FILED

},{AR

I 0 20ltr
CLE:RK

No.

OFFIC: OF THE

IN'IHE
SUPEREMH C]OUR'| OIT TI]E UNITED STATES

Howard Herships,
Petiti,rrrer',

V.

('alifbrnia.
Respondent.

'['o

On Writ o1'Certiorari the- Califbrnia Sr"rprerne Court

PIrl-l'llON

F'OR

\L'RI'| OF CER-l'lOItAI{l

Horvard I-lerships P.O. Box 1501 Carrnichael, Ca 95609 415 933-5X90

In Pro Se

,j

i: 1

i*- .' ; i :"i':{..-;';'".,.r

:

'

l'. ... :

:
,i

i i

QUEST]ONS PRESENTED FC)R REVIEW

whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a non-testi$ring compur:er technician through the in_court tgstimonv of a police' officer who dict not perform o'' obsJrve the prirtout of the digital photos arLd virJeos used as a ter;limony introduced as the sole trasis for the criminal prosecurtion'?
the Equral protection clause of the r4rh Amendment prohibirs the california Supreme Court from denying a criminal clefendantls petition for writ of Prohibition and litay of the prosecutir:n when revieu'has been granted on the very same issues by the Califomia Suprer.ne Court?

y!:]her

-t-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGElSl
QUESTIONS PRESI]NTED FOR Rti,/rEW
i

TABLE OII AU'THORITIES

JTIRISDIC'TION

iii-iv
"| J

RELEVANT CC)NS]-ITUTIONAL
STATEMENT
STII\4MARY OF' ARGLII\4ENT

P R OVISIONS

't^1 I

7-9

ARGLMENTS
I

IF THE PRSECLITION INTRODUC]]|S A WITNESSES' TI]STIMONAL STATE:MENTS REGARDING TI{E C)PERATION 01; A COMPUTER GENERATED DIGITA I, PHOTOS AND VIDEOS, THE I3OMRoNTAI.]ON CLAUSE ENTITLES THE DEFENDANT TO BE CONFRONTI]D \VITFI TFIAT P,I.]{TICULI\R WIT\IESS.

9-l

II
WHEN TFil3 CAT,IFORNIA SUPRE]\IE COLR:1' GRANTED REVIEW IN PEOPLE VI;. GOLDSI\4ITI{ EVERY OTHER I]RIIIINAI. DEFEN I)ANT IT IS A DENTAL OF THE; EQUet pRoTEC-r-toN CLAUSE OF TFIE FOURTITEN fH AMENDMI;I'JT TO GRANT REVIEW IN PEOPLE VS. GOLDSMI'IH AND'IO DENY PETITIONER'S lYzuTON I-I{E VER]T SAME ]SStES
12- 13

CONCLUSION
-ii-

14

.IABLE

C)]I ATJTHORII]ES

PAGE[S]
CASES

Crawford v. Wasrhington s4l u. s. 36 (2006)

10,

ll

&13
l3

Bullcoming v. New Nlexico 564U. S. __, (20n)

Giles v. California 128 Sct 2678

(20118)

II

Griffin v. Illinois
3s 1 U.S. 12

(tes6\

Marbury v. Madisron s U.S. 138

(180:i)

l0

Melendez -Diaz v. Massachusetts ss7 u. s. 30s

(2009)

13

People vs. Broazkian 203 Cat App 4', 52.5

(20t2) (2:,012)

PASSIM

People vs. GoldsrnLith 203 Cat app 4'h l5t5

pASSIM

United States v. Gonzales-Lopez 548 U.S. 140

(20015)

Youngblood v. West Virginia s47 U.S. 867

(2006)

r:

lll

.IABLE

CIII

AUTHORII'IES
PAGEIs]

FEDERAL COhISTI,TUTIC)NAL AI],I,{ENDMENTS

Sixth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment

PASSIM PASSIM

STATE STATU'|I]S
California fividence Code Section 1552 Section 1553

l0 l0

California \/ehicle Cc'de Section 21455.5 (:e)

r0

iv

APPENDIX:

PAGEIS]

