What has been portrayed by both the DA and the media as a pair of innocent brothers who went to the park to play basketball, and instead were brutally attacked by the Broderick Boys gang, is emerging in a very different light after a of day of 17-year-old victim James Hopkins both testifying and being placed under an intense cross-examination in the Gang Injunction case by defense attorney David Dratman.
Sacramento Police Officer Roger Kinney told the court that on March 19th he was called by dispatch to a large fight involving 25 to 40 people. He approached James Hopkins and his 16-year-old bother Reece (pronounced Ree-cy) and found both of them severely injured.
Mr. Hopkins was then hit in the head with a hammer by an assailant named Abel Maldonado who eventually turned out to be Abel Morales. Under cross-examination, Officer Kinney said that James Hopkins told him that he did not know what the fight was about. Reece Hopkins said someone walked up to James and started talking “sh-t” and the fight started.
The story given to police, however, did not reflect reality. The story that James Hopkins told on the stand immediately diverged from what he and his brother had told police at the scene of the crime.
Under direct examination, Mr. Hopkins testified that he and his brother went to Memorial Park to fight one guy, a minor, but an adult showed up instead. Mr. Hopkins said that he was there to either “squash” the fight [intended to be with the younger Mr. Hopkins], and by that he meant stop it, or at least to end the dispute.
However, when Chris Castillo, an adult, showed up instead of Abel Morales, Mr. Hopkins fought him himself. It began as a one-on-one fight but quickly other cars arrived on the scene and a large group of people rushed him.
What emerged under cross examination was different still. It turns out that the younger Mr. Hopkins had had a long-running dispute with Abel Morales. Mr. Hopkins claimed not to know that his brother had had a previous fight less than a month before. He said he was hoping that a one-on-one fight would settle whatever bad blood they had.
In letters to the judge, he had acknowledged that they had gone to Memorial Park in order to fight. He admitted they had not gone to the park to play basketball as they had originally told police. He said on the stand, “To me it was just kids fighting, it would be over,” he said, “We didn’t want to fight.”
Under cross examination he acknowledged that the story he had told Officer Kinney was untrue. He did this not by saying he had told the Officer a bunch of falsehoods that day, but simply by denying the information that Officer Kinney had testified to.
He had a series of cell phone conversations with some of the combatants in the park, and had arranged some sort of meeting or fight in the park. These phone conversations included threats by some to jump him and his brother in the park. He acknowledged reluctantly bringing a couple of friends, but apparently Abel Morales, who Mr. Hopkins claimed on the stand he never saw at the park, had more people arrive.
When he met up with Chris Castillo in the park, after having talked to him at 7-11 and Nugget previously, he said that Mr. Castillo had gloves on and wanted to fight his brother. Because Mr. Castillo was an “adult”, Mr. Hopkins decided he would fight him. Mr. Hopkins then described taking off his shirt – a tank top he was wearing in the middle of March – exposing his large “Berzerk” tattoo.
On the stand, he admitted he did not know what “Berzerk” meant.
Mr. Hopkins then described socking Mr. Castillo, knocking him to the ground, socking him several times until his nose bled and then letting him up to hit him some more.
It was at this point that groups of cars arrived and Mr. Castillo’s friends apparently came to his aid and began attacking the brothers. He now said that it was Chris Castillo, not Abel Morales (or Maldonado), that hit him with a hammer. Mr. Hopkins had described to police that someone had thrown a knife at him, but on the stand he appeared unsure that it was a knife.
As we reported previously, the DA’s office has tried to turn this into a gang mob attack on two innocent brothers. Instead, what we have is a case where the brothers came to the park looking for a fight. They expected it would be a one-on-one fight, but the the situation clearly got out of hand and it turned into a large melee which left the brothers injured.
While two of the adults in the case have pled out, this is still a live case, where the plea agreements made to Ricardo Garza and his son Ricardo Garza III along with Jesus Sanchez have not been accepted. They were offered deals of no prison, in exchange for acknowledging gang membership.
However, the incident occurred three quarters of a mile outside the the safety zone (which is itself only about a mile and a half wide) and early descriptions of it as a gang attack may be exaggerated.
