On June 4, 2010, Yolo County Superior Court Judge Tim Fall sentenced 22 year old Anthony Vasquez to 38 years and 8 months to life in state prison after a Yolo County jury convicted him of robbery and attempting to dissuade a witness.
According to a release from the DA, the jury found Vasquez guilty of robbery with intentional use and discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury, assault with a firearm causing great bodily injury and attempting to dissuade a witness. The jury also found that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.
The DA’s account, which was essentially repeated verbatim in the Davis Enterprise, Woodland Daily Democrat, the Sacramento Bee (without any kind of further examination or inquiry) gives one account of the events.
On July 4, 2009, days before a scheduled preliminary hearing in his case, a correctional officer at the jail found a letter written by Vasquez. The letter was smuggled out of the jail by an inmate who was being released from custody. In the letter Vasquez admitted shooting the victim and he also asked that some of his “homies” let witnesses know that they should not attend his trial or that they should say that he was not there at the time of the shooting.
District Attorney Jeff Reisig commended the efforts of the Woodland Police Department and prosecution team. “Law enforcement did an outstanding job catching this dangerous gang member. We will remain committed to aggressively prosecuting violent gangsters such as this and seeking maximum prison sentences.”
The Vanguard’s examination of the evidence and events shows a considerably nuanced and complicated crime that is based largely on the accounts of two witnesses, themselves guilty of considerable uncharged crimes and therefore suspect witnesses themselves, and a rambling and at times incomprehensible, vague, and ambiguous letter that was withheld from the defense until right before the trial. Moreover, the DA’s account of the story fails to mention that the Jury hung on an attempted murder charge, all but one of the gang enhancement charges, and one of the assault with a firearm charges.
The Vanguard sat down with Mr. Vasquez’s family to get their side of the story. According to them Mr. Vasquez went to a party at a Woodland apartment where he called on the phone to meet with a guy to purchase what would be a reasonable sized quantity of marijuana. The victim, a 15 year old, sells marijuana by the kilo.
Mr. Vasquez entered the car, the brother of the victim was driving, the victim was in the front passenger seat, and the victim’s girlfriend sat in child seat in the back in the middle, while Mr. Vasquez sat in back right side of the car. Mr. Vasquez grabbed one of the bags to take a look at the product.
It is there that two versions of what happened varied. According to the DA, Mr. Vasquez grabbed the bag to steal it and when the victim intervened, he pulled out a gun and shot him, wounding him severely.
According to the family, he was merely looking at the marijuana to see the product and the driver had attempted to rob Mr. Vasquez, pulled the gun on Mr. Vazquez, they wrestled for the gun and the gun went off.
Police spoke with the girl at whose residence the party was held. According the DA’s account, she went to the Woodland Police Department to speak with Detective Cordova a few days after incident, she said that she was afraid to give a statement. The defendant had been at home on the date of the incident. She saw him go down the stairs and heard a pop, she saw the defendant moving around a car with a gun in hand. When the defendant returned to the apartment he told her that he thought that had shot someone.
During the trial, she testified that she had been threatened that she could go to jail and her baby taken away from her, so she was taken in handcuffs to the police station for a casual interview by Detective Ron Cordova. She said the defendant returned to the apartment frightened and muttering he thought he had shot someone. He had a gun at this time, but she had not seen one before he left the apartment.
There are a number of key questions that remain in this account of the incident. First, the gun was never found. So we do not know whose gun it was. The police apparently never conducted a gun residue test to find out if Mr. Vasquez or the victim had powder or powder burns on his hands. There was no gun expert that testified in the case.
Second, neither the authorities nor the defense were able to produce the brother of the victim, one of the key witnesses in the incident.
Complicating the case however was the emergence literally as the trial was about to begin of a letter that was confiscated by authorities on July 4, 2009. The letter was not revealed by the District Attorney’s Office until March 3, 2010 as the trial was about to start.
The DA viewed this as an admission that he shot the victim and that he also asked to let some of his “homies” let witnesses know that they should not attend his trial or that they should say that he was not there at the time of the shooting.
