Task is Clear: Show that No Current Nuisance Exists from Alleged Gang –
The defense’s task is clear, and they will be parading witness after witness who will testify to the fact that there is no nuisance and that they have minimal personal awareness of or contact with the gang.
While the plaintiffs brought a few such citizens forward, they made their case largely on police reports and the testimony of police officers and experts. These witnesses portrayed that individuals were gang members based on police contacts, photos and various crimes committed.
There is a shortcoming to that portrayal. The real cases and evidence, when scrutinized, may show much weaker evidence of gang activity than in the sanitized version presented by the police.
Even a case like the Memorial Park beating, which was supposed to be a seminal event, when looked at closely appears to be much less about gang activity than about a small fight that got out of control. The victim arranged the fight and then complained when things got out of hand.
On November 3, lawyers from both sides took a tour of the safety zone with Judge White.
On Thursday, Mark Merin, attorney for the defense, asked if Judge White can provide her opinion regarding what she saw or did not see.
Judge White stated that this was unnecessary because she does not need to provide an opinion and she saw what everyone else saw that day.
Importantly, she found nothing remarkable or terrible about the safety zone.
According to Mr. Merin, the defense will be presenting community members to speak of their experiences and feelings in the three-square-mile safety zone of West Sacramento. They will also have three expert witnesses to rebut the testimonies of Detective Joe Villanueva and Sgt. Jason Winger.
Professor James Hernandez is a professor of Criminal Justice at Sacramento State and a gang expert with a 20-page resume. He has extensive knowledge of prison gangs, and will argue that the Broderick Boys is NOT an organized street gang. He will testify instead that there is no nuisance in West Sacramento and give an opinion as to the uselessness of a gang injunction in that area.
Daniel Vasquez has worked with the Department of Corrections for over 36 years. Mr. Vasquez has been a warden in different state prisons. He has extensive experience with gangs as the Director of Corrections in Santa Clara, and has had a consultation role with different facilities all around California.
He will testify that there is no street gang in West Sacramento. He will argue that there is no street gang of the Norteno sect, and that he believes there is no ongoing nuisance in West Sacramento.
Finally, Jason Drew Anderson has been a resident of West Sacramento, attended Sacramento State, and became aware of community concerns in West Sacramento. He did his thesis on the Broderick Community , and concluded the community is stressed by the injunction itself, the constant police surveillance, police harassment and police brutality. His findings suggest that the injunction has had a negative impact on the community of Broderick.
The defense’s first witness was Charlotte Dorsey, who currently lives in the Broderick area. She testified that she daily spends seven hours outside her home in the community.
The people on the streets she sees are usually the homeless.
She has never seen boys or groups of boys gathering together, fighting, creating fights, intimidating the community, flashing colors or flashing tattoos.
Ms. Dorsey described her neighborhood as family-oriented, where families gather to celebrate together, and that she enjoys living in Broderick.
Under a long cross-examination, Jay Linden repetitively asked Ms. Dorsey if she has heard of the crimes committed by the gang members, and if she has seen graffiti, tattoos or gang-related crimes in the safety zone.
She responded repeatedly that she had not, and that the only crimes that she knew of were those in the paper.
When Mr. Linden asked her if she felt the injunction was necessary, she said she needed more information about it to answer that question. She herself didn’t know how it works, what it does, and would like that information prior to making a conclusion.
Mr. Linden then wanted to go through every crime mentioned by the plaintiffs regarding the defendants, and get her opinion. However, Judge White did not allow it.
Judge White ruled that the witness has no prior knowledge or personal knowledge of those crimes, and therefore it was irrelevant and pointless to go through every alleged crime regarding the Broderick Boys. The witness herself has no knowledge to formulate an opinion about whether there is a nuisance, as she has already testified that to her, she has not witnessed any nuisance in the safety zone.
At this point, it is difficult to know where this trial stands. Judge White has already expressed disappointment, and the plaintiffs made a concerted effort to tie defendants to crimes and to evidence of gang activity. The problem is, to some extent, a nuisance is in the eye of the beholder and it may require a subjective judgment and weighing of the facts to determine whether the gang, which probably exists in some form, presents a nuisance and whether the gang injunction is needed above existing laws.
The problem that the plaintiffs have is that they have shown a number of individuals who committed some crimes. But the total number of incidents related over a ten-year period was maybe just under 100. The total number of named individuals was less than that.
