't Locked
The Nov. 13 trials saw a repeat appearance by Pro Tem Bianco.
Nine of the
twelve cases were dismissed or the defendant found not guilty.
One of
those dismissals was because it had taken 25 days for the city to mail
the
ticket (see Defect # 8 on the Home Page). And the two defendants
who lost
and asked for traffic school were granted it.
The Nov. 14
arraignments were
heard by Pro Tem Nancy E. Sussman. There were 70 arraignments "on
calendar" - standing-room-only in the courtroom. She reduced
everyone's base fine to $75 from the usual $100, saving each defendant
about
$85. She reduced the fine much further for a defendant who
brought
evidence of financial hardship with him. She granted Second
Offender traffic school to all who asked for it, and "OR" to a
defendant who was on disability.
Culver
City (cont'd), Dec. 11
and 12,
2003: More Pro Tems, All Allow Second Offender Traffic School;
More
Reduced Fines
The Dec. 11 trials were heard by Pro Tem Andrew N. Weissman. Six
of the
fourteen cases were dismissed or the defendant found not guilty.
The
defendants who lost and asked for either regular or Second Offender
traffic
school, were granted it.
The Dec. 12
arraignments were
heard by Pro Tem Laura D'Auri. There were about 65 arraignments
"on
calendar." I entered late and had to sit on the floor. She
reduced everyone's base fine from the usual $100 to $50, saving each
defendant
about $160. She granted Second Offender traffic school to all who
asked
for it.
Culver
City (cont'd), Dec. 18,
2003: Pro Tem Allows Traffic School with One Exception, Gives
Clear
Statement of His Traffic School Philosophy, and Hears Defects # 7 and #
8.
The Dec. 18 trials were heard by Pro Tem Damon R. Swank, who previously
served on
Feb. 18 (see above). In his opening instructions, he said:
"After-trial traffic school is discretionary - depending upon what we
find
during the trial. It won't be denied just because you asked for a
trial -
that would be discouraging your right to a trial." True to that
statement, he granted regular or 12-hour traffic school to every
defendant but
one. That defendant told me that it was denied her because she
was doing
40 in a 35. Six of the fifteen cases were dismissed or the
defendant
found not guilty.
There were also cases where Defects # 7 and # 8 were argued.
Defect # 7: A female defendant with a 0.1 sec. Late Time pointed
out that
on her copy of the ticket, both the red and the orange appeared to be
lit. Sgt. Corrales replied that it was due to reflection of
the
flash, and then used the TV to display the negative, which the judge
said
showed small lit dots or twinkles in both the orange and the green.
He
found
her guilty, and gave her traffic school. Later, the
defendant
re-appeared and asked if the court would look at the photos from other
violations (with Late Times greater than 0.1) to see if similar
reflections
were present. Sgt. Corrales said those photos were
confidential.
The pro tem declined to review any other photos, and re-affirmed his
earlier
decision. See also Oct. 16, above.
Defect # 8: A male defendant made a motion for dismissal under
CVC Sec.
40518. The pro tem asked him how he received the ticket, and
commented: "So they mailed it to you and you got it."
When the defendant repeated his request for a Certificate of Mailing,
the pro
tem said that he would need to see some evidence of the requirement,
and that
he would have to find that (the city's failure to obtain a Certificate
of
Mailing) had caused some prejudice to the defendant's interests.
Under
prompting by the judge, Sgt. Corrales read (aloud) the definition of
"certificate" from a legal dictionary, and argued that the city's
proof of service (printed on the ticket) was the equivalent of a
Certificate of
Mailing. The pro tem agreed, and denied defendant's motion.
More examples of pro tems' (and judges' in other cities)
policies are
above, at Dec. 31, 2002, and in 2003, Feb. 20 and 21, June 16 and 17,
Nov. 6
and 7, and Dec. 11 and 12.
Culver
City (cont'd), Feb. 17
- 18,
2004: Red Light Cameras on TV!
On Feb. 17 and 18 KNBC-4 Los Angeles
broadcast a
two-part investigation of red light cameras. They used footage
from the
Culver City court. See the News section on the Links page for
more
information.