The reality is more muddled. The letter never reached its intended target, the defendant’s mother, and it reads more like a scared and angry rant than anything else. Nevertheless, it appears crucial in the conviction process, although again, the jurors were apparently unconvinced on what his intent was as they hung on the attempted murder charge.
He writes, “hey mom i seen my public defender and i guess im facing 2 life sentences 1 for the attempted murder and i for the gun enhancement cuz theres a law called 10-20-life law and since i caused great bodily injury so for that i’m facing life in that too.”
It is unclear here if he says he caused great bodily injury or whether he is trying to say that they (the prosecutor and police) are saying that he did this. Part of the problem that becomes obvious is that Mr. Vasquez’s grammar and verbiage are poor and he meanders all over the place.
Nevertheless he makes clear later on that he did in fact shoot the victim. He writes, “my attorny said i’ll get convicted in trial if i just say wasnt there or if it wasnt me cause they got too much already. i want you or corinna to talk to the guy who did your tatoo and ask him, since these niggas is snitchin on me and telling the whole **** but leaving out the part about the dude pullin a banger on me, thats why he got shot, so ask him if i can use that for my defense saying it was self defense, that i shot him cuz he pulled a gun on me, cuz that’s what happened, they just leaving that out and by me sayin that, its just going to help me get this attempted murder dropped to self defense.”
From this it appears that he admits to shooting the guy, but claims that the guy he shot, pulled the gun first. So that leads to the question as to whether there were actually two guns. Again, no gun was recovered.
He continues, “im just gonna let em know why i shot him cuz they makin it seem like i just shot him to do it. so i want to know if i can use that 4 my defense or will that be considerd snitchin cuz someone told me by me sayin that, they aint gonna get no jail time or nothin that it’s just gonna help me get his attempted murder justified to self defense and that im still gonna go to prison for the robbery and havin the gun but it wont be life.”
Then he says, “so unless someone will and can get this macy bitch and pablo to shut the **** up and say in court it wasnt me, unless thats gonna happen or get them to put the part in that they left out about that gun gettin pulled on me after i snatched that weed, then i dont know i’m probly ****ed! and someone needs to let debrahs sister know what the ****, and she better not ****ing come to my trial or else.”
It’s not clear at this point if it was a threat, the clearest potential threat comes almost at the end, “let the homies know and if this shit going to trial and it aint lookin good and she snitchin tell one my homies **** they shit up cocktails and all.”
What is clear in the letter is he is getting more frustrated and angry as he continues. At one point he writes in huge caps, “Cuz Im getting ****ing made at everybody and if I get life im not talkin to no one who aint try to help me out.”
Clearly it was a poor decision by Mr. Vazquez to write the letter. Clearly he admits he shot the gun, the question remains though as to whether he was the instigator of the incident. Given the fact that the letter never got to his mother, and given the fact that he sent it to his mother not one of his “homies” it is unclear if he was really intending to dissuade a witness. The intent to dissuade a witness was an additional 7 years to life sentence tacked on to the other charges.
The last part of this case is the gang enhancement. The DA makes the claim in his press release that, “The jury also found that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.” That is actually not true. The jury in fact, hung on each of the gang enhancements except on the last count, dissuading a witness.
The evidence of gang activity in this incident is weak at best. The DA makes references to the fact that the defendant is sending a letter to his mother to “get his homies to use violence to prevent the witnesses from testifying.” The use of the term homies was made to necessarily infer “gang” membership. But in fact that is a rather common term that has no specific gang connotation.
Moreover, they cite a tattoo on the back of his neck. The tattoo says “Bosque.” They claim that is a gang tattoo, but in point of fact “Bosque” is the Spanish term meaning in quite literal translation, Woodland. It seems at least questionable that Bosque would be a gang tattoo.
At sentencing, Mr. Vasquez’s attorney argued that there was an error involving Count Two (the robbery charge with enhancements). Mr. Vasquez’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Charles Butler, argued that “Fundamental due process prevents this Court from imposing an uncharged 25 years-life count enhancement as to Count Two of the Information.”