Many of the crimes that were described were not really gang crimes.
As Sgt. Winger, one of the plaintiff’s gang experts, had himself testified under cross-examination at the end of the plaintiff’s case, not all crimes committed by a gang member are gang crimes, under Penal Code section 186.22.
When asked if the crimes identified by the plaintiffs and posted, with push pins, on a map were gang crimes, Sgt. Winger responded that he has not matched every crime associated with the pins to signal if those, in fact, were gang crimes.
This is in contradiction to his testimony under direct examination, where he stated plainly and without qualification, that all those crimes identified by pins were part of the nuisance created by the Broderick Boy members in West Sacramento.
It should be pointed out that a lot of those were not gang crimes, and were handled with standard law enforcement techniques and investigation. And in only a small handful of cases did the gang injunction play any role in the apprehension and incarceration of the individuals.
Sgt. Winger also talked about methamphetamine problems in the area. He testified that those who sell meth may be doing it to support their own habit. And he testified that he knows some gang members are also common meth consumers.
Mr. Merin was able to demonstrate that those alleged gang members who have been accused of meth sales have done it to support their own habit and when caught, were in possession because they consume it, not for sale purposes for the benefit of the gang.
Mr. Merin then asked if in those drug cases previously talked about, whether those sales were for the benefit of the gang.
Sgt. Winger said he had not reviewed those cases to have an opinion as to whether they were selling meth for benefit of the gang. Again, these were cases he had included in his PowerPoint, and he had testified on direct that they were convicted as gang mambers and that the sale of meth was for the benefit of the gang.
The bottom line here is that, to some extent, the plaintiffs need to draw a nexus between crime and gang activity. They argue that case law suggests that they do not have to show that crimes are committed for purposes of the gang, as PC 186.22 would require. However, as a practical matter, if all they can show is that a bunch of people who are gang members are out committing crimes, it is not clear how a gang injunction would have any impact on those crimes.
When you have an alleged gang member arrested and convicted for selling meth to support his own personal meth habit, how is a gang injunction going to stop that crime in the future? It will not.
Jesse Garcia, one of the defendants, is in prison now for a domestic violence case – how is that going to be relevant to the gang injunction? And yet, in some cases, the plaintiffs tried to do exactly that – tie non-gang-related crimes committed by alleged gang members together, to attempt to show a nuisance.
The defense has not put on their case yet, but right now I have a lot of doubt that the plaintiffs have proved their case to the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. We shall now see how effective the defense witnesses and experts will be in punching further holes in the plaintiff’s case.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Great story David. I am pleased that the judge came in to the community so she can see for herself that it is not a gang infested zone. I hope she acknowledges that a lot of the testimony by WSPD and the DA’s is false. I wish I can attend, but for certain reasons I cannot. I have a lot of confidence in the defense to take back a neighborhood that is very family oriented, and not indeed gang infested. This whole gang injunction has taken it’s toll on a great community. A few knuckle heads should not be cause for a gang injunction, that is what our judicial system is for. I worry more about homeless people coming in to the community more than I do about a gang that does not exist. I walk in the area everyday with my daughter, and my chances of getting attacked by a dog is greater than being attacked by an alleged gang member. It’s ashame that all of the taxpayers money that is being used for this injunction could be going in to better use. There is nothing to do for the 15-17 year old age group, the Collings teen center is basically ages 11-13. I wish there was as much money put in to our youth as there is in this gang injunction.
dmg: “While the plaintiffs brought a few such citizens forward, they made their case largely on police reports and the testimony of police officers and experts. These witnesses portrayed that individuals were gang members based on police contacts, photos and various crimes committed.”
Not once before now have you mentioned the citizens who came forward to testify on behalf of the prosection. Why?
dmg: “Daniel Vasquez has worked with the Department of Corrections for over 36 years. Mr. Vasquez has been a warden in different state prisons. He has extensive experience with gangs as the Director of Corrections in Santa Clara, and has had a consultation role with different facilities all around California. He will testify that there is no street gang in West Sacramento. He will argue that there is no street gang of the Norteno sect, and that he believes there is no ongoing nuisance in West Sacramento.”