Culver
City (cont'd), February
2004: Commissioner Amado Honored at Police Banquet
At the annual awards banquet held by the Culver City police department,
Comm.
Ralph Amado was honored as a member of the community who has been
"exceptionally helpful to the police department."
(Culver City News, 2-26-04)
Culver
City (cont'd), May 2004: I'm Still Here!
The editor of this website is continuing to attend the trials (Thursday
afternoons), and one of the arraignment sessions (Friday afternoon)
each week
in Culver City. Those hearings have all been before Comm.
Amado -
no more pro tems like during the holiday season.
A little has changed. Sgt. Wolford has retired, so Sgt. Corrales
is the
only one representing the police at trials. The city prosecutor
never
shows up. While Washington / Beethoven still is, by far, the #1
intersection for tickets, its proportion of all tickets has declined a
little. Tied (approximately) for second place are Sepulveda /
Green
Valley, Washington / Sawtelle, and "new contender" Jefferson /
Overland left turns (see the Left Turn section in Defect # 9 on the
Home
Page). They've stopped showing the city-produced PR video that
they used
to play before each arraignment and trial session (see the Oct. 16,
2003 Culver
City entry above).
But mostly it is the same. Comm. Amado continues to be
unpredictable
about granting traffic school to defendants who have gone to trial and
argued
their cases and lost - although he grants it more than half the time.
He has granted Second Offender traffic school only one or two times
this year.
He still will not reduce the fine.
A high proportion of cases continues to be dismissed (at trial), mostly
because
of bad photos.
Culver
City (cont'd), July 9, 2004: Pro Tems Allow Second Offender
Traffic
School, "OR"
On the afternoon of Thursday July 8 the courtroom was dark. Comm.
Amado
was on vacation, and he or the court administration had decided not to
allow a
pro tem to hear the red light camera ticket trials that are the usual
Thursday
afternoon fare.
The Friday July 9 morning and afternoon arraignments were heard by pro
tems.
Both allowed Second Offender traffic school, and one gave "OR" to a
defendant. The afternoon session pro tem also volunteered
her
position on Defect # 6 (no 30-day warnings on new cameras),
saying:
"If that camera has been there more than 30 days and is properly posted
with warning signs, it is a valid operation."
Culver
City (cont'd), July 22, 2004: Half are at Westbound Washington /
Beethoven
The July 22 trials were heard by Comm. Amado. Sgt. Corrales
represented
the People.
One of the eleven tickets was dismissed immediately, because of a bad
picture. Two more were dismissed after the defendants asked the
judge if
he was sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was them in the
photo.
One ticket, with a female driver pictured, was dismissed when the
male
defendant said: "It's not me." Comm. Amado did not ask
him who it was. The remaining seven defendants argued their cases
and
lost. All asked for traffic school. Two were granted
it. Four
were denied: One of those was for no obvious reason (although he
was the
first defendant to argue his case that day), and three of those were
because
they were only eligible for Second Offender traffic school, which Comm.
Amado
will not grant. For one defendant, I couldn't tell if she got
school or
not.
The July 22
tickets were at the
following intersections[4]:
Washington / Beethoven, 4 westbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 1 northbound;
La Cienega / Washington, 1 northbound;
Jefferson / Overland, 1 eastbound left turn;
Washington Place / Centinela, 1 eastbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times[4] (the Washington / Beethoven
times
are underlined):
0.14, 0.14, 0.17, 0.44, 0.5,
0.51, 0.53, 0.57
Culver
City (cont'd), July 23, 2004: Pro Tem Reduces Fines, Allows
"OR"
While Comm. Amado was present for the July 22 Thursday afternoon trials
(above), he was absent on Friday the 23rd, so the afternoon
arraignments were
heard by a pro tem. The pro tem reduced most fines from the
usual
$100 to $50 (plus penalty assessment of course). He also granted
"OR" to a number of defendants, after asking them how long they had
lived at their present address.
Culver
City (cont'd), Aug. 5, 2004: Missing Sign Doesn't Matter
During the Aug. 5, 2004 trial of a ticket issued at
Sepulveda /
Machado in Culver City the defendant pointed out that there was no
warning sign
on the large driveway (for a housing complex) that makes up the 4th
side of
that intersection. Comm. Amado ruled that it is not required to
post
signs facing traffic coming from private property.