He continued, “The jury was misled by the verdict forms as to Count Two as well. Title of this verdict form is “special finding case enhancement 2b,” this is a count enhancement, not a case enhancement, and as such bolsters Mr. Vasquez’ claim that he was denied his due process rights in regards to the Penal Code section 12022.53(d) enhancement that was never pled as to Count Two but found true as a case enhancement by the jury in their verdict.”
The defense also argued that “a life sentence for an ineffectual attempt to have a letter delivered to Defendant’s mother… is cruel and unusual punishment.” He argued that this would be “the imposition of a penalty that is disproportionate to the defendant’s personal responsibility and moral guilt.”
Mr. Vasquez’s attorney would add, “Mr. Vasquez, after speaking with his newly assigned public defender, wrote an ill-advised letter to his mother. In the letter the defendant was found to have attempted to threaten or dissuade certain witnesses from testifying in this trial. This letter nor its contents were ever communicated by the defendant or anyone acting on his behalf.” He continues, “Though the offense did involve the potential high degree of risk of harm and injury, no one was threatened or harmed.”
Furthermore, Mr. Vasquez was 20 years old when he committed these offenses and 21 years old when he wrote this letter to his mother. “Defendant submits that where as here, defendant writes a letter that contains language that is proffane and emotionally violent, that letter never leaves the Yolo county Jail before it is intercepted by jail staff, and as a result no one is ever threatneed or harmed, a 7 years to life term is cruelly and unusually disproportionate under the Eight Amendment…”
The gang enhancement here is the key to the length of the sentence and that gang enhancement is really based on the use of the term homies.” As Mr. Butler argued in writing, “Mr. Vasquez will receive a life sentence for an ineffectual ATTEMPT to threaten or dissuade a witness because of the gang enhancement found true by the jury.”
In countering the defense’s claims Judge Fall during sentencing made the rather hyperbolic comment that this letter was somehow akin to Al Capone and New York in the 1960s, whereby gangsters used intimidation tactics to scare and prevent witnesses from coming forward. To me that is an absurd analogy in this case. It is not as though he sent armed gang members to silence witnesses through intimidation.
Summary
The shooting itself, even with the letter, the jury hung on the attempted murder charge. We do not have the gun. We do not know whose gun it was. It is clear from the witnesses that Mr. Vasquez shot the victim, it is not clear why or what happened. With that in question, there seems room for doubt on both robbery charge and the intentional use of a firearm to cause great bodily injury.
Finally, we have to really question whether Mr. Vasquez was attempting to dissuade a witness or whether he believed the witnesses were not telling the whole story and wanted to send them the message to tell the whole story about why he shot the guy. Nevertheless, given the fact that the letter never reached its target and furthermore given that it was sent to his mother whether there was a clear nexus between writing the letter and criminal intent, it seems questionable as to whether this was truly an attempt to dissuade the witness.
I see no real evidence of gang activity here. It appears that an individual attempted to buy a large quantity of marijuana. The evidence linking him to gang activity is ambiguous at best. The use of the term homies and the tattoo do not amount to proof of gang activity.
Moreover, we have to admonish Judge Fall for his blatant hyperbole in this matter. His conduct in general was unbecoming of a judge, mocking and acting condescendingly toward the family of the convicted.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Unfortunately the typically sloppy investigative work and ethically questionable delay in turning over evidence to the defense are de rigeur for the Yolo DA. Even worse is a judge who is more concerned with looking tough than administering justice. “The people”, who Reisig is supposed to represent will never know the facts of the case due to the absence of gsr evidence, the failure to recover a weapon, and a missing witness. It seems likely that Yolo county will have to live with this situation unless and until federal justice officers intervene. Meanwhile, Prieto and Reisig are the law and we’re in a heap o’ trouble.
Mr. Rifkin:
How do you know he never denied it?
