I don't know how different - if at all - it is in CA, but here in NC, a traffic violation is still, as I understand it, a criminal charge. It's just that they try to speed up the process by treating traffic charges differently, and having the first trial in front of a judge only[1], no juries and all the normal courtroom / trial trappings.
But, since it's still a criminal case, and right to trial by jury is still recognized, there is a guaranteed automatic appeal that you can invoke[2] if you aren't satisfied with the decision in district court (or magistrate court). You then get a "trial de novo"[3] or "new trial" in superior court (or district court if appealing from magistrate court). Once you get to superior court, that's where you get a jury and the whole bit. It's interesting to note that some people consider it a legal strategy to basically use the first trial as a chance to size up the State's case, so they can construct the best possible defense on appeal.
Not sure if CA has a similar notion or not, but just wanted to point out that, in at least some cases, the bar on traffic offenses is still ultimately "innocent until proven guilty" (as it should be, IMO).
I've no doubt it varies from locality to locality, but Wikipedia's generalization for the US (sure to have many counter examples) is:
"A civil infraction is violation of the law less serious than a misdemeanor, and which usually does not attach certain individual rights such as a jury trial."
True. One other interesting point about the
"trial de novo" mechanism, in states that have it,
is that the judge in a de novo trial can sometimes
(in the case of a conviction) impose a harsher
sentence than what would have been possible in
the original trial. So invoking that right, even when
you have it, does entail some additional risk as well.
That, along with the sheer inconvenience, cost, etc., is probably why few people bother doing this for traffic citations. It's easier to just pay your fine, accept the increase in your insurance premiums and go on your merry way. :-(
But, since it's still a criminal case, and right to trial by jury is still recognized, there is a guaranteed automatic appeal that you can invoke[2] if you aren't satisfied with the decision in district court (or magistrate court). You then get a "trial de novo"[3] or "new trial" in superior court (or district court if appealing from magistrate court). Once you get to superior court, that's where you get a jury and the whole bit. It's interesting to note that some people consider it a legal strategy to basically use the first trial as a chance to size up the State's case, so they can construct the best possible defense on appeal.
Not sure if CA has a similar notion or not, but just wanted to point out that, in at least some cases, the bar on traffic offenses is still ultimately "innocent until proven guilty" (as it should be, IMO).
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial
[2]: http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/15a-criminal-procedure-...
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_de_novo