Timothy Acuna is one of the few named defendants able to take the stand in this trial and he gives us some insight that provides context to the black and white case of gang activity that the DA’s Office is attempting to portray.
Like many, Mr. Acuna has a long criminal record that goes back at least to 1997. He was 21 at that time, raised in Broderick in what is now the safety zone. He became involved with drugs and people who used drugs in the safety zone. He stated that he did meth and was addicted to it.
He testified that the intake form within the jail was completed by the attending officer. They put “Norteno” on the gang validation, but he claimed that he did not know what this meant at that point in time. As a result, he was placed in the area where Nortenos – Northern Hispanics – are placed.
A few years later in 2001, he was sentenced to state prison for vehicle theft. He testified that he did not commit those crimes for the benefit of a so-called Broderick gang, he did it for his own meth addiction and was high at the time he committed them.
Mr. Acuna testified, “I just wanted to keep getting high.”
He was sent to the Deuel Vocational Institute in Tracy, and went through a classification process. He was validated as a Norteno, which, to his understanding so far, simply meant northern Hispanic from Northern California. He testified that he was automatically validated as a gang member because of tattoos, because he said he was from Broderick and because he is Hispanic.
In 2007, he was again arrested for vehicle theft. He had a plea bargain with the DA, but only if he pled to the criminal street gang activity. He was advised by his two public defenders to take the plea because he was facing a maximum nine years.
His first public defender advised him they could take the case all the way to trial, but he would more than likely get the maximum 9 years. He stated he looked out for his interests, and a shorter term seemed better than the maximum. He also did not have much confidence in either of his lawyers, even though he really wanted to take the case to trial, so he took the plea.
While at Jamestown for his conviction, he asked to “drop out” from the validation system as a “Norteno” because he no longer wanted to be considered in association with such, because he was not a member. He had a meeting with a sergeant., and he was dropped from the list and placed with all the “drop outs.”
Under-cross examination, Mr. Acuna was asked about his tattoos by Deputy DA Ryan Couzens. Mr. Acuna contended that he received most of his tattoos at one party when he was 15 or 16. Some of the tattoos are not even finished. He explained the process was done while he was getting drunk with friends. He said that a friend did it with a needle and ink and it took all day to complete.
In Solano County Jail, he obtained another tattoo across his stomach that had “BRK.” He said it was done by another inmate.
When Mr. Couzens went through Mr. Acuna’s self-admissions, Mr. Acuna claimed he had never admitted verbally that he was a Broderick Boy (BB) gang member to any officer or detective.
Mr. Couzens asked, “So it is safe to say [that you are claiming] that the officers classified you, against your will?”
Acuna, “Yes sir.”
He stated to Mr. Couzens that he learned in prison about Norteno gang members. While in Broderick, he had associated mostly with rockers and whites. He said he does not know how to tell the difference between Hispanic Northerner non-gang members and actual gang members.
He stated he was high most of the time and at most bookings when he was arrested, and whenever he signed documentation validating him as a BB gang member.
Mr. Acuna testified on the stand, “I just wanted to go to sleep, and signed anything.”
He also claimed he had not read his plea form prior to signing it, but rather just followed the advice of his attorneys to reduce his prison exposure and serve a lighter sentence.
During the cross examination, Mr. Couzens became agitated so much that he later had to apologize to the court. He said he would never do it again.
Judge White said from her experience with grown sons, never say never.
Later in the day, the second expert witness, Daniel Vasquez, testified. He spent 30 years working for the Department of Corrections as an Intelligence Officer, Supervisor and Warden at San Quentin and Soledad state prisons.
He testified that Hispanics that come through the system are asked if they claim north or south, and then they are separated in the facility as a means to keep the peace and for safety.
He stated that there is no such thing as a Norteno Criminal Street Gang. It is a cultural and geographic identification sects can chose to identify with, and so can any Northern Hispanics, as well. There is no requirement that one be a gang member.
Importantly, Mr. Vasquez argued that Mr. Acuna was not a gang member. Among other things, he pointed out that when Mr. Acuna was in prison in San Luis Obispo, he was assigned for about 3000 hours to a work program as a firefighter. That amounts to over a year. He stated that an active gang member would not be allowed to participate in such programs in prison.
Mr. Acuna’s testimony raised a couple of key points.
First, there is no doubt that Mr. Acuna has a lengthy criminal record, but it is a record that seems more a result of his drug addiction than any gang affiliation. It seems rather apparent that any gang affiliation for him came second in priority to his feeding his own meth addiction.
One of the things that is really overlooked in this trial is something a family member who used to live in the safety zone told us. From her experience, Broderick does not have a gang problem, it has a drug problem.
Second, police rely very heavily on the presence of clothing and tattoos as markers to indicate gang membership. But is that really enough?
