In Jauregi v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 931, the People filed "a motion to compel the claimant to prove his standing to contest the forfeiture in advance of a trial on the merits . . ." (Jauregi v. Superior Court, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 935.) At the subsequent "hearing on standing," which the trial court indicated would be " 'handled as a law and motion matter with proof by way of declaration, as opposed to oral evidence' " (id. at p. 935), the claimant failed to present admissible evidence establishing a legally cognizable interest in the seized cash and, as a result, the trial court found the claimant had failed to establish standing. The appellate court concluded that the provisions of the Evidence Code pertaining to hearsay evidence applied to proceedings under section 11488.4, subdivision (g), and a claimant must prove standing through admissible evidence. (Id. at pp. 933, 939, 943.) Jauregi reasoned that "the aspect of a forfeiture action which requires a claimant to 'show' standing by 'proving' an interest in the property in issue obviously requires an evidentiary hearing." (Id. at p. 940.) However, Jauregi expressly declined to address whether "the claimant's standing must be tried by a jury unless the right is waived," and did not consider "any other issue related to the procedure employed by the trial court in hearing and deciding the prosecutor's motion." (Id. at p. 939, fn. 12.)