Culver
City (cont'd), Sept. 9, 2004: Pro Tem Handles Trials, 6 of 11
Tried Are
Dismissed;
Two Defendants
"Stampeded" Into
Giving Up Trial
The Sept. 9 trials were heard by Judge Joseph Shiro Biderman (from Div.
1
"next door") and Pro Tem Anat R. Levy. Sgt. Corrales
represented the People.
Judge Biderman handled the first trial, as the defendant was
represented by an
attorney, and pro tems cannot hear cases argued by lawyers. The
defendant
said that she proceeded through the intersection because there was a
police car
with its emergency lights on behind her. Judge Biderman ruled
that she
should have pulled over rather than proceeding, found her guilty, and
allowed
traffic school.
Then Pro Tem Levy took the bench. She immediately dismissed 5 of
the 11
tickets, at the request of the police, probably because of bad face
photos. Later in the trial session one more was dismissed
because, the
defendant claimed, she had not been brought to trial within 45
days.
The first defendant to be tried was found guilty and did not ask for
traffic
school. However, immediately after concluding that trial, Pro Tem
Levy
announced, "To those of you who want traffic school, now is the time to
ask for it; I am very very reluctant to do it after the trial."
That
announcement caused two defendants to come forward and ask for traffic
school. One needed Second Offender traffic school, and was
granted it.
The remaining 3 defendants argued their cases and lost. All asked
for
traffic school and were granted it - despite the pro tem's previous
announcement.
The Sept. 9
tickets were at the
following intersections[4]:
Washington / Beethoven, 1 westbound, 1 eastbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 1 northbound, 1 southbound;
Jefferson / Overland, 1 eastbound left turn.
The tickets had the following Late Times[4] (the Washington / Beethoven
times
are underlined):
0.31, 0.32, 0.41, 0.64, 0.75
Culver
City (cont'd), Sept. 10, 2004: Pro Tem Halves All Fines and
Bail,
Allows Second Offender Traffic School
As has become routine recently, the Friday afternoon arraignments were
heard by
a pro tem. Pro Tem Sheila Pistone reduced all the camera ticket
fines by
50%, and granted Second Offender traffic school. For the camera
defendants who chose to plead not guilty, she reduced the bail by 50%.
Culver City (cont'd), Dec.
1, 2005: First Visit to Santa Monica Courthouse
For
the first time since the Culver City Couthouse was closed and the
trials were moved to the Santa Monica courthouse (and a new judge), I
attended a Culver City trial
session.
I want to immediately put out this warning:
You do not want Comm. Pamela A. Davis, the regular judge in Dept. S, to
hear your case. If there is still time, do a Peremptory Challenge
to remove her.
Culver City (cont'd), Jan. 29,
2009: New Judge
There is a new judge in Dept. S, Judge Lawrence Cho. (Comm. Davis
is now at the West LA courthouse.)
There were 23 cases on the trial calendar, nine of which were for VC
21453(c), left turns. About half of the cases were "OR" - no
bail. Officer Marks began by offering everyone a private viewing
of their pictures and video.
Later, when the judge came in, he offered traffic school to everyone -
on the condition that they would change their plea to guilty or nolo
and not argue their case. He said that there was no guarantee of
getting traffic school later after he had been shown the video of their
violation. (The video monitor was oriented so that the audience
could easily see it.) Later on, in response to a defendant's
question, he
said, "If you're going to fight it, that's the sort of person who would
not learn from education (and would not be given traffic
school)."
Of the 23 cases
calendared, two were no shows, four cases were dismissed when called
when Officer Marks said "1385, identity,"
and all the remaining defendants opted for traffic school, including
two who had indicted earlier that they wanted to go ahead with a trial.
To contact Culver City officials,
the Culver City Chamber of Commerce, or CalTrans, see the Links page of
this
website.
To get a "Don't Shop in Culver City" button, or to contact your State
legislator, see the Action page of this website.
****
End of Part 3
Part 1
Part 2