One thing really lacking in the plaintiff’s gang testimonies is empirical evidence that shows a clear and distinct linkage between tattoos and clothing and real and active gang membership. This reminds me a lot of bullet-lead analysis, where there were assumptions made, these assumptions were testified to in court and used to put people away. Then when scientists applied double-blind tests, they found the assumptions to be completely flawed.
Without a real basis, the police are making claims that have no scientific backing.
Most of Mr. Acuna’s tattoos happened when he was young and he claimed that he got them in one day and he was trying to impress some older kids. Is this plausible? Mr. Couzens got frustrated trying to break him on the stand, so it seems at least possible.
Are these signs that the experts use to determine gang membership really identifiers of gang membership, or are there much more complex things happening that revolve around group identity, location, and trying to impress peers?
One thing we can look at is Mr. Acuna’s criminal record. He does not have a record of violence and fighting. He does not have what one would ordinarily consider a gang crime. He was arrested primarily for drugs, and for thefts he claims were to feed his addiction.
That leads us to the final piece of this puzzle, the role of plea bargains and the prisons.
Is a plea-agreed 186.22 conviction meaningful? From our cursory study, no. It is simply something that people may plead to, to avoid longer prison exposure.
Is prison validation meaningful? Apparently not. The prisons, as a means to reduce violence, try to segregate inmates by race and geography. That avoids putting a Norteno and Sureno in close proximity, in an effort to avoid fights and gang wars in prison.
It makes sense, but should these admissions in prison be taken as evidence of gang membership outside of prison? I don’t think so.
I remember talking to a mother who told me about a kid who was charged with a gang enhancement, went to juvenile detention and became an actual gang member, but then when he left the system he just tried to stay out of trouble.
Part of the problem here is that it is difficult to identify gang members, but using overt symbols like tattoos and colors makes it easy. The problem is such things become too much of a crutch for law enforcement and they ignore the more complex nature of such things.
To really determine gang activity and gang members, you have to look at the criminal histories and the types of crimes that they are committing. For Mr. Acuna, his criminal history is long, but he does not have a history of fights or violence.
What the DA’s Office is trying to call a gang member could very well be a drug addict who has made a lot of mistakes in his past and may continue to do so. But this does not fall into the category of a nuisance to the community that the DA’s Office is so desperately trying to prove.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In all your coverage of this trial, I have never heard any evidence of a true gang – a description of an organization with leaders and workers who commit crimes for the benefit of the organization (gang). What I hear about is crimes being committed for individual benefit (money to buy drugs for personal use is an example). There are fights between groups of friends, but not to benefit a gang (protect territory or market share). I agree that most likely there is a drug problem.
I’m not sure why the DA would take admission of gang membership in exchange for a reduced sentence or no prison time. How does this – a label – contribute to increased public safety?
There is the point that it is possible that such admissions could support the need for grant funding to the DA…
I think the DA’s office sees a five year investment in the gang injunction policy and has tried to a public record demonstrating a gang problem. The question is interesting because some of the grants could go to violent crimes as well, so I think the gang policy is more politically motivated. There is also some work to suggest that land use policies are driving the gang injunction which would put money behind the drive. Not sure where that goes exactly though.
Ryan Kelly: “In all your coverage of this trial, I have never heard any evidence of a true gang…”
But dmg’s coverage is not unbiased…
dmg: “There is also some work to suggest that land use policies are driving the gang injunction which would put money behind the drive. Not sure where that goes exactly though.”
Not sure I understand the connection here. Can you elaborate?
The prosecution was asked to use “real” people.(1) They used the Memorial Park incident with one of the victims as a witness, this incident did not happen in the injunction zone and the kid admitted he did not go there for a basketball game, this was an ongoing issue between two of the boys involved.(2) They used the AmTrak case, none of them boys lived in the injunction zone.(3) They used a bunch of pictures that was all the way back from years ago as their evidence, of tattoos and graffiti and HEARSAY from police and gang experts that was all the way back from years ago as their evidence, basically that was their whole case. If their was a real gang problem, don’t you think businesses would be affected by this. The prosecution in reality has a real weak case with a lot of HEARSAY.
valerie: “If their was a real gang problem, don’t you think businesses would be affected by this. The prosecution in reality has a real weak case with a lot of HEARSAY.”
Just curious, did you sit through the whole trial? Any of it?
In all of the broad coverage of this trial (including local newspapers), I have never heard of any description of a true gang. Elaine seems to imply that a description of an organization has been detailed in the trial – leaders, managers, workers who are organized and commit crimes for the benefit of the gang…And, due to “dmg’s” bias he has omitted these important details in his coverage of the trial. This is a very lazy response, Elaine. Instead of merely highlighting what others’ write and give a flippant response, try to think about what is said and give your own opinion.
