Recently I heard about the proceedings of a parking ticket infraction in the state of Georgia which had me scratching my head. A person I know filed an appeal against a parking ticket because they believed they had decisive evidence to prove the ticket was issued in error.
When they showed up in court as the first step their case was processed at the hands of prosecutors. The prosecution asked them a number of questions related to the case, such as why the defendant would go to all that trouble to appeal. The defendant explained that they believed the ticket was issued in error and they had photo evidence. The prosecution then demanded to see the evidence, claiming the defendant was required to show any evidence to them because "we have to put it on file and compare it with the pictures we have on file." The defendant, though unwilling, complied with their order. After seeing the defendant's evidence one of the prosecutors made a comment suggesting the defendant "would do anything to get out of a ticket." This all took place prior to the trial.
During the trial most of the talking was done by the prosecutors who suggested to the judge that the defendant's evidence was "fake." I heard about the court proceedings and felt the prosecution's actions were unwarranted and maybe even unlawful. So my question is during a civil infraction case, does the prosecution's claim that the defendant is required to turn over evidence hold water? I did some research but it seems most articles (example) talk about criminal cases.
*Also worth noting is that the defendant was a person with limited English proficiency (LEP) and required licensed interpretation. Despite knowing this the prosecutors insisted on speaking to the defendant prior to trial in English without an interpreter. (In fact the court is so ill-prepared for interpretation requests that only after resetting the court date five times they were finally able to get a call-in interpreter for several minutes during the trial.)
