California Supreme Court Upholds the Use of Red Light Cameras

A red light camera ticket is a type of traffic infraction that can cost you money, time, and anxiety. In fact, with so much misinformation online, I have spoken with many confused callers. They were not happy with the non-legal blog's advice.

A red light camera ticket is enforced by way of technology, rather than an officer. While frustrating, it is still legal in some jurisdictions. Indeed, the California Supreme Court, on June 5, 2014, upheld the use of red light camera enforcement. This blog will touch upon the recent case, and other aspects of red light camera citations. 

IGNORING THE CITATION WILL POTENTIALLY COST YOU MORE

First, do not simply ignore the citation. Yes, I am aware of the information online from non-lawyers. It is not sound advice. The California Legislature enacted Vehicle Code section 21455.5 some time ago. This California law controls the requirements for how a jurisdiction may implement camera enforcement. Therefore, while some cities may have discontinued their programs, other have not. Culver City, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, among others, have valid camera enforcement pursuant to the law.

Thus, if you ignore the citation and miss a mandatory court appearance, it is possible that you can be found guilty of a failure to appear violation. This will add significant, and unnecessary, fines to your citation. Unless you were active military, incarcerated, or receiving medical care, the court will most likely find you guilty.

EVIDENTIARY AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN SPURNED

Second, the California Supreme Court has addressed some of the constitutional issues related to evidentiary foundation, authentication, hearsay, and confrontation. People v. Goldsmith (2014), S201443, recently decided, upheld the use of camera enforcement. The decision was a major victory for the red light camera programs. 

The arguments in that case were similar to some of those posted on the online blogs. The defendant in the Goldsmith case argued, one, that the photos, obtained from the red light camera, were not legally authenticated. In short, the defendant argued that the photo evidence could not be admitted against her because it was unreliable. The California Supreme Court disagreed.

With sufficient legal rationale, the Court explained that the photos were reliable, and notwithstanding the reliability, the evidence could be admitted "as provided by law." There is a statutory presumption that the photos are reliable. The trial court does not have to accept the photos as true, but it can admit it into evidence to be weighed against the defendant.

Two, the photos are not hearsay, according to the California Supreme Court. Section 1200 of the Evidence Code defines hearsay as, "evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated." The Court clarified that a camera could not be characterized as a "person," who has the capacity to make a statement. The law does not contemplate whether a machine can make a statement -- at least not yet.

Third, the confrontation clause is not invoked because a defendant cannot, and does not have the right, to cross-examine a camera. Machine-generated printouts are not within the bounds of Sixth Amendment protection.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

I always advise consulting with a defense attorney. Although traffic infractions only involve a fine, not jail, it is best to consult with a lawyer for a few reasons. It can save you money. It can save you time. It can give you peace of mind.

Moreover, a red light camera ticket does not necessarily mean that you will be found guilty. The burden of proof in a traffic case is still "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." If the picture is unclear, or if there is an identity issue, the ticket can be dismissed. But, it is always wise to seek out the advice of a person with knowledge and experience. Our office invites you calls, and we remind you that nothing in this blog should be construed as legal advice. Watch out for the machines.

Maximums and Minimums: who chooses the right criminal sentence?

Allen Alleyne and an accomplice robbed the manager of a convenience store as the manager was leaving to make a bank deposit. Both Alleyne and his accomplice carried guns. After tricking the manager into stopping his car, Alleyne’s accomplice approached the manager, pressed a gun to his head, and demanded the cash the manager was carrying. The manager complied and both suspects fled the scene. Alleyne was later arrested and charged with two crimes, one for the robbery itself and another for using a firearm during a robbery. At trial the jury was asked to decide two critical questions, did Alleyne carry or use a weapon during the robbery and did he discharge that weapon. The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he had carried or used a weapon during the robbery, but made no determination as to the second question.

Under applicable federal law, the sentence for robbery changes when a firearm enters the picture. For a carrying a gun, a defendant faces 5 years, for brandishing a gun, 7 years, and longer still for actually discharging a gun. During Alleyne’s sentencing hearing the judge decided, on a preponderance of the evidence (meaning more than 50% likely), that Alleyne had actually brandished his weapon and accordingly imposed the 7 year enhanced sentence. Alleyne appealed, arguing that the sentence violated his Sixth Amendment rights because this fact had never been properly submitted to the jury. The case eventually wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court – but let’s backup for a second.

What are sentence enhancements?

While every state has its own set of criminal laws, as does the Federal Government, most systems incorporate one or both of two types of statutorily mandated sentencing guidelines; mandatory minimums, or statutory maximums. The distinction between the two can sometimes get confusing so we’ll consider each separately.

Mandatory Minimums

Mandatory minimums refer to the smallest (least harsh) penalty a judge is allowed to apply to a given class of criminal defendant. When presented with a case in which the facts match the conditions established by the applicable law, a judge does not have the discretion to hand down a sentence lower than the minimum prescribed by the legislature; use of a deadly weapon, rape or child abuse, targeting an elected official, racially or religiously motivate crimes, and many other things can often lead to mandatory minimum sentences. Where one applies, a lesser sentence cannot be imposed, no matter how appropriate it might seem in an individual case.

