Scenario (Utah, USA): A defendant is arraigned at a pre-trial hearing. Charges include driving without insurance and driving with an expired license. State law declares that those who do these things are guilty of misdemeanors in each case, and prescribes a minimum penalty for each if found guilty.
The defendant expresses a desire for a trial, and seeing that these are criminal charges, he exercises his State and Federal Constitutional right to a jury trial to respond to those charges.
The judge immediately prevaricates and solicits input from the prosecutor, who promptly adjusts the charges to "infractions". The judge then repeatedly affirms that a jury trial is not an option because no criminal charges are being made, despite criminal charges having been the cause of the arraignment.
The judge attempts to coerce either a bench trial or a plea deal, repeatedly saying that since no criminal charges are being made, no jury trial can be arranged.
The State Constitution also says that "All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation".
In the same jurisdiction, people arraigned with identical initial charges and with comparable evidences against them have been charged as misdemeanors, pled guilty or issued a plea in abeyance, and were convicted by a bench trial with no further findings beyond police reports or pulling their traffic records, and were left with a criminal record on account of the conviction, and required to pay a commensurate fine and being required to conform to additional sentencing.
Can the prosecutor and/or the judge be sued for dereliction of duty, and for non-uniform application of the law? Can the outcome of a bench trial be appealed on grounds that the judge did not inform the defendant of his rights or that his rights were taken away by unwarranted modification of the charges?