You say there is no doubt that he is a member of the Nortenos gang? Then you go on to cite the Woodland Record, but the Woodland Record cites Ron Cordova for their information, the same person who worked this particular case. If you are using the Woodland Record as a definitive source, you ought to know you are actually citing the same source that the DA relied upon.
The problem is that Bosque is in far broader use than simply in criminal street gang activity, it is also a general Hispanic term for people from Woodland. There are Nortenos who bear that tag, but there are people who bear that brand who are not Nortenos. it is not exclusively Norteno (nor would it be logical to be otherwise it would give the police an easy means to tag and identify suspected gang members). What has happened here is that the Woodland PD with the aid of the DA’s office has attempted to criminalize being Hispanic and male.
The problem is when you say there is no doubt, even for the purposes of validation, a tattoo is only one source among at least three other sources. And that for the purposes of validation, not a court conviction.
Furthermore 186.22(b)(1) stipulates that the activity must be done “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members” – in this case, the jury apparently hung on four attempts by the DA to tie behavior to criminal street activity and apparently again only convicted him on the letter, which hinged on the term “homie.” Homie is not exclusively a gang term and it is questionable as to whether this conduct falls within that rubric.
“Mr. Vasquez tried to buy marijuana, a controlled substance.”
Correct and he should be punished for that.
“He brought a gun with him, with the intent to use it if necessary.”
We don’t know that.
“He shot and nearly killed the victim.”
True, we do not know under what circumstances he did so however. We have his word against the word of two others who were also engaging in crimes.
“He then ran from the scene of the crime (evidence of guilty conscience) – he didn’t go to the police, admit he tried to buy marijuana but shot the other guy in self defense when the victim allegedly pulled a gun.”
He was also a 20 year old kid who was probably scared. It’s worth noting the driver also apparently ran from the scene and has not been found either.
“Nor did the perp seem to claim self defense to his girlfriend at the time of the crime – he just said he shot someone. After the perp is caught, jailed, and lawyered up, he attempts to smuggle out a letter intimating self defense (probably an idea he got from his defense lawyer or upon afterthought) but he also wants witnesses intimidated into silence by his friends.”
You seem to be ascribing a level of sophistication that I just don’t see. He shot someone, he freaked out, he was engaged in a crime, and he clearly does not know the law.
“Is your position, DPD, that because the letter never reached the perp’s mother – bc the guards intercepted it – it does not count as an intimidation tactic? Or are you saying this guy’s mother would never have given the letter to any of her son’s friends to further her son’s attempts at witness tampering? INTENT OF THE PERP IS KEY HERE – INTENT TO SHOOT A GUN IF NECESSARY IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME; INTENT TO SILENCE WITNESSES.”
I’m unsure what I think the letter overall and the intent. I’m not clear that he was intending to silence the witnesses rather than plea for them to tell the truth. I’m also not clear that there was actual harm. I really do not believe it warranted a seven years to LIFE enhancement on the crime.
“I’m comfortable with the jury’s verdict in this case, based on even your version of events.”
I’m not completely comfortable with the verdict, I’m even less comfortable with the length of the sentence. I have doubts about what happened in the car and I do not believe the prosecution proved their case.
“PS There is no such thing as the perfect crime, the perfect case, perfect witnesses. A DA and defense lawyer have got to go with what they’ve got… “
You still have a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of perfection.
I suppose you would rather the DA prosecute Marty West and Ruth Asmundson for not sending out prompt notification.
Vasquez was not apprehended for months and had plenty of time to get rid of the gun. I guess the jury figured the victim didn’t shoot himself.
GANG EX: You are the expert. Is Vasquez a gang member? (It hardly matters, if he pulled out a gun and shot a 15 year old while he was in the commission of the crime. I would have such people executed, but that’s just me.)
CORRECTION: “while he was in the commission of the crime … unless it was in self defense.”
It would be nice to know exactly how much Vasquez was scheduled to purchase and how much he actually robed the victim of. Did they come to a predetermined amount and price on the phone, prior to the drug deal gone bad/robbery? Did the defendant have the money when he left the apartment and entered the vehicle, which may suggest that he intended on purchasing the marijuana, not stealing it? Did anyone else at that party know Vazquez had set up this drug deal/robbery?
