Presumed Guilty Even If Innocent

If you have a traffic ticket and the ticket requires you to appear in Moreno Valley, California, beware of the judge or commissioner you are assigned to.

Pedigo was defending an alleged speeding violation for a client in Moreno Valley before a Commissioner  (not a judge). Before the case was called, Pedigo observed every single accused citizen (over 15 cases) be quickly pronounced guilty by the Commissioner, even when the defendants had a very good argument and were possibly factually innocent. In other words, even the cases that had “reasonable doubt” (the criminal standard of proof – even in traffic infraction cases), the court still found everyone guilty.

Pedigo had filed his own motion to exclude evidence in his client’s case because California Highway Patrol had not produced requested discovery as the law requires. California law then says that the court should exclude the evidence for the People’s failure to comply with the rules. The Commissioner denied the motion without explanation. The Commissioner ordered Pedigo back to court at a later date after CHP was ordered to produce the previously requested evidence.

In California, you can file a motion to disqualify a judge or commissioner under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6. Click here to download the form to disqualify a judge or commissioner. Make sure you file this with the court as soon as you can, as there is a time limit in which you have to file it (usually at your first opportunity to appear or be heard).

If you have been found guilty, you have the right to an appeal (if timely).  Contact us if you need help appealing your case.

“Under Civil Code section 3333 plaintiff may present evidence of the bills incurred to save the cat’s life and is entitled to recover the reasonable and necessary costs caused by someone who wrongfully injured the cat. Defendants are entitled to present evidence why the costs were unreasonable under the circumstances.

In addition to the reasonable costs of care occasioned by the shooting, plaintiff can recover punitive damages on a showing that the shooting was willful. (§ 3340 ["[f]or wrongful injuries to animals being subjects of property, committed willfully or by gross negligence, in disregard of humanity, exemplary damages may be given”].)”

Kimes v. Grosser, Cal: Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 2011

My office regularly sees people with losses around $10,000 (lost wages, property damage, and medical bills), and the insurance company for the other side (for the negligent driver) will offer a small fraction of the actual damages to settle (between $0 and $2,500, for example). This forces the injured victim, the Plaintiff, to trial — where his or her attorney may not utter anything related to the Defendant’s insurance company refusing to pay a reasonable settlement. To do otherwise would likely result in a mistrial.

The below case illustrates more on this frustrating rule of law:

It has been pointed out that the use of insurance in the light of our financial responsibility laws has become so common that jurors naturally assume as they enter the jury box that a defendant is insured against liability and that therefore the claimed danger of injection of insurance into the case has lost much of its sting. ( Causey v. Cornelius, 164 Cal.App.2d 269, 277-281 [330 P.2d 468]; see Carter, J., dissenting, State Farm etc. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 47 Cal.2d 428, 436; Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1965 Supp.) § 12, pp. 603-604.) The sting has been further softened by the well-publicized campaign of the insurance companies stressing the effect on insurance premiums of personal injury recoveries. (See Causey v. Cornelius, supra, 164 Cal.App.2d 269, 279.) Nevertheless, counsel should not be permitted to bring the fact of insurance to the attention of the jury where that fact has no proper relationship to the issues in the case, and an argument that the presence of insurance warrants a finding of liability or an increase in damages is improper and may result in prejudice which is difficult, if not impossible, to assess. The fact that juries may have developed a more sophisticated attitude toward insurance does not warrant a departure from the rule set forth above that notwithstanding an admonition reversal is required in a closely balanced case where counsel intentionally and improperly brings before the jury the presence or absence of insurance.

Hoffman v. Brandt, 65 Cal. 2d 549, 554 (Cal. 1966)

In light of the above, it is very difficult for Plaintiff lawyers like me to bring the whole truth to light at trial. It’s usually not the Defendant who is refusing to make amends with the Plaintiff. It is the insurance industry as a whole that is playing financial games with true victims.

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), 5001 says:

You must not consider whether any of the parties in this case has insurance. The presence or absence of insurance is totally irrelevant. You must decide this case based only on the law and the evidence.

California Evidence Code section 1155 provides: “Evidence that a person was, at the time a harm was suffered by another, insured wholly or partially against loss arising from liability for that harm is inadmissible to prove negligence or other wrongdoing.”

Case Law Authority:

As a rule, evidence that the defendant has insurance is both irrelevant and prejudicial to the defendant. (Neumann v. Bishop (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 451, 469 [130 Cal.Rptr. 786].)

Evidence of insurance coverage may be admissible where it is coupled with other relevant evidence, provided that the probative value of the other evidence outweighs the prejudicial effect of the mention of insurance. (Blake v. E. Thompson Petroleum Repair Co., Inc. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 823, 831 [216 Cal.Rptr. 568].)

An instruction to disregard whether a party has insurance may, in some cases, cure the effect of counsel’s improper reference to insurance. (Scally v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 806, 814 [100 Cal.Rptr. 501].)

Conclusion

It is my personal opinion that our Evidence Code retains this rule due to the powerful and wealthy lobby of the insurance industry. It is also my opinion that this rule does not rise to the level for appropriate exclusion due to “public policy” reasons. It does not prejudice a defendant in a civil trial – it prejudices the insurance company by exposing its wrongful conduct in refusing to settle. It’s my hope that our evidence code evolves to allow this important truth in to civil trials.

Many clients ask me science based questions, such as “what is my probability of success?”, or “how much money can I get with this case?” Unfortunately, since law is very much an art, an honest lawyer cannot give concrete, hard numbers or predictions.

Maybe you will get a bad judge, or perhaps a biased jury. There are way too many variables to honestly answer many questions in the legal context. There is a science, however. Lawyers and the legal community do collect statistics on cases, from settlement value to jury verdict size. We can see general trends.

But the bottom line is that we live in an imperfect world with a variety of different people and beliefs. Sometimes our excellent justice system produces unjust results. This is why an honest lawyer will never tell his or her client an absolute answer to a question that could have one of many different results.

One thing that I can promise is that I will be the best zealous advocate I know how to be for each one of my clients.

Brian not Pictured Here

Attorney Brian Pedigo was featured in the February 2011 edition of the Riverside Lawyer Magazine.

Click the link to the right to read a copy of the article – Pages from Riverside Lawyer February 2011-Feature

In addition to the feature article, Brian submitted an article for lawyers on maintaining good attorney-client relations. Pages from Riverside Lawyer February 2011 – 7 tips on Maintaining Good Client Relations