View
218
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/12/2019 Appellant Memorandum
1/10
1
IN THE PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
State of Arizona, ))
Appellee ) Lower Court Case No) TR-13063378
vs ))
)John Jay Underhill )
)Appellee )
_______________________________
APPELLANTS MEMORANDUM
John Jay Underhill3625 W Gailey Drive
Tucson Arizona 85741349-0794
John Jay UnderhillAgent for
JOHN JAY UNDERHILL3625 W Gailey Drive
Statement of Facts
8/12/2019 Appellant Memorandum
2/10
2
My appeal is based on: One, parts of the recording of the trial are
unintelligible, especially when the police officer spoke. Therefore I asked Judge
Leavitt to consider a new trial. Two, certain procedures were not followed prior to
the trial and perhaps not during the trial. Procedural errors may have occurred
as well regarding how items were placed into evidence. Therefore I will ask that
certain items discussed in the trial be placed into evidence. Three, I was
deprived of property without due process of law. Finally, the judges in city court
may have conflict of interest issues.
Parts of the audio record of the trial proceedings were unintelligible. This
occurred mostly with the officers testimony pages 1-8(1 minute to 8 minutes),
and his rebuttal pages 28-29 of the transcript(66 minutes to 68 minutes). See
Exhibit 1A. Other places where he spoke I could not transcribe also. Inaudible
portions were caused by static in the recording and/or perhaps because the
parties were turned away from the microphones. Please see Exhibits 1 to find
the times when this occurred in the recording and Exhibit 1A, a transcription of
the trial that I wrote. In the portions that I could not transcribe I put ?? or I noted
the number of sentences I could not hear. These notes can be also compared to
the actual recording of the trial.
Procedural errors occurred before the trial. Before the trial the police officer
representing the citys burden of proof, reviewed the video clip of my citation with
me. When I offered evidence questioning his presumption of my guilt he ended
up saying. I dont have time to listen to this! You can have your day in court. Go
sit down! I believe he and perhaps the judge, violated rule 11 related to
8/12/2019 Appellant Memorandum
3/10
3
Discovery See Exhibit 2. Also during the trial procedural errors may have
occurred. See the transcript pages 24-26(66 minutes to 68 minutes) in Exhibit
1A. The judge admitted the forensic video experts video but did not take his
affidavit Exhibit 2A because I found it in my materials. I do not know if they
entered the curriculum vitae into evidence because I cannot find it. However,
they did not mention to me that they took the curriculum vitae (Exhibit 2B). It
seems illogical to take the forensic experts video without taking the
affidavit(Exhibit 2A) because the signed affidavit is the foundation of his evidence
where he explains how he came up with the numbers concerning the yellow light
phase in his video that was taken into evidence. I request that the affidavit be
placed into evidence. If the curriculum vitae(Exhibit 2B) is not in evidence I
request it also be placed into evidence because it describes the forensic video
experts qualifications and experience. See transcript pages 24 paragraph 5 to
page 26 paragraph 5(55 minutes to 61 minutes) Exhibit 1A to hear the dialog I
recorded about this. Finally the last potential procedural error occurred after I
gave my testimony and the officer gave his rebuttal. I was not asked if I had any
objections to his rebuttal. Instead she pronounced her decision about the case.
See the transcript Exhibit 1A the bottom of page 28 and the top of page 29(66
minutes until 68 minutes). See Exhibit 2C also explaining this in further detail.
I believe I was deprived of property without due process. I was cited by a red
light camera for violation of the code 28-645A#A (failure to stop at a red light).
Since I could not cross examine the camera or the light to determine its accuracy
or validity, I requested maintenance records and certification for accuracy of the
8/12/2019 Appellant Memorandum
4/10
4
red light camera and timing surveys and maintenance records for the traffic
lights. See pages 9-13 of the transcript(16 minutes to 28 minutes) in Exhibit 1A.