One of the parents of the boys in the Memorial Park fight wrote on the Vanguard that, “The yolo county DA’s [Office] has labeled my son as a Broderick Boy,[but] my son lives in West Sacramento not Broderick. It’s sad to say that my son had to plead to something that he is not to make the DA happy and now will have a gang charge for the rest of his life.”
She continued, “I have lived here for 30 years and I don’t see this town as a gang-infested town, just a small community and everyone seems to know each other. The streets are not filled with gang members, nor are the parks. I worked in Broderick for almost 13 years and I never felt at any time in fear of gangs. I would go to the store on my breaks or lunch or even sit at the park and never once did I see a gang member on the streets committing a crime.”
She later said the Hopkins brothers were the ones with the gun, that set up this fight. They went to that park with 15 of their friends and then called to say go to the park or are you scared.
The defense attorney met privately with the Judge requesting that cell phone and text message records regarding this incident be turned over.
The defense attorneys in the Memorial Park case, the ones whose clients have not pled out, apparently did not know of plans to have Mr. Hopkins testify at the Gang Injunction trial. Some of the attorneys we talked to believe that the Memorial Park defendants might be able to withdraw their pleas based on this new evidence. The attorneys we talked to felt that Mr. Hopkins was not telling the full truth even here, as his story kept changing under cross-examination from Mr. Dratman.
Prosecutors Jay Linden and Ryan Couzens had said on Monday that they had intended to rely primarily on police witnesses and experts to make their case about a nuisance. However, those plans changed when Judge Kathleen White admonished them, saying that she wanted to hear from real witnesses who could testify that there was an ongoing criminal nuisance in their community.
The prosecutors have claimed that they were trying to protect civilians by not having them testify, but what is becoming clear is that they are trying to protect their case more than anything. A lot of these incidents have not been fully adjudicated and the gray nature of some of these incidents, presented by the police in black and white terms, will now have to come out. Even as it was, the number of individuals charged with, and eventually convicted on, gang crimes in West Sacramento is exceedingly low.
Mr. Dratman made the point on Monday that the plaintiff’s case has solely amounted to hearing about isolated criminal instances that have been investigated and prosecuted under existing laws without the aid of or need for a gang injunction. What we have not heard from so far are individuals who are afraid to leave their homes because their neighborhoods have been terrorized.
In fact, when the defense puts on its case, possibly as soon as October, we are expected to hear the very opposite.
Regardless of the truth in this case, based on Mr. Hopkin’s testimony, he and his brother were not simply innocent victims who had come to the park to play basketball. They came looking for a fight. He admits to bringing some friends, but according to other witnesses it may be much more than just two friends. The fight got out of hand, clearly, but this is not the definite gang attack that the DA’s office attempted to portray.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This sure does seem to corroborate what the two police officers, that worked for the DA’s Office said. If I remember correctly, both of these veteran officers claimed that DA Reisig was just using this injunction as a political play and they said the DA was hiding evidence to get convictions (protect his cases) and forcing them to sign false statements about the injunction.
The dots sure do seem to connecting.
Based on their own testimony the Hopkins brothers should have been arrested also – they planned and started a fight. What is the purpose of arrested people for fighting if no effort is made to punish the intigators? Too much politics involved and too little interest in public safety.
dmg: “Regardless of the truth in this case, based on Mr. Hopkin’s testimony, he and his brother were not simply innocent victims who had come to the park to play basketball. They came looking for a fight. He admits to bringing some friends, but according to other witnesses it may be much more than just two friends. The fight got out of hand, clearly, but this is not the definite gang attack that the DA’s office attempted to portray.”
Regardless of the truth?
How is the Hopkins brothers changing their testimony from what was told to police originally the fault of the DA?
How do you know if the change in testimony is not bc the Hopkins brothers were threatened to change it by gang members?
dmg: “She continued, “I have lived here for 30 years and I don’t see this town as a gang-infested town, just a small community and everyone seems to know each other. The streets are not filled with gang members, nor are the parks. I worked in Broderick for almost 13 years and I never felt at any time in fear of gangs. I would go to the store on my breaks or lunch or even sit at the park and never once did I see a gang member on the streets committing a crime.””
How does she know there are no gang members walking around? Does she know who gang members are, if any?
