My husband had to go to traffic court today for the first time because he got pulled over for expired tags. We did not have the money to pay the tags- it was either pay them or eat for the month so we chose food.(I am disabled and expected to live on $799 a month from SSI and we also take care of my disabled FIL so we often have to make choices like that.) The gamble apparently did not pay off. The ticket was for $200 (SC) or go to court and they would cut it down to $85. He decided to go to court and I made sure we filed our taxes early so we could pay it with our tax refund. We did bad, that is not the issue, my issue is with how his case was handled...
He arrived to court this morning on time. According to everything I have read the judge was supposed to call for the case, my hubby would say "Ready" and then him and the prosecutor would stand and deliver their cases with the prosecutor going first. The prosecutor would present the traffic cop as a witness and then my husband would get the chance to ask questions or whatever. If the cop did not show then the case would be dismissed because of lack of evidence. (and of course, the Confrontation Clause)
"What is the Confrontation Cause?", you may ask...
Wikipedia sums it up nicely when it says:
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
So when my hubby's time came none of the above happened. He was called up and asked if he wanted to pay the fine or go to jail for 30 days. No trial, no witnesses, nothing. He was not even asked if he wanted to plead guilty or innocent. No chance to confront his accuser or even ask the judge for leniency. Where was his day in court?
I am so mad I am practically frothing.
Every rapist and pedophile gets their day in court and gets to confront their accuser. Even if the victim has PTSD or whatever kind of trauma from the assault they have to go to court and look the person in eye that they have accused of committing the crime and give witness. There are tons of precedents where they have tried cameras or partitions and it was deemed a violation of the accused's rights. It is part of the innocent until guilty bit of our justice system. It is guaranteed in the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment and also in the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well it should be.
Why was my hubby denied his constitutionally protected rights? Because the accuser was a police officer and this is the south and the "Good Ol' Boy System" is still alive and well here? Because it was "only" traffic court? Did he do some procedure wrong? Was there something he was supposed to say to enact his rights?
Any helpful input to clear up what went wrong would be greatly appreciated.