In communications (letters and phone conversations to and from various city
officials and an American Traffic Solutions official, I also requested information
about what local state or federal agencies independently monitor or certify these
cameras. I never received any of these documents. Exhibit 3 contains further
details about my questions and the officials answers. Exhibit 3A catalogs all
the Federal, State and local agencies I called to determine what agency or
agencies regulate or certify photo enforcement camera companies. I found no
affirmative answers to those questions. Exhibit 3B contains Federal guidelines
that I believe the city of Tucson is violating in maintaining their traffic signals. All
of these areas are covered in the transcript from pages 18 paragraph 8 until page
23 including the first paragraph. It is approximately from 38 minutes to 53
minutes in (Exhibit 1A). Also in the prior Exhibit 1A, briefly on the last paragraph
on page 5 and continuing through paragraph six on the next page on the
transcript of the court record, I state, that I object to the 2ndstill photograph in the
violation video but I cant remember why? See Exhibit 3C for the specific
violations. Next specifically in the transcript on pages 23 paragraph 2, I briefly
discuss comparing with a stop watch the time of the yellow light phase on the
violation video to the yellow light phase on the Forensic video experts video. I
explain it in further detail on page 26 paragraph 6 to the top of page 27 starting at
53 minutes then going into more detail from 61 minutes to 63 minutes. See also
Exhibit 3D that describes in detail how I came up with the stop watch times for
8/12/2019 Appellant Memorandum
5/10
5
the yellow light phase in both videos. I would like to include these exhibits
because they were discussed in the record and indicate that I had no way to
examine the reliability of the machines that caused me to obtain this ticket. These
exhibits are important to my case because the city has not proven that the yellow
light phase was 3.5 seconds at the time of the citation, rather than close to 3.1
seconds as my forensic video expert alleges. If the video experts analysis is
correct and the phase is shorter than stated on the citation, I would not be
contesting this today because I would have reached the intersection before the
light changed to red.
City Court judges are in an awkward position because they rule on cases
where their decisions impact money received by the courts. If this is not directly
a conflict of interest, it seems like it is. According to the documents I found on
the Tucson Police Traffic Division website, the city receives substantial profits
from the photo radar program and a substantial portion returns to the court to
fund its operations. See the transcript pages 25 paragraph 5 to page 26
paragraph six. See also Exhibit 4. I request this exhibit be placed in evidence
because the fact that decisions that judges make can affect the well being of the
court may influence the decisions that they make.
Statement of Law
As for the court record, 17C A.R.S. City Ct Local Practices and Procedures
Rule 19 states A record of the proceedings shall be made by audiotape digital
recording or audiotape. It does not specify quality of the record. According to
http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/74/KTR/Dec04InterimRpt.pdf
http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/74/KTR/Dec04InterimRpt.pdfhttp://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/74/KTR/Dec04InterimRpt.pdfhttp://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/74/KTR/Dec04InterimRpt.pdf8/12/2019 Appellant Memorandum
6/10
6
Over the past twenty years, electronic recording systems have proven themselves
capable of often producing a clear, accurate record of what is said during a court
proceeding. For me to adequately appeal my case I believe a clearer recording than what I
received is necessary.
Procedural errors occurred in my trial as described above. 17C A.R.S. City Ct
Loc Prac and Proc Rules Tucson Rule 11 discovery states
B. Immediately prior to the hearing, both parties shall produce for inspection anyexhibits and written or recorded statements of any witness wich have beenprepared and may offered at the hearing. Failure to comply with this rule mayresult, in the courts discretion in granting of a recess or continuance to permitsuch inspection or the exclusion of the evidence not so exchanged
In my case immediately prior to the judges arrival the official representing the
city in my trial reviewed my violation video with me. However after I questioned
his presumption of my guilt and suggesting evidence to back up my view he
exclaimed I dont have time to listen to this and he order me to sit down. The
judge did not ask to examine my exhibits nor did she ask whether the officer did
so. See Exhibit 2 Loc Prac and Proc Rules Tucson Rule 18 Order of Discovery I
believe was violated as well
Rule 18. Order of Proceedings The order of proceedings shall be as follows:A. Testimony of Citys witnessesB. Testimony of defense witnessesC. Testimony of Citys rebuttal witnesses if anyD. Testimony of defense surrebuttal witnesses is anyE. Argument of the parties or their counsel if permitted by the court.F. Ruling by the court.
In my case after the officer gave his rebuttal the judge asked the officer a couple
of questions then she pronounced her judgment in favor of the city. I was not
allowed to provide any witnesses for the surrebuttal. See the transcript Exhibit 1A
8/12/2019 Appellant Memorandum
7/10
7
the bottom of page 28 and the top of page 29(66 minutes until 68 minutes). See
Exhibit 2C also explaining this in further detail.
Amendment six of the Constitution declares that in a criminal case I cannot be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law including
questioning and examining those who bring charges against me. Oddly running
a red light which could result in horrific injury to myself and others, is not
considered a crime. Thus I am not entitled to these rights. Rule 17C A.R.S.