Cell phones and social sites like Twitter are certainly becoming a hazard, as it allows teens to contact each other quickly, and appear all at once suddenly for drunken parties, fights and the like.
How is the Hopkins brothers changing their testimony from what was told to police originally the fault of the DA?
You must agree the DA has a responsibility to ask questions. They probably had a DA investigator go out and ask questions and did not rely on one police report.
How do you know if the change in testimony is not bc the Hopkins brothers were threatened to change it by gang members?
That is possible but it is also possible the DA knew what really happened before the plea bargains were offered.
Cell phones and social sites like Twitter are certainly becoming a hazard, as it allows teens to contact each other quickly, and appear all at once suddenly for drunken parties, fights and the like.
That is completely true!
As for me knowing what a gang member looks like is funny for you to ask becasue in yolo county it seems like to the DA all people are Gang Members white, black hispanic and anyone they lable, broderick boys is a gang from way back in the day and was all hispanic members for what i have heard so in not to sure, but what i meant by that was if there ar so many gang members in this town and is so infested with gang members because that is what the DA says, then they would be at the parks and on the streets in big groups and i never have seen that, and like you had said “if any”? that is my point, but if this town is so infested with gang members then why do the WSPD officers have so much free time on there hands, i have seen a WSPD officer allmost every day at a park meeting with some women, i see them at a mexican food place like five cop cars at a time like at least once a week it seems to be there hang out spot, just the other day i saw 12 WSPD officers eating ice cream in the parking lot of rite aid, so if we are such a “gang infested town” why are they not out arresting gang members, to me this crazy just a small town this is not LA or San Francisco or Oakland this is West Sacamento and i feel like the WSPD do there job but i feel some of them are picking on kids for no reason at all, i know of kids that get stopped they can just be riding a bike and get pulled over , just the other day it took three cop cars just to stop one car of kids that to me is just crazy but i dont know this is yolo county and i guess they can do what ever they want too, its sad that are kids have be harrassed by cops not all cops but some and it wrong, just to stop someone for NO REASON AND HARRASS THEM IS WRONG IT NEEDS TO STOP, MORE PARENTS NEED TO STEP UP AND FILE COMPLANTS WHEN THERE KID IS HARRASSED BY WSPD, and as for the DA when will are judges see that they said these kids are “gang members” with out any marks on there body or and gang member photos how can the DA just lable my son as a “Broderick Boy” he has no tatoos of anything just because kids like the color red or blue seems to make them a gang member wow i work with kids and see them with red or blue they dont seem to be gang member just kids
it’s about time that this is finally all coming out. the DA is doing things to label these kids who did nothing but simply have a fight. now will this injunction crap please STOP! it’s putting a bad label on a great community!
E Musser, you know as well as I do it would not have mattered if testimony was changed,the DA will do anything to get a signature of gang admittance. The DA’s do not care about this case,an admittance is their only purpose. I am not surprised the truth was going to come out. And, as for your question about someone being threatened to change their testimony under oath,thats not what happened. This kid told the truth,and not because he was being threatened by some gang that does not exist. “Broderick Boy” goes back to my dads days and he is 72 years old,and he has never had a record or been in a gang. This is a case of the truth finally coming out about what the DA’s of Yolo are really about. I am a “Broderick Girl” who has NEVER had a record and I am very proud of where I am from. So, do you think that it is fair for the Abel to be where he is at right now? Do you think it is fair that he signed a gang admittance? You call it voluntary,but we all know he had no choice to sign an dto make a plea. ONCE AGAIN,OUR DA’S IN ACTION,AND ONCE AGAIN THEY GOT IT WRONG.
