Can the Plaintiffs Prove a Nuisance Exists with Criminal Street Gang in West Sac?

During testimony it became clear that while the victims, brothers James and Reese Hopkins, were indeed injured and injured badly in the fight that ensued at the park, they were also far from innocent bystanders caught up in the gang’s wrath.  Instead they went to the park looking for trouble, looking for a fight, and trouble they got.

One of the more telling statements was made by their father on the stand when he said that before this incident he really didn’t know about the gang.  The prosecution might spin that to suggest that the gang represents a greater threat than people think, however, my take on it is that the reason Mr. Hopkins did not know about the gang is that they are of limited threat and influence in the neighborhood.

The real question facing Judge Kathleen White in the gang injunction case is whether there is a public nuisance represented by the Broderick Boys Gang.

The goal of the defense is to chip away at what was established during the prosecution’s case.  The prosecution had a series of experts and police officers lay out a series of incidents that occurred in the safety zone.  They tacked them to a map and showed what they called a pattern of criminal street gang activity.

But dissecting that prop belies the thinness of the case that the plaintiffs have put down.  Defense expert witness Professor Hernandez testified that the map was insufficient, as there were really not enough push-pins on the map to demonstrate a recurring criminal street gang activity problem.

According to Professor Hernandez, the pins simply reflect events that the DA wants to highlight. He said it does not tell him anything, other than the representation of a set of events that occurred over a period of time.

Indeed, the map represents only around 100 incidents in a period of time that spans as much as ten years in the safety zone.

Does the map represent a gang threat or does it just represent a series of criminal acts, many of which had only remote ties to true organized gang activity, and most of which probably would have occurred with or without the gang injunction and with or without the presence of a gang?

Deputy DA Ryan Couzens, representing the plaintiffs in this case, argued against the defense’s tactics of eliciting opinions from civilians.  He argued if such evidence were valid, the civiliams would have to be assigned as expert witnesses.  However, Judge White was not interested in Mr. Couzens’ argument and requested that he take his seat and allow the trial to resume.

Once again on Monday, a civilian witness took the stand, this time Marianne Estes who is a parent and resident of the safety zone since the early 1990s.  Her son attended River City High School.

She told the court that when going to the school for various functions,  “I did not observe a criminal street gang present, when I viewed the students.”

During cross-examination, Mr. Couzens pressed Ms. Estes about graffiti.  However, Judge White once again had to interrupt his line of questioning because he was being too argumentative.  Judge White stated that she was only interested in the basis of the witness’s’s opinion, not in Mr. Couzens changing her opinion.

This is the problem, of what the plaintiffs need to show to be fair.  They chose to make their case based on police contacts, but the problem is that the police get a disproportionate view of society – they see the bad people.  They cannot give a full picture of the impact of these activities on the community.

The plaintiffs chose not to put a lot of residents on the stand who could testify that they felt a threat to their safety from the gang.  There are undoubtedly those who feel that way, and they would have been valuable.

However, without that line of witnesses and questioning, it is difficult to assess whether the average person living in the safety zone is really threatened by the gang.

I have talked to a lot of people from West Sacramento, many of whom work in the safety zone.  I got an email a few weeks back from an individual who works for the City of West Sacramento.

The individual does not want to be quoted because of the politics involved, but told me that he has been to a number of meetings, walked around the neighborhood, had face-to-face conversations with residents, knocked on every single door in the older parts of Broderick, and also done some work in the neighborhood.  The individual had been out after dark knocking on doors.

That individual told me that he has not seen evidence nor heard discussions from any contacts that there are organized gangs, or fear of them, in the community.

This is even more interesting, in that he has had contacts with police officers and they have never once warned him about the presence of the gang or to use caution walking after dark.

I too have visited the safety zone a number of times, including at night.  There are clearly places in West Sacramento where most people would feel uncomfortable going after dark.  It is not clear whether that is exclusive to the safety zone.

Moreover, I have walked in a number of the older neighborhoods and never felt a sense of fear.  Some people have bars over the windows, but a lot of people have their garage doors open as well.

The feeling I got in West Sacramento paled in comparison with what I experienced in some of the places I lived when I used to work in Washington, DC.

Based on what I have read, what I have observed, and what people have told me, I do not see the threat from a gang that would necessitate the kind of gang injunction that is being promoted by the DA’s Office.

As we reported back in August, if the question is simply a matter of gang crimes, there really have not been a tremendous amount in West Sacramento.  From 2005 until March 2010, there have been a total of 98 individuals charged with gang enhancements, either 186.22(a) or 186.22(b)(1). 

That comes out to less than twenty gang cases in a year from West Sacramento.  Of those 98 defendants, 75 were convicted of some crime.  But only 35 were convicted of a gang crime, either 186.22(a) or 186.22(b)(1). 

That works out to less than seven individuals a year, over a five-year period, being convicted of a gang crimes.

That is just not a tremendous amount of crime.  The DA’s Office tried producing a number of exhibits to demonstrate the frequency of crimes that were discussed in the trial, but the number was still relatively low even though the push pins clearly filled up the map and looked impressive.

But once you look deeper, the case seems to fall apart.  Of course, the question is really whether Judge White will see it that way.

—David M. Greenwald reporting