LOS ANGELES, CA – Countless incarcerated transportation issues have plagued the LA County Justice System in the last several years, argued Deputy Public Defender Toral Patel Malik here in Los Angeles County Superior Court this week, contending, in a pretrial conference Tuesday morning, her client’s case was no different.
The accused was requested to appear the day prior in court for a pretrial conference for outstanding offenses, but Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which is responsible for bringing accused to court, failed to do so Monday.
The defense said the accused, aware of his obligation to appear in court Monday, questioned the sheriff’s department about why he was not being transported. Despite his inquiry, the department submitted an affidavit claiming the accused was intentionally refusing to appear.
In light of these circumstances, defense attorney Malik requested the court dismiss both charges of “Offense While on Bail/Own Recognizance” from her client’s record.
In recent years, transportation issues have plagued the court system, the defense argued, citing a range of problems from a shortage of buses to officers falsely reporting those accused were unwilling to attend court.
The defense proposed that, moving forward, courts should implement audio recordings of those incarcerated explicitly refusing to appear, rather than relying solely on written statements from officers.
While Judge Mark Zuckman acknowledged the defense claim, while labeling it as hearsay and self-serving, the accused’s account was not dismissed outright. The accused offered to provide testimony under oath, which Judge Zuckman rejected, noting that it would not change his opinion.
Deputy District Attorney James Travis Burrough contended that, despite the current flaws of the LA justice transportation system, the sheriff’s department’s affidavit remains the sole piece of credible evidence the court can rely on. Judge Zuckman asserted that based on the accused’s account the affidavit remains a piece of hearsay.
DDA Burrough tried to reason it’s the sheriff’s department’s word against the accused, and the sheriff’s department’s record is far more credible and trustworthy, suggesting the accused could’ve lied about wanting to appear in court Monday.
The defense strongly opposed the comment, charging the accused’s credibility should not be undermined due to his standing as an accused.
Judge Zuckman reinforced this point, emphasizing that if an accused’s testimony were consistently given less weight than that of officials, the court would systematically be biased against the accused.
Judge Zuckman further reasoned that because the accused appeared in court the following day of his absence, the reliability of the sheriff’s affidavit could be questioned.
Ultimately Judge Zuckman concluded that, since both sides lacked evidence to make a sufficient case, he would delay the resolution of the defense motion to dismiss.