APPENDIX I
OPINION OF T]IE CALIFORNIA SL|PREME COIIRT DENYING WRIT O]T PROHIBITIO]\ AND REQUEST FOR STAY APPENDIX
2

A-l

CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1303 ENACTED LEGISL,,\1'ION WHICTJ DECLARES THAT I-HE C()MPUTI,I{ GENERATED REPCRT IS PRESLII\{FD TO BE CORRECT AND T'FtrN THF BURDEN SHIFTS T(f TFIE DEFEN])ANT AND NO RIGHTOF COMRONTAIION
IS

REQUIRED
3

A-2-14

APPENDIX

REDFLEX MEMOS WHICH ASSERI S T,IfiIR DESIRE.(, T'O OVERRULE TLIE COURT OF I\PI,EAL DECiSSICIN IN PEOPL,E VS. BORAZIAN AND CONDIF!'THE COURT OF'APPEAL DECISSION IN PI]OPLE VS GOLD:;IVIITH APPENDIX 4

,A- 1 5- 1 7

CALIFORNIA SI.JPR]]ME COI.,RT CIITDER GRAN'|ING REVIEW IN PEOPLE VS. GOLDSMI IH

APPENDIX
5

z\- I 8

CALIFORNIA SI-]PRI]ME COURT CII{DER DENYING DE-PUBLISHINCi THE REPORTED DECISSION I}.I PEOPLE VS. BOITAKIAN AND GRI\NTING REVI EW

A-19-26

No,

IN THE
I]IIP]3REME COUR

I OF TFIE LN, TED

STATES

;;i,*"*
petitioner,
V.

California,
Responclent,

On Writ. of Certiorari To the Calilornia Supreme Clourt

PETITION FOR 'fr,,RIT OF C]ERI-IORARI

Howard F{erships P.O. Box 1tjOl Carmichael, Ca 95609

4is

933-51 t0
Se

In Pro

QIUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW whether the co'frontation clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a non-tr:stiffing compuier technician tlrrough the in_court testimony of a police officer who o'ia not perform or" obr.*. the prirrtout of the digital photos anrc videos used as a testimony introduced as the sole llasis for the criminal prosecurli on?

same issues by the Califomier Supreme Court?

protection clause cf the l4,h Ame:ndment prohibits the I/f.elher the Equrar california Suprerne court fr'm deny ing a..irinuiJefendant,s petition for writ of Prohibition and stay ofthe prosecutic,rr when review has been granted
on the very

PETITION FOR 'MRIT OF CERTTORARI

Petitioner Flovrard Herships re:spectfully requests that this Colrt grant certiorari and reversr: the judgment of the california supreme

court.

OPINION BELOW
The order denying the writ of Prohibition and Request for Stay is not reported but is attachi:d hereto as App,e ndix L

JURISDICTION
The Judgment of the Clalifornia liupreme Court was entered on December 11,2013. This Coutrt has jurisdiction Pursuant to Titlr:28 U.S.C. ti 1254 (l) on this Petition for Writ o1'Ce:rtiorari.

RI'LEVANT CONST ITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

The Sixth lr.tnendment to the Llnited State Conr;titution provide s in relevant part: "ln all criminal prosecutions, the erccused shall enjoy the right...to be
confronted w.ith wirnesses against hinr. .,' The Fourteenth r\mendment to lhe United States Constitution provides in relevant pan: "No state shall rnake or r:nforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuttitie,s of citizens of t.re United Statt:s: ... deny to any person within its jurisdicti'n the equal protection of the laws.', The Fourteerrth ltmendrnent to the United Stater; Constitution provides in relevant part: "No state shall ntake or e'rLforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immurrities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, l.Lberty, or property. vrithout due process of law.,,

S'I'ATEMENT
The State of California enacterJ California Evidence Code sections 1552, which codifies by State Law that "creates a presumption of authentir:ity for a 'printed represent'tion of computer i'[ormation or er computer program.,,

similarly, Evidence code $ 1553 creirtes a presumption of authenticj ty for a 'printed representation of inrages stored on a video or digital mediunr.,,
See

Appendix 2.

This legislation, (SB r303) als. codified Califbrnia Vehicle Cr><le g 214555.5 (e) to state ""the printed rep,rs5gnl.tion of oomputer_genererted
information, video, or photographic irnages stored bl,automatic traffic enforcement systetn does nor constitutt: an out-of court hearsay staternent by declarant." See Appendix 2.
Senate

Bill

1303 was rvritten b1' Redflex Traffic Systems and clone to

"codi["'the Court of appeal decision in People vs. Goldsmith and to supersede the
court ofAppeal of'Decision in peopler vs. Borzakian,
Senater see Appen<Jix 3.

