Explained by California Criminal Attorney for Santa Rosa, Napa, San Rafael, Lakeport, Ukiah, and Eureka
In a recent case, People v. Rekte, the Fourth District Court of Appeals on January 8, 2015, issued an order confirming that expert testimony can successfully rebut the presumption accuracy of the red light computer-camera photo and print-out. In this particular case, the photographic evidence contained a computerized stamp indicating that the yellow light interval was 3.6 seconds which complied with the California state requirements.
Mr. Rekte retained a defense expert who testified that the print-out was inaccurate and the interval was actually 3.5 seconds which does not comply with California state requirements. The Court further found that when the defendant's expert testimony successfully rebutted the presumption of reliability, the burden then shifted to the district attorney to prove the reliability of the photo and the length of the yellow light interval. The prosecution, however, provided no further independent or expert evidence and, as such, did not carry its burden of proof. The conviction was reversed. This is a clear example of how a criminal defense lawyer in Santa Rosa, Napa, San Rafael, Lakeport, Ukiah, and Eureka can construct a defense by understanding the different burdens of proof and rebuttable presumptions in a criminal case.
For more information regarding criminal defense attorneys in Santa Rosa, Napa, San Rafael, Lakeport, Ukiah, and Eureka, see www.dinanlaw.com.