Thats right Valerie the DA will do anything to get a signature they told me my son would get up to 20 years in prison and if he did not plea he would be in Adult Court with a Attempted Murder Case so we took the plea to save are son from what the DA was telling are Public Defender, so what is a parent to do when you try to tell the truth that it was just a kid fight and not a gang, and they tell you your son will go to “PRISON for a long time” that is very scary to hear as a mother so we took the plea not even knowing what was on the plea sheet the PD did not tell us he would have a strike, just told us it would keep him in juvn. court so that is what we did, this has changed my whole life even know i called the DA four times to have my son’s shoes returned to me and the DA talked to me like i was a very bad person “she told me is this Carol Leyva AKA Mrs Morales” is that even nessicary to say to me i asked her why i could not have my sons shoes back and she said to me “because YOUR SON IS A GANG MEMBER and then she just chuckled a lil i told her my son is NOT A GANG MEMBER you have labled him as one she then told me “WELL YOUR NOT GOING TO GET THEM BACK BECAUSE I SAY SO” so i asked her what her who was above her and she just laughed and said to me “on what level do you wnat” i just said what ever im not going to argue with you ,so what can i do they won again, first they tag my son as a Broderick Boy and now i can even have my sons shoes back it’s just wrong what the WSPD and the DA do to people, i am a home owner i have been at my job 17 years and never been in trouble with the law so how can they just do what every they want to?
Roger,
“This sure does seem to corroborate what the two police officers, that worked for the DA’s Office said. If I remember correctly, both of these veteran officers claimed that DA Reisig was just using this injunction as a political play and they said the DA was hiding evidence to get convictions (protect his cases) and forcing them to sign false statements about the injunction.”
They may have been “veterans,” but there are questions as to their integrity. Although there may be some truth to the claims (who knows) of those “veterans”, it’s offset by their reputations, IMHO.
If there is any truth to what the vets said, why hasn’t the CA Bar held him responsible for his unprofessional or unethical behavior? Were the allegations brought forth?
Cleyva,
“if this town is so infested with gang members then why do the WSPD officers have so much free time on there hands”
Maybe because the “Gang Injunction” has been effective?
“i have seen a WSPD officer allmost every day at a park meeting with some women, i see them at a mexican food place like five cop cars at a time like at least once a week it seems to be there hang out spot, just the other day i saw 12 WSPD officers eating ice cream in the parking lot of rite aid”
Are the officers not entitled to their legally mandated breaks?
“i feel like the WSPD do there job but i feel some of them are picking on kids for no reason at all, i know of kids that get stopped they can just be riding a bike and get pulled over , just the other day it took three cop cars just to stop one car of kids that to me is just crazy”
If officers are truly harassing people, report it. What you and others may perceive as harassment could very well be perfectly legal. First, your anecdotes lack full context, so it’s tough to say whether the officers were picking on the kid or carrying out their duties lawfully (an officer can ask to speak with a person despite there being “no resaon”). Secondly, to safeguard your children and others’ children from being harassed, educate them about what they can do to protect themselves from unwanted searches and seizures.
“as for the DA when will are judges see that they said these kids are “gang members” with out any marks on there body or and gang member photos how can the DA just lable my son as a “Broderick Boy” he has no tatoos of anything just because kids like the color red or blue seems to make them a gang member wow i work with kids and see them with red or blue they dont seem to be gang member just kids”
Do Yolo County Superior Court judges have the discretion to override law enforcement officials’ determination as to whom is a “gang member” or who gets entered into the statewide database (CALGANG). Also, if someone admits to gang membership, what is the judge to do?
Tattoos and photos indicative of gang membership are not the sole criterion used to determine “gang membership.” In other words, there are several other things a person can do any say that will suffice. One such example is admitting to being a gang member and that alone is all they need to officially “label” that person a “gang member.” That’s not the DA’s fault, it’s the states.
For the record, I’m not an apologist for local law enforcement or the DA. I am also not a fan of these gang injunctions.
Cleyva,
“WELL YOUR NOT GOING TO GET THEM BACK BECAUSE I SAY SO”
Someone should be able to articulate to you the reasons why you cannot reclaim your possessions. Are the shoes considered evidence and the pertinent case ongoing?
It would be interesting to me to see a scientific public opinion poll of the residents of West Sacramento to know A) if they think their is a gang problem in their city; B) if they think their city needs a gang injunction or not; C) if they think the gang injunction they have has made their city safer; and D) if they would like to have the gang injunction lifted.
I realize that a public opinion poll should not be decisive in a policy question of this type–opinion may well be based on falsehoods, for example. However, I think it would be interesting if the results are very far one way or the other on these sorts of questions.
There seems to be some notion that Mr. Reisig or other law enforcement types are motivated by an anti-Latino bias. I doubt that, but I’m open to being proven wrong. I think it is notable that West Sac is whiter than California as a whole and less Hispanic than our state as a whole. That might not be true in Broderick or Bryte, though.