Which crimes were committed to protect territory or market share? What is the product that is generating income for the organization? Who are the consumers of the gang’s businesses? Is there extortion of local businesses in exchange for protection? Is there drug production and/or sales? Is there a gang?
Or is there a bunch of juvenile delinquents who use drugs, get into fights with other people, and commit crimes for individual benefit, or as a mob without a plan along with young men who have been assigned to or assumed gang membership while in prison and are now out in the community and not participating in the gang.
I assure you the problems coming to light in this trial just scratch the surface. If each gang case was critically evaluated and questions you would find that most street cops could care less about this injunction and think it is a joke.
Why have you not seen any old time street officers testifying on how bad they need this injunction? Most could care less, they know this is a political play by DA Reisig. The “Gang Detectives” want this injunctions to keep their gang position. Without it they would have to go back and push a patrol car and work the streets. Gang Experts or Detectives or Gang Supervisors all have a dog in this fight and it benefits them to get this injunction. Gang cops are just as bias for the injunction as the Hispanic population is against it. Both parties are affected by it. The Gang Cops and DA gets more money/positions and the Hispanic population gets targeted and has to worry about the injunction interfering with their rights and freedoms.
As an American, I go for protection of freedoms and not giving Gov more power to use a certain group of people, based on race.
ERM: Just curious, did you sit through the whole trial? Any of it?
For your curiosity, i have noted in other blogs that you have read i have not attended for certain reasons i cannot, however i did have someone sit on my behalf when the prosecution represented their case from hearsay evidence and very few real bodies, and i mean very few!
Ryan Kelly: “In all of the broad coverage of this trial (including local newspapers), I have never heard of any description of a true gang. Elaine seems to imply that a description of an organization has been detailed in the trial – leaders, managers, workers who are organized and commit crimes for the benefit of the gang…And, due to “dmg’s” bias he has omitted these important details in his coverage of the trial. This is a very lazy response, Elaine. Instead of merely highlighting what others’ write and give a flippant response, try to think about what is said and give your own opinion.”
I am not implying anything, other than dmg’s coverage of this case MAY/MAY NOT be biased. Unless you are sitting in court yourself, you don’t really know if the DA’s case is credible or not. Nor do you really know if dmg’s take on the case is credible or not. So much of a trial depends on demeanor evidence – body language that does not appear in court transcripts. Also, it will depend if you have a tendency to be more sympathetic to the prosecution or defendants in general. What I have determined from dmg’s coverage is that the judge made it clear to the prosecution that hearsay police evidence would not be enough to sustain a ruling in favor of continuing the gang injunction. Whether the DA met that burden of proof is not clear to me from dmg’s coverage. I suspect that will be a very subjective call made by the judge in this case. Dmg’s coverage of this case thus far has given me no reason to doubt that the judge in this case will be able to render a fair verdict.
I also think both dmg and commenters on this blog have made some fair points about 1) the veracity of gang identification (plea deals cause gang members to admit gang affiliation when they may not be gang members – there is a degree of coercion in the plea bargaining process (which by the way I have noted on this blog many times)); 2) those who live in the area need to have some say in whether they think a gang injunction is necessary – it is their community; 3) perhaps after school programs to keep teens out of trouble could be just as effective as a gang injunction and far less intrusive (valerie’s suggestion, which I have noted several times was an excellent one).
Because I have not been at the trial, bc I feel dmg’s coverage is somewhat biased in support of defendants in general so that I am not necessarily going to take everything he has said at face value, and bc I think this is a very murky case with many troubling aspects, I have not formed an opinion yet one way or the other. Based on what I have heard about the case thus far, and the judge’s actions, it appears to me the judge will render a fair verdict based on the circumstances of the case. That is my “opinion” UP TO NOW. But the case is not over yet. Either side could come up with some new revelation or piece of evidence that might change my mind (or yours if you are fair minded).
valerie: “For your curiosity, i have noted in other blogs that you have read i have not attended for certain reasons i cannot, however i did have someone sit on my behalf when the prosecution represented their case from hearsay evidence and very few real bodies, and i mean very few!”
It is unfortunate that you have not been in court to actually witness the testimony for yourself. So much of the credibility of witnesses will depend more on how they present themselves than necessarily what they say. However, you make a solid point, and one which the judge herself noted – the prosecution must offer sufficient non-hearsay evidence of residents who live in the area to convince the judge that continuation of the gang injunction is necessary.
Roger Rabbit: “As an American, I go for protection of freedoms and not giving Gov more power to use a certain group of people, based on race.”
Then you already have a built in bias about this case that is antithetical to the prosecution’s position…
Here’s what I get from Elaine’s response – she has no opinion and seems to believe that the Judge will let her know at the end of the trial what to think about all of this.
However, Elaine seems to find some sort of sport in challenging the opinions and thoughts of others, probably because they don’t fit with this “wait and see” strategy.