|
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
|