How would he know if he does not come from this area?
dmg: “Under a long cross-examination, Jay Linden repetitively asked Ms. Dorsey if she has heard of the crimes committed by the gang members, and if she has seen graffiti, tattoos or gang-related crimes in the safety zone. She responded repeatedly that she had not, and that the only crimes that she knew of were those in the paper. When Mr. Linden asked her if she felt the injunction was necessary, she said she needed more information about it to answer that question. She herself didn’t know how it works, what it does, and would like that information prior to making a conclusion.”
I know and highly respect Charlotte Dorsey. She is affiliated with B&BCAN, a neighborhood organization that is trying to improve Bryte & Broderick. This nonprofit is doing amazing things. Therefore I implicitly believe any testimony Charlotte would give. I know her to be extremely trustworthy and honest. Note, however, she was not willing to say whether the injunction was necessary. She was only willing to say what she has experienced herself, and nothing more.
dmg: “At this point, it is difficult to know where this trial stands. Judge White has already expressed disappointment, and the plaintiffs made a concerted effort to tie defendants to crimes and to evidence of gang activity. The problem is, to some extent, a nuisance is in the eye of the beholder and it may require a subjective judgment and weighing of the facts to determine whether the gang, which probably exists in some form, presents a nuisance and whether the gang injunction is needed above existing laws.”
So you are not buying the defense’s argument that no such gang exists in West Sacramento?
dmg: “Mr. Merin was able to demonstrate that those alleged gang members who have been accused of meth sales have done it to support their own habit and when caught, were in possession because they consume it, not for sale purposes for the benefit of the gang.”
Now how could he possibly know if it was in furtherance of gang activity or not – bc the defendants said so?
dmg: ” However, as a practical matter, if all they can show is that a bunch of people who are gang members are out committing crimes, it is not clear how a gang injunction would have any impact on those crimes.”
Because gang members can be arrested before they commit major crimes, if found on the street past curfew. That is the idea behind a gang injunction – it hampers the ability of free movement to commit crime…
valerie: “There is nothing to do for the 15-17 year old age group, the Collings teen center is basically ages 11-13. I wish there was as much money put in to our youth as there is in this gang injunction.”
I know you have made this point before, but it is an excellent one and needs repeating. I would urge you to go to the next B&BCAN meeting, and make this suggestion. B&BCAN is trying very hard to improve the Bryte and Broderick community, and would welcome suggestions such as yours.
It sounds like Sgt. Winger was lying (or should be call it exaggerating or misleading or misspoke) under oath. Either he was not being truthful when he testified for the prosecution or when he was cross examined.
Could it be that a cop (law enforcement officer) would give less than truthful testimony just to help the DA win a case? Sounds like a trend, this is the same thing that the two DA investigators said that Mr. Reisig was doing during a murder trial. Getting people, I think it was Naliboff that testified untruthfully and then the other two investigators did not testify and were not intentionally called, since they were going to testify against Lt. Naliboff.
Oh well who cares, no one is going to investigate it anyway and no so called local press would print it if it made the fair haired boy Reisig look bad.
Same situation, DA Reisig will stop at nothing to win his cases.
ERM: I know you have made this point before, but it is an excellent one and needs repeating. I would urge you to go to the next B&BCAN meeting, and make this suggestion. B&BCAN is trying very hard to improve the Bryte and Broderick community, and would welcome suggestions such as yours.
Thank you for that information. I will go to a meeting very soon as it seems like something that my 16 year old would like to volunteer in. I went on their website and seen a lot of fun things that my younger daughter would also enjoy. I am also involved in the community for sports programs and have a lot on my plate preparing for next season. This is the first time I have ever heard of this organization, although I have walked to the urban fruit stand on many occasions with my youngest daughter. I think it would be great to let more teens in the 15-17 year old age group more aware of these events, flyers or something of the sort would be helpful. I do not know Charlotte but am very pleased that she got on the stand to recognize what a great community we have. I noticed from a lot of the photos on the website that the areas in question for the injunction are also in them photos. Thanks again for the info!
“Not once before now have you mentioned the citizens who came forward to testify on behalf of the prosection. Why?”
I had a whole thing on the witnesses from Memorial Park. There was one other group of civilians who testified but I was not there. I think 90% of the witnesses were police officers.
“How would he know if he does not come from this area?”
I guess we’ll find out, he has not testified yet.
” Note, however, she was not willing to say whether the injunction was necessary. She was only willing to say what she has experienced herself, and nothing more.”