Traffic Violation Cases Civ.Proc. Rules, Rule 17 states:
(a) The Arizona Rules of Evidence shall not apply in civil cases. Evidencemay be admitted subject to a determination that the evidence has someprobative value to a fact at issue. Nothing in this rule is to be construed asabrogating any statutory provision relating to privileged communications.
(b) The States burden of proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.
Contrast this to rule 17C A.R.S. Traffic Cases Rules of Proc., Rule 8
(a) At the arraignment of a defendant for a Traffic or Boating offense andbefore accepting a plea of guilty in open court, the Court shall inform thedefendant of his or her legal rights, including the right to retain anattorney; to plead not guilty, in which event the presumption of innocenceuntil proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt applies: to have a speedypublic trial and to face and cross-examine the witnesses against him orher and to present evidence in his or her defense: to have subpoenasissue by theCourt to compel the attendance of any witness in his or herbehalf
The first rule applies to civil trials where the standard for evidence is much less
extreme to convict and one is not have the right to face and cross examine and
face witnesses against me. Interestingly the 7thamendment guarantees the right
to a jury trial in suits that exceed $20 dollars. How did the courts get around
that? Is it a part of the Constitution that I do not have these rights to due process
in civil trials?
8/12/2019 Appellant Memorandum
8/10
8
The Constitution protects citizens against deprivation of Life liberty and
property without due process of law. The Supreme Court up holds two general
principles regarding defendants: the presumption of innocence and the right to
confront your accusers. See 1965 Supreme Court Pointer v Texas, 380 U.S.
400, 403 (holding the Sixth Amendments right of an accused to confront the
witnesses against him is likewise a fundamental right and is made obligatory on
the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. See article Wrong on Red, the
Constitutional Case Against Red Light Cameras and the 14 thAmendment in the
Washington University Journal of Law and Policy. See also 6
th
Amendment
Right to Face Accusers Confrontation Clause Crawford verses Washington 541
U.S. 38 2004.
Conclusions
Unfortunately it is not stated clearly in the Constitution that 6thamendment
rights are provided for defendants in civil trials. This is very dangerous because
most people do not engage in actions and are not falsely accused of committing
criminal acts where they would need the protection of their rights to defend
themselves. On the other hand probably almost everyone has been charged
with committing traffic violations a civil defense.
This being true and the fact that we do not have these due process rights to
face our accusers means that bureaucracies like the camera companies do not
have checks on them to keep them from cheating. If the large camera
companies throughout the nation do not have any independent agency checking
8/12/2019 Appellant Memorandum
9/10
9
on them to see that they are not cheating on their calibration of their instruments,
why shouldnt they fudge the times to gain more revenue? I presume since they
are the only ones responsible to themselves to be honest perhaps somehow the
laws in the legislatures were written to allow them to have no accountability.
These raises deeper more troubling issues beyond the scope of this court but
I present it for educational purposes only. Our Constitutional rights are gradually
being chipped away. It is my contention we have lost our rights. What rights we
have are at the pleasure of our executive branch. Based on reading many
executive orders signed by the various presidents and the 2010 NDAA act the
government can declare an emergency and take away our right to habeas corpus
and due process and imprison or kill us with no trial. I do not understand why we
stand for this.
The other disturbing trend that has been occurring for years is the growing
power of the executive branch of our government. Agencies regulate every
aspect of our lives yet they are not directly elected by the people. Congress
routinely passes large bills no one reads. The recently passed health care act is
thousands of pages long. Bureaucrats unelected officials but part of the very
powerful executive branch will create thousands of pages of laws to regulate
more aspects of our lives. If they dont gradually impose tyranny over us, the
myriad laws and regulations they create will become so contradictory that people
will decide to embrace tyranny.
One side affect of all these laws and regulations is the only people who can
win in this world our the people who can afford the lawyers to navigate safely
8/12/2019 Appellant Memorandum
10/10
10
around these giant bureaucratic companies so they dont violate some regulatory
rule. Personally I considered hiring an attorney to fight this ticket. I talked to
several who told me they could easily get me off the ticket for between 350 to
750 dollars. They are doing this for a living so I guess since people are paying
them they must be getting them off. Sadly this shows we dont have equal
protection under the law.
Perhaps we need to rethink law and consider simplifying it when we can as it
once was under common law.
Thank you for your time.
Recommended