Statutory Maximums

Statutory maximums are just the opposite (almost). Here, the legislature has defined the maximum penalty that a given class of defendants can face. A judge presiding over an applicable case does not have the discretion to impose a harsher sentence than the cap established by the legislature; no matter the nature of the particular defendant in question. Many crimes have caps on the punishment that can be applied. However, there are often ranges provided depending on the facts. For example, using a fire arm during a robbery can increase a defendant’s exposure by several years over a similar defendant who committed an identical robbery without a firearm. Judges do not have to impose maximum sentences, but cannot exceed them. The range of possible sentences falling between any applicable mandatory minimum and statutory maximum equals the defendant’s potential exposure.

Who decides?

Often it is the judge who decides a specific penalty. Get picked up for insider trading under sympathetic circumstances and you might find a judge willing to “go easy” on you. Hassle the judge all the way through a trial, and you’re more likely to find yourself facing a harsher sentence. However, things become somewhat less clear, and, until Alleyne, less constitutionally certain, when a mandatory minimum or statutory maximum sentence range is triggered. Usually these conditions result from the specific facts of the case; did the defendant carry a gun, how old was the child, how much money was involved, and the like. Is a judge allowed to determine the existence or extent of such facts during the sentencing phase of a trial, or must the jury find the existence of these facts beyond a reasonable doubt?

Enter the Supreme Court

In 2000, the Supreme Court weighed in; declaring that any fact which raised a statutory maximum must be decided by a jury beyond reasonable doubt but that judges were free to determine facts triggering a mandatory minimum based only on a preponderance of the evidence. For a decade this inconsistency in the law stood strong against numerous attacks by scholars and repeated attempts by the defendant’s bar to have the ruling overturned. Then came Alleyne; based on facts very similar to those in the Court’s earlier decision, and brought on a challenge to the exact same Federal law, both the district court and the Fourth Circuit refused to amend Alleyne’s sentence; standing, so they thought, on strong Supreme Court guidance.

Overruled!

To many people’s great surprise, the Court changed its mind. The majority in Alleyne held that statutory maximums and mandatory minimums weren’t different after all; facts triggering both types of sentencing guidelines must be decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. It took a few years, but the right decision was ultimately made. Thanks to Alleyne, the full protection of the Sixth Amendment’s trial by jury requirement is now available to criminal defendants facing a legislatively proscribed sentencing enhancement under either State or Federal law.

A Jury of Your Peers

On April 25, the California Assembly passed AB 1401 which would allow lawfully present immigrants to serve on state juries. As of this writing, the bill is making its way through the state Senate. While the bill’s ultimate fate is unknown, its mere introduction earlier in April caused a ruckus in the news media and its passage in the Assembly has sparked a firestorm of public opinion. Despite clear language to the contrary, some sources are going so far as to announce that the bill will allow “illegal immigrants to serve on juries”. Just to be clear, it won’t; but scroll through the comments on any of the articles covering AB 1401 and it quickly becomes clear that the bill has ignited a raging controversy over civil rights, immigration issues, and the nature of citizenship itself.

Instead of discussing or arguing about immigration policies, I have decided to provide defendants and their families with relevant information about what the bill’s passage might mean in practice. After some research into the history of the Jury Right, here is what I found.

The right to a trial…

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution opens with the line “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”. Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution says nothing explicit about a “jury of peers”. This latter construction comes not from the document itself, but from later interpretation and public colloquy. However, despite the lack of an express constitutional mandate that defendants be judged by their peers, the sanctity and power of an impartial jury remains one of only a handful of subjects about which the Supreme Court has ever ruled in unanimity. Which begs the question, how is an impartial jury composed and where does everyone get the idea that criminal guilt will be determined by a group of the defendant’s peers?

by a jury…

The notion of using juries to judge criminal guilt was well established in legal practice long before the Constitution was drafted. In fact, the practice traces its roots all the way back to the signing of the Magna Carta in the 13^th Century. Early iterations of the practice were designed more for the benefit of the British royalty than common criminals. However, by the 18^th century Thomas Blackstone was able to pen his famous exposition on the twofold virtue of the jury right as a protection against overreaching by the monarchy. Enshrined in every one of the original 13 State Constitutions, and in all States since added to the Union, this right has always been the core feature of American criminal jurisprudence.

The right to a jury trial reflects a fundamental decision not to entrust the life or liberty of any person wholly to the government. Even an impartial judiciary, it is thought, might at times be swayed by outside considerations making the jury trial a bulwark against many possible miscarriages of justice. In fact, so critical is this right to our criminal system, that without it, we could have no enduring faith in even a single criminal conviction.

Juries work so well because of the high degree of inviolability afforded them under our legal structure. So sacred are the judgments made by juries, that the Supreme Court has unanimously agreed that juries even have the power to find a defendant not guilty against the great weight of the evidence. The entire body of facts in a criminal case is determined by the jury, and no fact decided in a defendant’s favor by a jury is subject to later review.

of peers?

