Justice in Balance: Inside a Phoenix Courtroom’s Split Outcomes

Reporter: Rona Yousufi

PHOENIX- Two men, 2 results, while one defendant fought to have DUI(driving under the influence and operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol, drugs, or both) prosecution connected to a passenger's death dismissed, another defendant admitted guilt and paid a $463 fine for careless driving before Judge Lenore Driggs at the Encanto justice court. Collectively, their examples show how Phoenix courts balance the need for fairness outlined in the Constitution with efficiency.

A Guilty plea and a suspended Case 

Jose Manuel Cabrera Gomez was the defendant who stood quietly in front of the bench and shared his date of birth with his name when the Judge asked him. He admitted that he was entering into a plea agreement for careless driving with a Class 2 misdemeanor. 

Judge Driggs provided a detailed explanation of his rights. He said, “Cabrera has the right to a Jury trial, to remain silent, and to present evidence on his own behalf.” Cabrera Gomez nodded and waved to everyone

in return. He agreed to pay $463.75 fine and stated he dropped his remaining charges. Driggs informed him that he would be subject to a mandatory 20-day jail sentence for any subsequent convictions for dangerous driving within two years. He accepted the plea after verifying that no one had “forced or promised” him anything other than what was in writing. 

Within minutes, that hearing ended. A man walked away after confessing to his guilt and paying a fine it was the standard rhythm, prompt justice for Encanto Justice courts, a busy division that handles hundreds of criminal cases. 

Delay a death and a constitutional issue

 A defense attorney with a more complicated case showed up a few minutes later.  A DUI charge that results in a passenger’s death is defined as operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both. Encanto Justice Court  did not formally charge Sebastian Alvares with DUI until Oct. 24, 2023.

After 10 months he was first caught and placed under arrest on Dec.17, 2022 based on the court documents. A certified letter summons was submitted but unclaimed, and a warrant was issued in December 2023. Sebastian submitted and decided to dismiss the case entirely and ask that the warrant be revoked in July 2025, more than two years after the arrest, although he did not appear until then. 

Using two significant precedents, State versus Humboldt and Doggett V. United States his defense lawyer claimed that infringed upon Sebastian’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. 

The defense claimed that “The prejudice is obvious if a witness dies or disappear during a delay.” They maintained that the case had already been weakened by the passing of the traveler, who might have been an important witness.

That defense highlighted “Speedy trial rights exist to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired.” Even at the delay of almost a year, it was “presumptively prejudicial,” the lawyer continued and, in this case, almost two years had gone by.

The prosecution did not agree with Rona Shelton, the assistant County Attorney, who retorted that “The delay was not uncommonly long,” and did not go against the constitutional. 

Although she conceded that “Due to diligence” might have been lacking in issuing the summons, she insisted that “The defendant has not shown actual prejudice.”

Shelton inferred that Judge Driggs had stated that “Anxiety or passing of a single witness was insufficient grounds for dismissal” and that the state had made a good faith effort to notify the defendant.

 She maintained that since there is no proof of missing discovery and the defendant has time to mount a defense, the case should go on.

After taking notes and declaring that she would take the motion under advertisements, Judge Lenore Driggs departed courtroom in contemplative silence. The decisions may be determined whether the lawsuit proceeds or is dismissed before trial.