The Vazquez family’s version is interesting-why would the victim bother giving Vazquez the marijuana if he was planning on robbing Vazquez? Intent being to get Vasquez to let down his guard, divert his attention, etc? Did these two know each other well, did they conduct business together before?
So no one came forward and claimed to have known if the defendant, victim or any of witnesses carried or owned a firearm?
The victim’s brother is nowhere to be found? Is he not a US citizen, wanted in connection to some other crime, thinks he’s in trouble as a result of what happened that evening, etc-that seems odd? His family has not had any contact with him since the shooting took place?
“According to the family, he was merely looking at the marijuana to see the product and the driver had attempted to rob Mr. Vasquez, pulled the gun on Mr. Vazquez, they wrestled for the gun and the gun went off.”
Did this take place at night? If so, how well could Vazquez have examed the product without the assistance of the car’s interior lights or the light of his or someone elses cell phone? Did anyone ask them(witnesses, victim, defendant) if the interior light was on at some point after he was given the marijuana? Did the girl, whose house the party was at, see any lights go on in the car?
Also, the girl claimed she was threatened, by whom?
Let me get this straight, the DA’s Office is basing their case, that Vazquez is a gang member on him using the word “homies” and that tattoo, which doesn’t sound like it is definitively associated with a criminal street gang? Does that sufficiently meet the criteria or is their a different standard for the enhancements?
Mr. Rifkin: I don’t believe that for the purposes of prosecution in this case, we know whether he is or is not. Like Superfluous I find the evidence for gang membership unconvincing, at least if it was truly based on the use of the word homies and the tattoo. Unfortunately it does matter as it extends the sentence by quite a bit in the real world, leaving aside what you or I might ideally want to do. The question is whether it was self-defense and I agree with the author that if I comes down to the letter and the word of other criminals, who were apparently given some sort of agreement for their testimony, that I have some reasonable doubts.
Mr. Toad said: “Vasquez was not apprehended for months and had plenty of time to get rid of the gun. I guess the jury figured the victim didn’t shoot himself.”
A reasonable assumption. The question doesn’t seem to be whether he shot him but whether it was in self-defense. Do you really want to put someone in prison for the rest of their life on the basis of another criminal’s word lacking any other evidence?
GangExpert: “A reasonable assumption. The question doesn’t seem to be whether he shot him but whether it was in self-defense. Do you really want to put someone in prison for the rest of their life on the basis of another criminal’s word lacking any other evidence?”
Do you really want to put someone back on the streets who nearly killed someone in a drug deal gone bad on the basis of the shooter’s word on what happened?
DMG: “I’m unsure what I think the letter overall and the intent. I’m not clear that he was intending to silence the witnesses rather than plea for them to tell the truth.”
Sounds like an attempt to silence a witness to me: “and she better not ****ing come to my trial or else…”
DMG: “I’m not completely comfortable with the verdict, I’m even less comfortable with the length of the sentence. I have doubts about what happened in the car and I do not believe the prosecution proved their case.”
But the jury thought so, and they heard ALL the evidence, and you didn’t, including facial expressions. Monday morning quarterbacking a trial, if you didn’t sit through the whole thing, is a somewhat dubious exercise.
ERM: “”He brought a gun with him, with the intent to use it if necessary.”
DMG: “We don’t know that.”
The jury seemed to think he brought the gun.
GANG EX: [i]”Mr. Rifkin: I don’t believe that for the purposes of prosecution in this case, we know whether he is or is not.”[/i]
That is not what I asked you. In your expert opinion, is he or is he not a gang member? I am specifically asking you because you are the foremost gang expert, self described.
Elaine: We had someone at the trial and I made use of their notes. We were not able to talk to anyone from the jury on this case, so I do not know what factors may or may not have played a role. Two points that were made to me, one that the defense attorney did not do a good job attacking the letter, he seemed angry and caught off guard by the letter, that was a huge mistake because the letter was not unambiguous. The second factor is, we do not know what the jury’s vote on some of the hangs were. Clearly the prosecution did not prove all of their case to all of the jurors. It seems they went for some of the lessers. I wonder how much of that had to do with the letter and lack of challenge to it by the defense.