[quote]If there is any truth to what the vets said, why hasn’t the CA Bar held him responsible for his unprofessional or unethical behavior? Were the allegations brought forth? [/quote]
How do you the bar did not find the DA guilty of anything? Not all, in fact most discipline from the bar is NOT public.
As for the reputations of the Veteran officers, they both got their jobs back, their terminations were reversed and were both given settlements from the county. It is very common for crooked politicians that have “whistle blower” action on them, to suddenly make negative statements against the W. Blower. If ther e was anything to Mr. Reisig’s claims about the two officers they would not have won their jobs back and with lack of money they surely would not have been awarded settlement payments.
valerie: “And, as for your question about someone being threatened to change their testimony under oath,thats not what happened. This kid told the truth,and not because he was being threatened by some gang that does not exist…”
Which time was this kid “telling the truth”? The time he claimed he was jumped by a gang as he was innocently walking along, or the time he claimed he was there to fight one person and he got more opponents to battle than he bargained for? You have to admit, this kid’s credibility is a big question mark. One could surmise he was telling the truth initially, but was threatened by the gang to change his testimony. Or you could surmise he was reluctant to tell the DA that he was there to fight so lied initially, then inexplicably decided in the second trial to suddenly get some integrity and tell the truth because he “saw the light”. Which version sounds more credible?
Roger,
“How do you the bar did not find the DA guilty of anything? Not all, in fact most discipline from the bar is NOT public.”
I don’t even know if anyone has filed a complaint, which was my point. If there is any truth to these claims (A) has anyone filed a complaint with the CA Bar (B) did the Bar decided to investigate and if so (C) what were their findings (ie was the evidence sufficient enough to warrant disciplinary action)?
You’re telling me it’s the CA Bar’s policy to, more often than not, discipline attorneys, but never make the facts of the investigation or type of disciplinary action taken against the attorneys available to the public? Are you sure about that? Please explain.
“As for the reputations of the Veteran officers, they both got their jobs back, their terminations were reversed and were both given settlements from the county. It is very common for crooked politicians that have ‘whistle blower’ action on them, to suddenly make negative statements against the W. Blower.”
Yes, a settlement was reached, but that doesn’t mean these investigators were necessarily right and the DA wrong. What’s more, the settlement isn’t indicative of these investigators’ integrity spanning over their careers at that particular office. My impressions of the two now former DA investigators were formed before the proverbial whistle could have been blown. Thus, it is not the post-whistle-blowing rhetoric that my opinions are based on. To be honest, I have no clue what Reisig specifically had to say about them, but I’m sure he isn’t a big fan.
I am not going to take the time to slander these two and that’s not my intention. However, it’s only fair to consider the sources of these allegations, which are, to put it nicely, two unscrupulous former investigators with axes to grind, IMO. When I hear people championing them as two honest and by the book investigators who found themselves on the wrong side of the DA (for all I know it’s them writing this stuff and you are one of them-doesn’t matter though), I just chuckle to myself.
Rick Gore denigrated the efforts of his former law enforcement colleagues as wanting to act like “cowboys” or that they were acting like “cowboys” in the Vanguard article about the gang injunction some time ago. Surely, no one has ever characterized Mr. Gore as such…
I’m sure these two never bent the rules or remained silent instead of coming forward and doing the “right thing”, even in cases in which their best interests would not have been served as a result. Or do they pick and choose when to act with integrity or do the right thing? I wonder.
“If ther e was anything to Mr. Reisig’s claims about the two officers they would not have won their jobs back and with lack of money they surely would not have been awarded settlement payments.”
Or they settled due to some other reason? In the Skaggs case, did the DA want to settle? Did Mr. Gore not have to retract all his comments and allegations made about Reisig, Martin, etc? We don’t know all the specifics of each case, so it’s tough to know exactly what was unearthed. Regardless, these cases were about the way in which these two were let go, no?
Rich–I like your opinion poll idea, for residents to be able to express opinions anonymously about intensity of gang or gang-like activity in the neighborhood.