Bill

1303 was passed both houses and the Governor signed the bill

and according to the Redflex Traffic Systems' Memos to the "Management Team,' the new leglslatiorl "creates a presumption of authorit'y for a printed r,:presentation

of computer infbnnation or a computer program" and done without a1 right under the Confrontation (llause. See Appendi< 3.
Petitioner herein received two criminal citationi; generated by a automatic traffic enforcement system created by R.edflex Traffic Systems and w;ls ordered
appear by mail in the Superior Court of California.

to

The Calitbmla Supreme Court on May 9,2012, granted review in people vs. Goldsmith s201443i and limited the questions to: (see Appendix 4).

exceptions appJy?"

"Petition for rerview afte:r the court of ,{ppear affirmed a judgment of conviction of a criminar offense. The courr limited review to rhe following issues: (1) what testimony, if any, regarcling the accurac,y and'reriabirity of the automated traffic r:nforcement s./stem (ATES) is required as a prerequisite to admission ,cf the ATES-gelerated eviclence? (2) Is the ATI:;S evidence heirsay and, if.s., do any

The California Suprerne Court also on May 9,

2}Iz,in

the reported opinion

in People

',,s.

Bor.zakian 203 Cal App tlth 525 (2012) Cenied Redllex ,Iraffic

System's Motion to De-publish the r[rsftgd opinion. See Appendix

:.

The Court of Appeal Opinion i.n People vs. Borzakain reversed a conviction based upon the legal theory that the aur:omated traffic enforcement sy'stem required the computer techrnician who generate'cl the digital photos and vicleo rnust be present to authenticate them, The Court of Appeal further stated at F<lotnote I I in its opinion at 203 Cal App 4'L at 547 as follows:

"In light of our resolution of the issues surrounding

the admissibility c,f'the Redflex erzidence, n.rj' not reach Borzakian's arguments rt:lating to her constitutio,nal right of confrontation, We note, however, the Redf'lex evidence nec:essarily has a "'primary' purpose"' of "'establishIing] or pror,[ing,] past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecutic'n."' (Bullcoming v. Ner.r,Mexico (201 1) 564 U.S. __, fn. 6 [liiO L.Ed.2d 610, 131 S.Ct. .2705,2714,2717 & fn. (il ["A document created solely for an 'evidentiary llurpose,' . . . lrilde in aid of a; police investigation, rarks as testirnonial,") 'Suppose a. police report recorded ern objective fac:_Bullcoming's counsel posited the a<ldress above thr: front door ofa hous: or the read-out ofa radar gun. fCitation.] Could an officer other than the on. *ho saw the number on the house or gun present the informatiorr in court-so long as that officer was equipped trl testifl'about any technology the

*.

_, _&

the courl. believes that questioningone witness about another's teslimonial staternents provides ?!" enough opgrortunity for crc)ss_examination. . tTl . . [w']hen the State elected to inrrod:;ce Caylor's certification, Caylor bec:ame a witness Bullcoming had the right to confiont.,, (ld. ur t. il 31 S.Clt. at p. 2l 16l) Further, it bears mention' that the "'Confrontation Clause irnposes a burden on the prosecution to present its vrilnesses, not orr the defendant to bring those advet.se witnesses inl.o couft."'(Ilullcoming, supra, 564 U.S. at p,.[13 ] S.Ct. at p. 27 tgl),,

"[T]he lr]onfrontarion] Clause does not tolerati dispensi::rg with confrontation sirnply b..urr.'

observing officer deployed and the police department's stanrJard operatin6; procedures? As our precedent rnakes plain, the answer is 'No."' (Id. at pp. -emphatically [131 S.Ct. atpp, ,.Zlt4_27tjl, ,ltrrion oritted.)

tfll

Because the newly enar:tment of SB 1303 which sought to codified the holdings of People vs. Goldsmith petiticner herein soqght to seek relief via writ

of

Prohibition and Request for Srlay in thr: California Supreme Court as the both the California Evidence Codes sections 15:!,2 & 1 553 as well as Califomi,l Vehicle Code section 2145:;-5 (e) was amended after the granting of review in people
vs.

Goldsmith, lvhich creates a presumption of correctnessr of documents submitted without any rjghts to confrontation by criminal defendrints. See Appe'dix
3.