[i]”The police apparently never conducted a gun residue test to find out if Mr. Vasquez or the victim had powder or powder burns on his hands. There was no gun expert that testified in the case.”[/i]
I recall that Mr. Vasquez was on the run for 6 months after he shot the 15 year old. Is that wrong? And if it’s right, what good would a gun powder residue test do that long after the crime?
[i]”The evidence of gang activity in this incident is weak at best. … It seems at least questionable that Bosque would be a gang tattoo.[/i]
I’m not sure what you are questioning. There is no doubt in this case that Vasquez was a member of the Norteños gang. AFAIK, he never denied that.
The Woodland Record made plain the significance of “BO$QUE”: [quote] Norteños, on the other hand, lay claim to the entire city. For example, the tag “BO$QUE,” means the wooded area – Woodland – with the “S” for Sureño crossed out (Scrap Killer). A “VBN” tag means “Varrio Bosque Norteño,” (varrio, or barrio, means neighborhood). [/quote]
Mr. Rifkin: I don’t have enough information to make a determination based on the information that we have. I assume you know the CALGANG criteria, most jurisdictions require at least three matches to validate an individual as a gang member. The tattoo could be one such criteria, but from my experience tattoos are too vague and indeterminate. A lot of people will put on a neighborhood tattoo and those tattoos come to be associated with the neighborhood gang, but every individual who uses that tattoo is not necessarily a gang member.
I’m not sure that the criteria used to determine gang membership(CALGANG) and the standard used to determine whether or not a gang enhancement is applicable in a particular case are one in the same.
California Pen Code § 186.22. Street Gang
“(4) Any person who is convicted of a felony enumerated in this paragraph committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members, shall, upon conviction of that felony, be sentenced to an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the greater of:
(C) Imprisonment in the state prison for seven years, if the felony is extortion, as defined in Section 519; or threats to victims and witnesses, as defined in Section 136.1.”
So, how was it determined that Vazquez made threats to victims and witnesses, “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang”? I just don’t see it, based on the articles I’ve read-tattoo and “hommies” is all that’s necessary. I don’t think simply meeting the CALGANG criteria for gang membership in and of itself meets the requirements for the gang-enhancement charges.
Faced with accusations that the Ventura County DA’s Office abused the gang-enhancement option,
“Wold said there is a gang-enhancement review process: A defense attorney can go to the deputy district attorney’s supervisor…
The issue of whether the gang-enhancement was properly charged in a crime can be raised at a preliminary hearing, Wold said. A judge must find that there is probable cause to include the charge; if there isn’t, the judge can strike it, Wold said.
Defense attorneys argue there is a very low legal threshold at preliminary hearings”
http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/2006/070906harsh.html
Was the Vanguard present at the preliminary hearings in this case?
We were not there. However, we have read the transcript from the preliminary hearings and have note on it.
Anything worth noting?
I would have to look again (I don’t have the notes on me), there is a lot of material on this case.
Alright.
BTW, an expert just informed me that a residue test would be futile because in the close proximity everyone who have gun shot residue on them. So strike that point.
Mr. Vasquez tried to buy marijuana, a controlled substance. He brought a gun with him, with the intent to use it if necessary. He shot and nearly killed the victim. He then ran from the scene of the crime (evidence of guilty conscience) – he didn’t go to the police, admit he tried to buy marijuana but shot the other guy in self defense when the victim allegedly pulled a gun. Nor did the perp seem to claim self defense to his girlfriend at the time of the crime – he just said he shot someone. After the perp is caught, jailed, and lawyered up, he attempts to smuggle out a letter intimating self defense (probably an idea he got from his defense lawyer or upon afterthought) but he also wants witnesses intimidated into silence by his friends.