It seems there can be a catch-22 type situation with regard to public testimony about gang activity–where gang activity is a serious issue; the residents may understandably be quite reluctant to make a public statement about it, for fear of possible retaliation or of possibly just worsening their relationship and increasing their personal danger level with respect to gang-bangers and punksters in the hood.
Is their any provision for anonymous statements in a gang injunction inquest?
(although I realize allowing anonymous statements carries it’s own set of problems)
I had a similar suggestion a few ‘Gang Injunction’ pieces back. However, mine was more comparative in that I thought it would be interesting to see (A) What those living in the “Safety Zone” thought about the injunction/gang problem (B) in juxtaposition to that data, what do people outside of the “Safety Zone” living in West Sacramento think (same question) and then (C) What does Yolo County as a whole think when posed the same question.
My thought, although not at all scientific, is that the further the distance from the “Safety Zone,” the more inclined the person is to believe that there is a gang problem and the injunction is necessary to protect them from the gang(s).
ERM said
“Which time was this kid “telling the truth”? The time he claimed he was jumped by a gang as he was innocently walking along, or the time he claimed he was there to fight one person and he got more opponents to battle than he bargained for? You have to admit, this kid’s credibility is a big question mark. One could surmise he was telling the truth initially, but was threatened by the gang to change his testimony. Or you could surmise he was reluctant to tell the DA that he was there to fight so lied initially, then inexplicably decided in the second trial to suddenly get some integrity and tell the truth because he “saw the light”. Which version sounds more credible?”
Lets perfect that comment slightly-
The initial report was made to a police officer (not the DA) immediately after a fight and while police officers were determining who to arrest. I wonder how many kids who went to a place to fight and did fight would provide a truthful account of those actions knowing they would be arrested on the spot?
The second report was made after reflection, after talking to an attorney & parents and after taking an oath to tell the truth in a courtroom.
Now which version sounds more credible?
Alphonso: “Lets perfect that comment slightly-
The initial report was made to a police officer (not the DA) immediately after a fight and while police officers were determining who to arrest. I wonder how many kids who went to a place to fight and did fight would provide a truthful account of those actions knowing they would be arrested on the spot?
The second report was made after reflection, after talking to an attorney & parents and after taking an oath to tell the truth in a courtroom.
Now which version sounds more credible?”
Frankly and IMHO, neither version sounds credible. You know the old adage “there’s your version, my version, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle”? If someone has been confronted by the police, they may have a reason to lie. The same goes for someone who has “lawyered up”.
sm: “You’re telling me it’s the CA Bar’s policy to, more often than not, discipline attorneys, but never make the facts of the investigation or type of disciplinary action taken against the attorneys available to the public? Are you sure about that? Please explain.”
The CA Bar publishes the names of attorneys that are disciplined and the reasons why – it is a matter of public record. In so far as I am aware, a DA would be no exception.
jimt: “Rich–I like your opinion poll idea, for residents to be able to express opinions anonymously about intensity of gang or gang-like activity in the neighborhood.”
Opinion polls still may not get past the gang intimidation factor.
One of the interesting questions is how far does the gang intimidation factor go in West Sacramento.
There wasn’t really enough to do separate report but Mr. Hopkin’s father testified on Thursday. He said something interesting that could be taken in a number of different ways. Mr. Hopkins (the father) testified about a series of altercations between his son(s) and a few the individuals here, particularly Abel Morales and a guy named Hindu, who turned out to Alexander Valadez (the guy who received nine years).
Anyway, under cross examination he said, before these incidents, didn’t really know of the Broderick Boys. He thought they were a gang from the 70’s.
So you can take that in two ways. One, that the gang isn’t that pervasive, the only way the average person became aware is that their son got caught up in an altercation with one of them.
Now the DA would argue that itself is a nuisance, but the defense would argue that is evidence that this is a series of small and isolated events that can be handled through normal law enforcement.
Which time was this kid “telling the truth”? The time he claimed he was jumped by a gang as he was innocently walking along, or the time he claimed he was there to fight one person and he got more opponents to battle than he bargained for?