The California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's Writ of prohrbition and Request for a Stay, see Appenclix l.

Petitioner went to a trial by a cor.rrl commissioner and was denied the right to confrontation of ad'zerse witnesses as rv:ll the police oIficer was perrnitted to
authenticate digital photos and videos that were not within the personerl knowledge

of the police officer and which wes and is pending in the Califomia Supreme
Court,

Petitioner was charged with nraking to right hand turns on a nrd light and
u,as imposed a total fine

of $980,00 all done without any authenticalion or the right

to confront adverse witnessr:s at a trial. Petitioner filed motions in limine contesting t,r the police offic;er entering
said exhibits and objected to being de:nied adverse r.r,itnesses and the right to cross-

examine which the California Suprenre Court deniecl as well as the trial judge.

SIA4MAR Y OF ARGUMENT

l. The State violated the Confrrrntation

Clause: by introducing the digital

pictures ancl videos testimonial statenrr:nts in a through the testimony of a police

officer who did not perfbrm or observe any of the computer tasks or assuring that
pictures and videos were digitally enhanced and that the computer generated program was working properly.

'l'he fbundational rule of the Confrontation Clzruse

which has been

established for cenluries and applies across every kind of testimony

- is that if the
of

prosecution wishes to introdr:ce a witrLess's testimonial statements. then the defendant is entitled to be confronted *'ith that particular witness, Confrontation
a

particular witness, serves four primary purposes: (l'r it enables cross-examination

concerning the r.l,itttess's faclual asserti()ns, his belie'r,'ability, and his <:haracter; (2)

it guarantees that ttre witness gives his testimony under oath; (3) it
allows the trier of fact to observe the vritness's demeanor; and (4) it etrsures that
the witness testifies in the presence o1'the defendant. Confrontation with what

might be called 4 "s:urrogate'witness" thwarts all four of these objectives. This Court ru.led in Bullcoming

r. New Mexico 564 U.S._ (:!011)

on this

very subject matter and the Court of Acpeal in People vs. Borzakian203 Cal App

4'n 525

at 547 held that Bullcoming \/, New Mexico supra applied

irL

automated

traffic enforcement system cases.

Mr. Justice Scalia, in Crawford v. Washington 541 U.S. 36 (,2004) stated

the rule as follows,:

"The Constitution prescribes a procedure for determirring the r:liability of testimony in criminal trials, and we, no less than the state courts, lack authority to replace it with one of our own devisine ''
Califbrnia Evidence Code sections 1552 & 1553 attempts to asrsert the

reliability of the evidence o{'digital photos and videos are "[A] printod
representation of irnages stored on a \ ideo or digital medium is presumed to be an
accurate representzrtion of the images it purports to r:present" and done without the

right under the Confrontation Clause

lc,

cross-examination of the tecfLnician who

programmed the computer generated arrtomatic traffic signal as it violates

Crawford v. Washington, supra.

The photos and video submittecl by the police officer regarding the digital photos and videos required confrontation b1,the technician who produccd and be
subjected to cross-r:xamination. The clr:rrial of these rights by the CaliFomia Supreme C)ourt's etroneous r;onception of the Confrontation Clause cannot stand.

2. The State violated Petitioner's right to the F)qual Protection of the Law in that it grante<l review in People vs. GokJsmith on the very issue reganiing the automated traffic enforcement system and the requirr:ments to have persons who
have personal knou,ledge of documents that they are authenticating and then

denied review on these very same issu,l;.

This is even iurther cc)mpounded by the Califcrrnia Supreme Court decision in denying de-publishing the reported opinion in People vs. Borzakain 203 Cal

App 4'n 525 (2012:) and still permit the Superior Cor:rl to proceed on automated

traffic enfbrcement system cases,

Clearly, unrler the Rule of Lau' in this Country the Law has to apply equally
and to proceed on automated traffic enforcement syrstem when reviel1'has been

granted opening yawning br:each und:r the Fourteerrth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.

What is even more troublesomr: is that SB 1313 "codified" the ruling in

People vs. Goldsnrith, by asserting the reliability of the photos and videos are presumed correct and that are generated by the comlruter generated sy'stem as no

right of conlrontation exists as they

ale:

not considered testimonial even through

they require a person to generate thern, see Appendix 3 at A-16-17.

