A five-year delay in prosecution that resulted in the loss of dashcam footage does not violate the defendant’s due process rights or give cause to dismiss the charges, the Court of Appeal ruled Oct. 17.
Danny Manzo was charged in Riverside Superior Court with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, possessing prohibited ammunition, and being under the influence with a loaded firearm.
Manzo admitted to having a gun in his car when pulled over by a police officer Jan. 1, 2017. He was stopped for using his cell phone while driving, and was searched when the officer found Manzo’s license was suspended. The officer also found a methamphetamine pipe in Manzo’s car, and discovered that Manzo was a convicted felon.
On Jan. 27, 2017, while out from Riverside jail on bail, he was arrested in San Bernardino County. He was charged with armed robbery, and pleaded no contest May 19, 2017. He was sentenced to eight years in state prison.
The Riverside charges were filed Feb. 7, 2017, while he was in San Bernardino County jail.
Since Manzo did not appear at his Riverside Superior arraignment Feb. 15, 2017, his bail was considered forfeited, and a warrant for his arrest was issued. The bail forfeit and warrant were rescinded in May 2017.
Manzo completed his sentence for the robbery in 2022, and was arrested and arraigned for the Riverside charges in April 2022. Manzo moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that his due process rights were violated because the arresting officer’s dashcam footage was no longer available.
San Bernardino Superior Judge Jeffrey Prevost agreed with Manzo.
“The existence of the dashcam is problematic. I tend to agree with the prosecution that the loss of any dashcam footage can be prejudicial to prosecution of the case just as much as it might be prejudicial to defense. But I think that that doesn’t obviate the fact that there is some prejudice that ensued to the defense from the unavailability of such evidence, which could possibly substantiate defense claims that the circumstances of the arrest were not as claimed by the law enforcement agency performing the arrest,” Prevost said, according to the appellate ruling.
Prevost dismissed the charges, and the District Attorney appealed.
The Court of Appeal found that Manzo did not prove the loss of the dashcam footage hurt his case.
The footage could have helped his case or helped the prosecutor’s case, the appellate ruling said.
“There is no evidence that the missing dashcam footage prejudiced the defendant in any way. He offered only unsupported speculation that the footage had exculpatory value in that it might have contradicted the arresting officer’s version of events. But “‘(t)he showing of prejudice requires some evidence and cannot be presumed,’” the appellate ruling said, quoting the 1988 case People v. Morris.
Manzo’s attorney argued that the cases People v. Mirenda and People v. Cave established that his due process rights were violated, according to the ruling. The Court of Appeal found the precedent established in each case did not apply to Manzo’s case.
The Mirenda case was delayed by 26 years, which resulted in the death of a key witness and the fading of memory.
The Cave case was delayed intentionally by the prosecution, which resulted in the disappearance of an informant who was the only witness to an undercover operation involving a drug deal, the appellate ruling said.
The Court of Appeal ordered the criminal case reinstated.
Case information
Kristen Allison argued for the Riverside District Attorney’s Office.
Elisa Brandes, under appointment, represented Manzo.
Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Carol Codrington wrote the opinion, which Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez and Justice Art McKinster joined.
Riverside Case No. RIF1700495
Appellate Case No. E079991
Read the ruling here.