ERM,
Why do you keep using the term jumped by a “gang”. Thats the terminology of officer Kinney and the DA’s, not the Hopkins kid.I commented previously about how this was an ongoing issue between Abel and Reece. How do we know officer Kinney did not lie in his report? How do we know the Da’s along with officer Kinney did not give a different report from this kid and the truth came out under oath? Did this kid admit he lied to officer Kinney? You know as well as I do the DA’s would have never put this kid on the stand on behalf of the outcome. And as far as this kid “seeing the light”, how do we know this kid did not let the people “see the light” about what West Sac PD and the DA’s are really about? Hmmmmmmmm
First, he did use the term “jumped” repeatedly. He did not use the term jumped by a gang and I’m not sure how much of this was in fact a gang thing. It seemed more like kids got into a fight and things escalated. We have never discovered if all the occupants of the cars that arrived were gang members.
In terms of telling the truth, I don’t think Hopkins told the truth on the stand either, he kept changing the story under scrutiny from David Dratman. We never got to see him on the stand in the prelim of the criminal hearing. I just don’t know. My sense is that all sides made errors, certainly Mr. Hopkins getting hit by a hammer was a serious problem, but he helped escalate the situation.
“Jumped” is different from “gang”. Did Hopkins ever admit to telling officer Kinney what was said from his report on the day in question? As far as Hopkins not telling the truth,is this not called “Contempt of Court”? Can a case get thrown out and pleas taken back due to all of this? Some of these defenadants already took gang admission charges when in fact this has been an ongoing issue between Abel and Reece. one on one as individuals,not as a gang.
Sorry, Defendants
Hopkins couldn’t seem to remember what he told Kinney. He was asked on cross examination if he told Kinney certain things, and he denied he did.
Well, we know Hopkins credibility is not great. But it sounds to me like officer Kinneys is not either. So, is this whole case not based on speculation now? Does he really know who hit him with the hammer? What rights do the individuals that made a plea already have? Officer Kinney under oath as a peace officer of the law… Hmmm. I just wished I could have been there to see the Da’s mouth drop when the testimony of Hopkins was given when he was under scrutiny from David Dratman. You got to see that. Im jealous……
ERM said-Frankly and IMHO, neither version sounds credible. You know the old adage “there’s your version, my version, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle”? If someone has been confronted by the police, they may have a reason to lie. The same goes for someone who has “lawyered up”.
Let’s remember, Hopkins was brought to court by the DA’s Office and therefore the DA lawyers did much of the “lawyering up”. It seems odd to me that he would walk into court and admit commiting a felony – entering into a conspiracy with his brother to engage in a fight.
Elaine,
“The CA Bar publishes the names of attorneys that are disciplined and the reasons why – it is a matter of public record. In so far as I am aware, a DA would be no exception.”
That’s exactly how it works, to the best of my knowledge anyway. I don’t think Roger knows what he/she is talking about, frankly. What would be the purpose of having clandestine disciplinary actions? How would that protect prospective clients or keep the profession in check? The answer: it wouldn’t, which is why they don’t do that.
Also, if you search for an attorney on the CA Bar’s website, that attorney’s info will appear which includes all (if any)disciplinary actions.
valerie: “Well, we know Hopkins credibility is not great. But it sounds to me like officer Kinneys is not either. So, is this whole case not based on speculation now? Does he really know who hit him with the hammer? What rights do the individuals that made a plea already have?”
Unless a defendant can somehow prove coercion (and I am talking about in a legal sense, not just an emotionally reactive sense) or the underlying facts in a case are disproven absolutely, a plea deal would stand…
Alphonso: “Let’s remember, Hopkins was brought to court by the DA’s Office and therefore the DA lawyers did much of the “lawyering up”. It seems odd to me that he would walk into court and admit commiting a felony – entering into a conspiracy with his brother to engage in a fight.”
It sounds like you believe the first version?
Elaine: It may be that the facts as understood at the time of the plea agreement have changed, but I suspect (and the lawers I talked to during and after confirmed) they would have to argue ineffective council in that Dratman was able to get far more than their own attorneys during the criminal hearing.
dmg: “Elaine: It may be that the facts as understood at the time of the plea agreement have changed, but I suspect (and the lawers I talked to during and after confirmed) they would have to argue ineffective council in that Dratman was able to get far more than their own attorneys during the criminal hearing.”
I would also add “ineffective counsel” is extremely hard to prove…
Yes, interesting report from the innocence project on that, I will incorporate that into a future piece. But in this case, might be provable.