Is your position, DPD, that because the letter never reached the perp’s mother – bc the guards intercepted it – it does not count as an intimidation tactic? Or are you saying this guy’s mother would never have given the letter to any of her son’s friends to further her son’s attempts at witness tampering? INTENT OF THE PERP IS KEY HERE – INTENT TO SHOOT A GUN IF NECESSARY IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME; INTENT TO SILENCE WITNESSES.
I’m comfortable with the jury’s verdict in this case, based on even your version of events.
PS There is no such thing as the perfect crime, the perfect case, perfect witnesses. A DA and defense lawyer have got to go with what they’ve got…
Really, there would be no way of determining who had fired the weapon in this case, using the residue test? I would have assumed that the individual who fired the weapon would have a different residue pattern or a differentiation of some sort from those who came in contact with the powder residue, but did not fire the weapon. Then again, I’m no expert…
Is there some other reason the DA went for gang enhancements? Bringing the weed to a party, prior convictions? Does asking your homies (pleural) constitute a conspiracy enough for gang statutes?
MT: The link by Superfluous (here ([url]http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/2006/070906harsh.html [/url])) is key. There seems like a lot of leeway in these cases.
DPD: Your work here in bringing this to the Vanguard for discussion is more than commendable in the face of the apparent futility of trying to get some of your readers to at least make an attempt to briefly “walk in the shoes” of Mr. Vasquez.
DMG: “Elaine: We had someone at the trial and I made use of their notes. We were not able to talk to anyone from the jury on this case, so I do not know what factors may or may not have played a role. Two points that were made to me, one that the defense attorney did not do a good job attacking the letter, he seemed angry and caught off guard by the letter, that was a huge mistake because the letter was not unambiguous. The second factor is, we do not know what the jury’s vote on some of the hangs were. Clearly the prosecution did not prove all of their case to all of the jurors. It seems they went for some of the lessers. I wonder how much of that had to do with the letter and lack of challenge to it by the defense.”
The letter pretty much speaks for itself, IMHO. The letter damned the perp when he wrote “she better not ****ing come to my trial or else…””
The fact that the DA did not produce the letter until the last minute may have been because of the timing of when the letter was attempted to be smuggled out by the perp – right before his trial. If that were the case, whose fault is that? We just don’t know how/when it occurred. Guessing at what might have happened to bolster an preconceived agenda that the Yolo court system is corrupt is unfortunate and not too fruitful…
When the prosecution did not prove its case, the jury did not agree w the DA, no? Also, you have to remember that a jury verdict is arrived at through negotiation, like it or not. Often when some on the jury want to “hang the creep”, and others have doubts, the jury as a whole works through a compromise sometimes, that they all can live with – usually agreeing on lesser charges. Like it or not, this is the way the jury system works.
If you were on the jury, you would be one of the ones having doubts. But my question to you is, would you ever compromise? Have you ever sat on a jury, been in jury deliberations? Until you have, you don’t know what you would do. Even if you have, you don’t know what you would do in a specific case.
The defendent here is not particularly sympathetic; there is lots of conjecture and guessing on your part; YOU were not at the trial or on the jury; there does not seem to be any glaring impropriety or inconsistencies that I can discern – or at least I will leave it up to the appellate courts to decide. I just don’t see the huge injustice in this case that you seem to see…
Furthermore, I think law enforcement/DA took a dangerous criminal off the streets so he couldn’t kill someone else, like he nearly did the 15 year old victim.
[quote]Moreover, they cite a tattoo on the back of his neck. The tattoo says “Bosque.” They claim that is a gang tattoo, but in point of fact “Bosque” is the Spanish term meaning in quite literal translation, Woodland. It seems at least questionable that Bosque would be a gang tattoo. [/quote]
“Bosque” is regularly tagged in Woodland as part of gang graffiti. Just a point of fact. You can also argue that tattooing yourself with “Norte” simply means you are from the north but you will have a hard time finding non gang members who are so proud of being from the north that they tattoo themselves with it. I bet it would be even harder to find a non gang member tattooed with “Norte” who shoots someone during a drug deal.