But who makes up the jury pool remains an open question. In years past women, minorities, atheists, and non-landholders were deemed unqualified to sit on juries. Each of these restrictions has since been struck down. However, despite these many gradual improvements, disparities between jury venires and defendants are still rampant. Jury lists, often drawn from voter registration and DMV rolls, represent a largely middle-class group with frequent racial and ideological tilt. Are such juries truly “impartial” as required by the Constitution?

AB 1401

The California Assembly does not think so and AB 1401 represents their attempt to remedy one aspect of the issue. Whether the bill, if passed, will help rather than hurt our justice system remains to be determined.

I remain optimistic that our jury right will ultimately grow stronger as a result of this broadened juror pool. Bear in mind, judges and attorneys do not have to be citizens, perhaps jurors should not either. However, time will be the ultimate judge.

Trial Process and Rights

Right to a Speedy Trial

Many people are aware of at least some of their constitutional rights during a criminal investigation. They know less, however, about the trial process. This is partly because a large portion of suspects are either released or take a plea-deal long before a trial ever gets under way. It is also because the trial process can be very different depending on the defendant, the crime, or the legal strategy employed. I will attempt to cover the basics in this article, but you should always talk to a competent attorney about specific strategies for your case.

6^th Amendment Guarantees

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that every person accused of a crime has a right to a jury trial, along with a right to confront witnesses, obtain his/her own witnesses, and have competent representation. This may be one of the most important parts of the Constitution from a criminal perspective because it is the foundation of our system of justice. Without the protections afforded in the Sixth Amendment it would be hard to place much faith in a conviction.

Judge or Jury?

A trial is an opportunity for a defendant’s guilt to be judged by a neutral party. Prosecutors and law enforcement have a duty to seek guilt. This does not mean that they are doing unfair things, but their role in the process necessarily gives them a stake in the outcome and thus disqualifies them as finders of fact. While the Sixth Amendment creates a right to a trial before a jury, defendants have a related right to waive the jury process and have their case decided by a judge.

There are times when the specific facts of a case point towards a judge, whom may have many years of legal experience, as the most neutral party. For example, the two teens recently convicted for the now infamous Steubenville rape incident chose to have their case tried to a judge. I suspect that their decision was based on a fear that the wild media fervor surrounding the case would make selection of a fair and impartial jury nearly impossible. Those defendants were ultimately convicted, and in hindsight it is not clear whether their choice of waiving their right to a jury was a wise decision, but defendants usually have a choice.

Presenting Evidence

Regardless of whether a case is tried to a jury or a judge, the trial will proceed in a similar fashion. Both sides, the defense and the prosecution, will have an opportunity to present evidence. The prosecution will go first and the defense last.  Prior to the trial, the prosecution and defense will always attempt to limit the admissible evidence by way of pre-trial motions. During a trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant’s guilt – the highest burden in the law. Theoretically, a defendant faced with a weak case, could sit silently throughout the entire process and merely trust in the finder of fact to see through the holes in the prosecution’s evidence. This, however, is very unwise in most situations.

Confronting Witnesses

In practice, defendants will usually want to present the best evidence in their favor, and to attack the evidence presented by the other side. Here again, the Sixth Amendment comes into play. The amendment gives defendants a right to do several important things. First, defendants have a general right to demand that witnesses against them testify in court. There are some limitations, such as children in sexual abuse cases, but generally the prosecution has to bring witnesses into court. This is critical because if helps to ensure that witnesses give a true account of events. It also gives a defendant the right to cross-examine those witnesses to probe for errors, biases, or coercion.

Presenting Witnesses

The Constitution also guarantees defendants the right to present witnesses in their defense.  This means that defendants can bring in people who might tell a story more favorable to their explanation of the facts. Such witnesses, if available, are critical because they will help a defendant tell his/her story to the fact finder. Without this piece of the puzzle, the judge or jury would hear only about a persons supposed guilt, nothing more. This right also gives defendants the power to compel witnesses to appear on their behalf, such as with a subpoena.

Closing Arguments

Once all witnesses have had a chance to testify in court, both sides will give closing arguments which are essentially short summations of the evidence as seen by that side. Once this is done, the finder of fact will make a determination and the trial is over. While all of this seems fairly straight forward, and often it is there are many important considerations along the way which are best made with the help of a qualified attorney.

Defendant Testimony

One very important decision every defendant must make is whether or not to personally testify. Defendants have a right to speak on their own behalf, but this is not always wise. The Fifth Amendment gives suspects and defendants a right to refuse to answer questions - the answer to which may further incriminate the defendant. In other words, you cannot be compelled to admit a crime. There are times when a defendant will absolutely want to get on the stand and tell their story, but often doing so exposes a defendant to unpleasant questions on cross-examination. For example, it may open the door for evidence of the defendant’s past convictions.

You need an attorney!

Because of the complexities of the many other nuances and choices present in every trial, you should absolutely discuss these options with your own attorney. Choosing unwisely can potentially destroy your case. If you have been charged with a crime please contact me right away so that we can work together to make sure you make best use of your critical Constitutional rights.