“It sounds like you believe the first version?”
No i believe the Court version – why would anyone enter the court free and clear and then lie to the court in a way that incriminates himself? I can understand why a kid might lie about involvment in a fight when confronted by a police officer right after a fight.
Alphonso: “why would anyone enter the court free and clear and then lie to the court in a way that incriminates himself?”
Because he was intimidated by gang members, who told him they would waste his family if he didn’t say what he did in court?
E Roberts Musser,
You are as sick-minded as our DA’s and WSPD are. So does this go hand and hand with the notion that the DA’s INTIMIDATED the defendants into taking gang admissions as part of a plea? You know as well as I do that there was no intimidation involved by alleged gang members. This reminds me of the statement that Villanueva wrote when he was trying to prove his point to get the injunction passed,it is as follows:
Regarding group activities, Villanueva explained: “Broderick Boys patrol, they hang out in certain areas and just walk up and down the street. They call that patrolling. . . . Typically in their patrolling and representing, they‟ll have, well, it varies, you might see 1 or 2, but if you see 1 or 2 there‟s probably 3 or 4 in the wind close by. They act in packs, they act in groups. One guy on the corner isn‟t going to get the message of fear and intimidation across to the community and to rival gangs, but they don‟t like to hang out too deep with too many of them together because then they attract our attention, the police, and they know that we‟ll start doing what we do and investigate. So you‟ll see 1, 2, 3 guys walking around on one side of the block and the same time, you‟ll see another couple of guys on the other side of the block. They‟re working together. . . .”
This should actually be written as, it was indeed Villanueva who was waiting on corners harrasing the alleged gang members with one,two or three cops in the wind close by. I saw (with my own two eyes) how Villanueva would drive around the neighborhhod trying to find wrong doing. Oh,but the one that puts the icing on the cake,is when he was driving around with a bandana sticking out of his window of the Grand Prix that he was in. Lets talk about intimidation
Valerie,
I think you will find most of the readers of this forum will give some weight to Villanueva’s reported observations, as well as other observations of law enforcement personnel, particularly first-hand observations at the street-level. Perhaps Villanueva’s interpretations of his observations are somewhat in error, I honestly do not know. If he is streetwise, as many law enforcement officers are (many are highly astute), he is likely somewhat accurate in his interpretations. What would be his reasons to mis-represent the situation? In what manner did he harass the ‘alleged’ gang members; simply by asking to talk with them? (did he verbally threaten them; or beat them with a club?)
What’s wrong with driving around the neighborhood looking to forestall crime? (wish that happened more often in my neighborhood).
You do not do your cause any service by attempting to denigrate Mr. Musser or the DAs.
Remember, there are many more friends and family of victims of crime than there are friends and family of those found guilty of crimes; because most criminals each perform a large number of crimes (and thus generate a large number of victims of these crimes) before they are caught. I submit that Mr. Musser and nearly all DAs are in good faith genuinely interested in prosecuting those for which there is in fact good evidence of criminal activity (there are plenty of these); and they are not interested in just finding someone they don’t like the looks of to accuse of criminal activity.
It sounds like you have a personal stake in this; perhaps a friend or family member.
If a miscarriage of justice was done (which does happen, admittedly, a small % of the time) I honestly hope this person will be exonerated.
“Because he was intimidated by gang members, who told him they would waste his family if he didn’t say what he did in court?”
I suppose that is possible, but highly unlikely. From what I have read, the DA did not bring up that possibility (intimidation) during the hearing – so it is a great leap for you to make that suggestion. I am sure there are gangs out there. spread all over the place, however the notion that West Sacramento is overrun by gang members appears to be more of a political stunt by the Yolo DA than reality. It is just the same fear tactics strategy employed by some of the Bush people. I think you have fallen for what amounts to a lot of smoke.
Jimt,
You do not do your cause any service by attempting to denigrate Mr. Musser or the DAs.
The only people that is into anything for a cause is the DA’s. and, as far as me having a personal stake in all of this, it is called my neighborhood that I have lived in for 42 years that some overzealous Da’s are trying to get an injunction on. It is easy for people to comment on things when they do not live in my neighborhood.