Or maybe, just maybe, that really is the proper legal decision.
How so? No one from the defense submitted a shred of evidence and, as I pointed out to Drew in my post #69, there is a lot of compelling information to the contrary - much of which was presented.
Suppose you get a traffic ticket for doing 45 in a school zone and you decide to fight it because you know you weren't speeding due to the fact that your car was in the shop that day and you were riding your old Huffy bike. The officer didn't provide ANY proof during the stop to show that you were the one speeding (as required by the 4th Amendment), he didn't show you that he was licensed to operate a radar gun (as required by the FCC), and he didn't show you whether or not the radar gun's calibration was up-to-date (as required by most PDs and manufacturers to maintain acuracy).
On the day of your hearing, the officer failed to appear and provide testimony (again, as required by the 4th Amendment), nor did he send a representative to provide evidence or give testimony on his behalf, but the judge still ruled against you.
Did you get a fair trial and was the ruling just?
While this is a bit of an apples and pears comparison, in esence, that is what happened in Judge Malihi's hearing.