Even if the California Supreme Court holds ttrat the pictures artd video are
not reliable and re<1uire auth'entication r:he statutes ir: question here herve already
been amended dec.laring bolh reliabiiit;,, as well
BS n,f,

rights under

the:

Confrontation Clatrse apply in California. See Appendix 3 at A-15 tol7.

ARGLMENT
I

IF TFIE PROSECLI'|ION INTRODUCES A WITNESSES' TE!;'|IMONAL STATEMENTS REGARDING TH]J OPI]RATION OF A COMPUTER GEN IIRATED DI(]ITAL PHOTOS AND VIDEOS, TF[:r CONFRO]'JTATION CLAUSI] ENTITLF S T]IE DEF,ENDANT TO BE) CONFR()NTED \\/] TH THAT PARTICULAR

MTNESS.
A. The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Cllause provides that "[i]n all criminal
prosecution, the acc:used shall enjoy tlie right... to be confronted with witnesses asainst him." U. S. Constitution Amendment VI.

The seminal case on point is clrawford v. w;ashington 541 l-r.s. 36 (2004) and which Mr. Justice Scalia held as follorvs:

"The Constitution prescribes a procedure for determining the reliability of testimony in criminal trials, and we, no less than the state courls, lack authcrity to replace it with one of our own devising,"
Respondent State of California zrmended the Clalifornia Eviderrce Code sections 1552 & l:i53 to assert that presentation of digital photos ancl videos do not have to be authenticate by the technicians producing said printouts a1d as such is "[A] printed repres:entation c'f images storeci on a video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of the imalges it purpofts t6 represent,,. Moreover, once tht: photos and or video is introducecl the burden shifrs to the

criminal defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the computer systems is not worlling properly, see (lalifornia Evidence Code sections lS52 &
1

553.

What is even more interesting

i: rhat rhe legislertion was proposerC by

Redflex Tralfic Sysrtems so that they cculd codified the Court of Appeal decision

in People vs. Goldr;mith 203 Cal App' 4th 1515 (2011t) andovem.rle the reported decision in People'vs. Brozakian, 203 rJal .,\pp 4'h 525 (2012), see Allpendix 3.
Clearly', this amendment to both the Califomia Evidence Code siections 1552

&

1553 as well as Clalifomia'Vehicle (lode section 21455.5 (e) seeks to ovem:le

Federal Constitutiottal Issues which is in excess of the Califomia Legislature going back to Marbury v. Modison, 5 U.S. t.lZ (1803).

More fundamentally,

asr

this Court has noted, "ft]he text of the Siixth

Amendment does not suggest any open-ended exceptions flom the cor,frontation
requirement to be developed by the courts," Crawforcl, 541U.S. at 54. Nor is it

"the role of courts to extrapolate from the words of the, [Confrontation Clause] to
10

the values behind it, and then to enfor,:e its guarantees only to the ex:tent they serve (in the cour-ts' views) those underlyirrg values." Gik:s v. California, l2g S. Ct.

2678, 2692 (2008). Accordingl'r, just as the Confrontation Clause does not tolerate .,[d]ispensing with confrontation because" a court believes that "testimony is obviously reliable,,, Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62, t.he Clause: does not tolerate dispensing with confrontation because a coutl believes that questioni:rg one witness about another,s
testimonial statements provides a fair opportunity for. cross-examination.,,[T]he
guarantee of confrrlntation is no guarantee at all

if it is subject to wha.tever

exceptions courts from the failure to provide the right to confrontation of witnesses Indeed, this'Court has recently lejected the Ne,rr Mexico Supreme Court,s mode of reasoning in Bullcoming v. l,lew N{exico 564

u. s. _,

201 I ).

In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez,548 U.S ,140 (2006), the 6overnment argued that illegitirnately denying a defendant his counsel of choice did not violate
the Sixth Amendmt:nt so longi as "subs;titute counsel'sr performance,, clid not demonstrabh' prejudice the defendant in some way. Icl. at 144-45.

