Memorial Park to Become Showcased Issue in Gang Injunction Trial

This week, the DA’s office has sought to address that apparent shortcoming by announcing additional witnesses, including James and Reece Hopkins, who were the supposed victims of what the DA’s office is calling a vicious gang attack in Memorial Park this March.

Julia Luckie was in custody and accepted a plea that will give her no prison time, but three to five years of felony probation.  She had to sign a plea agreement where she admitted gang membership, in exchange for probation and no prison.

The other three defendants Ricardo Garza, Sr., his son son Ricardo Garza Jr., and Jesus Sanchez remain, and will have an additional  hearing later this month.  They were offered no prison time, as well, in exchange for admission of gang membership.  It is not known whether they have accepted this agreement or if they will continue to contest the charges.

By putting this incident at the center of the controversy it potentially exposes the DA’s office to charges that the Hopkins brothers, who the DA is claiming to be victims, actually instigated the fight with several individuals, then became overwhelmed as the co-combatants brought friends while they did not.  While these issues did not come out in the August preliminary hearing, it is possible that the DA’s office is now opening a door that will allow rebuttal witnesses that may cast a very different light on this entire matter.

On Monday, the defense argued that they were not properly notified of the witness changes and that this was contrary to the rules presented in the case management order.

DA Ryan Couzens threw up a host of smoke-and-mirrors arguments against the defense’s contention.  He argued they are responding to the fact that the court is requesting that they call civilian witnesses.  They are not happy and they believe this may be endangering the safety of civilians.

Mr. Couzens continued,  arguing that the plaintiffs have provided discovery in this case that they do not have to provide.  That the defense has significant evidence to which they are not entitled to under civil litigation rules of evidence.  This has put the plaintiffs at a disadvantage.  They accused the defense of late disclosures of information and that they have had no new discovery since December of 2007.  Basically the defense, Mr. Couzens claimed, is freeloading off the plaintiff’s efforts.

The defense, led by Gordon Kaupp, countered that they had not been given good cause and that the plaintiffs have not followed the pre-trial order.

David Dratman added that the plaintiffs appear in disagreement with the court’s order on the rules of evidence.  He said that this is the court’s order and the plaintiffs have to comply with it.  They cannot change the rules midstream simply by the calling of witnesses.

He pointed out that the plaintiffs basically dumped 10,000 pages of materials on them, some of them beyond the cut off date for new discovery.

He argued that the question is whether there is an on-going nuisance, and that the plaintiff’s case thus far is showing isolated criminal activity that is being prosecuted under existing laws.  This is not in response to what the court is asking for, which is to show true evidence of a nuisance the current laws cannot deal with.

Mr. Couzens argued that this is not about case management, it is about suppression of evidence.  He argued that the defense knew of the police report.  There were two African-Americans assaulted by this gang, and that goes to the issue of a recent attack by this gang.  The information was not available in February since the event did not even occur until March, but it was included in the June discovery documents.

Judge White acknowledged that this is about the need to keep the case manangeable, and as such it is necessary to have rules about what information and witnesses will be allowed and how the parties are informed about changes to the witness lists.

However, since this is not a single incident case but rather a case in which the question is whether there is a continuing nuisance to the community, there is the need to augment information.

The defense knew about the Hopkins brothers, but not as witnesses.  The plaintiffs need to file motions to add to the witness list, however she is treating their previous response as a motion to add witnesses.

She will thus allow the Hopkins brothers to testify, but will limit their testimony to what is contained in the police report.  She did mention that this move, however, opens the door on both sides and that the defense will be able to add witnesses in rebuttal.

The Memorial Park attack is interesting as a critical case.  It was basically a fight that grew from a few combatants to a larger number.  However, it was largely a fist fight with a few implements brought into the fray.  But it may well be an incident where only one of the major combatants receives jail time.  The DA is apparently willing to give no prison time to four of the five adult defendants in this case.  They have offered no prison if each of the four individuals admit to gang membership.

As we wrote at the time, this was not about justice for the victims involved.  Rather it was about promoting the District Attorney’s agenda to get the gang injunction passed.  Deputy DA Ryan Couzens, one of the co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the gang injunction case, was the prosecutor of this case, and apparently the priority was to get gang admissions rather than punish the assaults on the Hopkins brothers.  Questions about how the incident began and the fact that the Hopkins brothers may have started the fight were not addressed during the hearings.

The priority for Mr. Couzens was clearly with getting people to accept gang validations and to admit to gang membership.  This is actually an interesting pattern that has continued for a number of years. There are numerous cases that we have tracked and looked up, where the defendants have been promised no prison time in exchange for admitting to a gang enhancement.  This goes one further, as in this case, they are actually having to admit to gang membership.  How much this type of coerced deal will weigh into the gang injunction trial is anyone’s guess.

It seems odd that a fight that occurred outside of the safety zone would gain so much prominence in the plaintiff’s case.  But if used properly, the defense can turn this to their advantage by pointing out the relatively low level of violence in West Sacramento compared with other communities facing gang violence and under the auspices of gang injunctions.  We are not talking about a community with multiple homicides on a regular basis as the result of gang violence. 

Does this constitute an ongoing criminal nuisance that current laws are ill-equipped to manage, or is this another attempt by the DA’s office to overblow relatively minor and isolated incidents for their own political and perhaps financial benefit?

—David M. Greenwald reporting