That is correct. The defense is going to bring forward a witness from every block in the safety zone who supposedly will testify to the same thing. THe prosecution apparently is trying to get the witnesses to flip after a series of questions on various crimes committed, they tried this tactic but the judge told them to stop.
“So you are not buying the defense’s argument that no such gang exists in West Sacramento?”
The defense is making the plaintiffs prove that thee is a gang there, but I think it’s clear that there is a gang there. The real question is whether it rises to the level of a nuisance.
“Now how could he possibly know if it was in furtherance of gang activity or not – bc the defendants said so?”
You have to prove it is beyond a reasonable doubt. If they can’t establish money going to the gang or some other benefit, then from a legal standpoint it is not.
“Because gang members can be arrested before they commit major crimes, if found on the street past curfew. That is the idea behind a gang injunction – it hampers the ability of free movement to commit crime…”
In practice it’s not quite as simple. First, they have to be in the safety zone. Second, they have to be caught and identified.
dmg: “I had a whole thing on the witnesses from Memorial Park. There was one other group of civilians who testified but I was not there. I think 90% of the witnesses were police officers.”
Were the witnesses from Memorial Park the only civilian witnesses?
dmg: “That is correct. The defense is going to bring forward a witness from every block in the safety zone who supposedly will testify to the same thing. THe prosecution apparently is trying to get the witnesses to flip after a series of questions on various crimes committed, they tried this tactic but the judge told them to stop.”
This seems a reasonable tactic by defense. Then it will be up to the prosecution to bring in rebuttal witnesses I would think – neighbors who will claim to have been effected by gang violence in contradiction of defense witnesses to attack credibility. It is unclear to me whether the judge would think the prosecution’s Memorial Park witnesses were sufficient civilian witnesses to satisfy the threshold for imposing continuation of a gang injunction…
dmg: “The defense is making the plaintiffs prove that thee is a gang there, but I think it’s clear that there is a gang there. The real question is whether it rises to the level of a nuisance.”
Seems to me that for the defense to argue there is no existent gang in West Sac hurts their credibility. Your argument is actually better – there may be a gang, but does it rise to the level that continuation of the gang injunction is necessary? If I were the defense, I think I would argue the gang injunction seems to have been effective in putting everyone on better behavior since there is very little evidence if any of gang violence. So let’s give the neighborhood a chance now to do the right thing on its own… in other words a gang injunction is no longer necessary…
dmg: “In practice it’s not quite as simple. First, they have to be in the safety zone. Second, they have to be caught and identified.”
Nevertheless, a gang injunction will hamper criminal activity…
DMG, you mentioned other civilian witnesses for the prosecution besides the Memorial Park group. How many, and what did they testify to if you know? That does make a difference. It means the prosecution did follow orders from the judge and produce civilian witnesses supposedly effected by gang violence. I cannot speak to their credibility, but at least the prosecution produced them, no?
I would have to go over my interns notes. I wasn’t there at the trial when the other civilians came forward, I don’t know how many. I do know if there were 50 witnesses, less than five were actually civilians.
ERM,
“Your argument is actually better – there may be a gang, but does it rise to the level that continuation of the gang injunction is necessary?”
Or perhaps there are gang members and crimes associated with gangs in West Sac, but there is no Broderick Boys gang? Isn’t the burden on the plaintiffs in this case to first prove that the BB gang in fact exists and then that they are a nuisance to the area?
SM: Or perhaps there are gang members and crimes associated with gangs in West Sac, but there is no Broderick Boys gang?
This is a great point that you are making. I have spoken with a few members on this gang list who are not familiar with others on the gang list or have ever heard of them. If this is a real Broderick Boys gang, dont you think they would all know each other? A few are real familiar with each other because that goes back since childhood friendship, and a few more are familiar with each other for the same reason. For the DA’s and the gang task force to put them all in connection with each other is false. A real gang would be able to call on each other in need, and that is not the case here.
SM: “Or perhaps there are gang members and crimes associated with gangs in West Sac, but there is no Broderick Boys gang? Isn’t the burden on the plaintiffs in this case to first prove that the BB gang in fact exists and then that they are a nuisance to the area?”
Now there’s an interesting question. If the DA is going to issue a gang injunction, it has to be specific to particular members of a gang – from what I understand. So I believe you are correct that the burden of proof would be on the DA to show what named members belong to BB gang and should have the injunction issued against each one of them directly…