Expressly an,llogizing
rejected that argumr,'nt.

t.o

the Creuvford line of cases, id.

at 145-,l6,this Court

"lt

is true enough," this Court explained, "that the purpose

of the rights set forth in [the Sixth] An:e,ndment is to e:nsure a fair trial; but it does not follow that the rights can be disregarded so long ar; the trial is, on the whole,

fair." Id. at 145. If a "particular guaran'-e:e" of the Sixt6 Amendment is violated, no substitute procedure can cure the violatiorl, ?Dd "[n]o trdditional showing of
prejudice is requirecl to make the violation'compiete."'Id. at 146 (footnote
omitted). The same is true here. Just as sutrstitute counsel cannot satisfli the Sixth Amendment, neithercan conliontation of a substitute rvitness provide .flor proper

11 IJ.

cross-examination of the police offic:er who has no personal knowlerlge of the facts i,e. operation of the computer generated system.

I]

WHENTFM CAL,IFORNIIA SUPREME COURI' GRANTED REVII]W IN PEOP]-E VS. GOLDSI{ITH EVERY OTT{ER I]RIMINAL DEFENDANT IT IS A DENIAI, OF THE EQLIAL PRC,TECTION CLAUSE OF TI{E FOURTT:UNTH AME|TDMENT TO GI{ANT REVIEW IN PEOPLE VS. GOLDSMITH AND .fO DENY PETITIC)NER'S \VRIT ON THE VERY SAMI' ISSUES.
When the Califomia Supreme Crrurt granted r,:view in people vs. Goldsmith on May, 9,2012,ilsought to settle an imporlant quer;tion regarding t,no conflicting Califomia Court opinions by the two tlifi'erent reported opinions of the Division of the second Appellate District, people vs. Borzakian, 203 Cal App 4,', 525 (2012) and People vs. Goidsmith 203 Cal App 4,h i5 l5 (2012).
The Clalifornia Supreme Court then denied de-publishing the reported

opinion in People vs. Brozakian and lg.ranted review but held the briefine in the case pending detennination in people vs. Goldsmith Petitioner fiL:d a Writ of Prohibition asserting r.hat the change i.r the law after the granting o.[review by the Cal.:fbrnia Supreme Court, which vras done by Redflex Trafl'rc Systems to usurp the Clalifomia Supreme Court frorn ruling on the issues' Redflex Tra.ffic Systems by co,Jify all the elerrents of the Court of Appeal
decision in People'rs. Goldsmith Supra sought to or,emrle the Court of Appeal Decision in People vs. Borzakian, Su;rra was unconr;titutional see Alrpen dix 2. The California Supreme Court d:nied the Writ ,tf prohibition and Request

for stay even throuSf the verv same isr;ues which were and are pending the

t2

california supreme court is a denial

.f

the Equai I'rotection clause of the r4rh

Amendment to the United States Corstitution. Ever since this court's ruring in Griffin v. that it is a deniar of Equar protection r0 grant

Iilinois,35l U.S. I 2 (1956)hetd

an apprear to the rich burt deny

appellate review t<l the poor by fairur,: to provide trernscripts.

Likewise it is a denial of the equal protection to grant revier.r, in people vs. Goldsmith on the ve,} sol11r3 questiorrs and then deny a wit of prohibition and stay in petitioner's casr as clearl;r, petitioner is entitled b.y operation of la,w to the rulings by the california Supreme court on the very subject matter. This court in Youngblood v. !!'est virginia i;47 u.s, g67 (2006) held that when a federal constitutional claim is asserled it ivourd benefit the vi.rvs of the full siate supreme court on the issues.
Here in this
':ase the

california Supreme court granted review in people

vs.

Goldsmith and in F'eople vs. Brozakia;r but denied re'iew to petitioner herein. It is pertitionor's assertion that said denial is in itself a denial of the liqual Protection o1'the I-llw under the l4'h r\rrrendment as this court,s ciecii;i'ns in
s. 305 (2009) and Bullcoming v. New Nlexico, Supra vyould require the right to confrontation at the trial of the case.

crawford l'. washington, slrpra, Merendez -Diazv. ,Massachusetts, 557 u.

The Califomia Supreme Couft denial of petitioner's Writ of pr.hibition and stay pending disposition in the both ca,ses that the califomia Supreme court granted review as it clearly violates the l4th Amendment Equal protection of Law as the court of Appeal in peopre vs. Broazkian 203 cal App 4,, 525 at 547 Footnote l1 clearly held that the right under the Confrontation clause required the Prosecution to prodrlce adverse witnesiie:s.

l5

CCINCLUSION
The petition for writ of-cert.iorari should be granted, Dated March g,:,.014 Floward Herships

1A TT