There was a lot of focus, this opening week of the Topete trial, on the sideshow. In the end, the point I am going to make is probably not crucial. In all likelihood Mr. Topete will get convicted on all charges and sentenced to death. After all, he shot at a police officer 17 times after leading him on a high speed chase. He had his baby in the car and he was drunk.
It was a bit surprising and very telling that the first words out of the mouth of Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton were, “Norteno Gangs.” He did not start out with a recount of that evening, starting with the drinking in Davis and the first 911 call about a man in a Ford Taurus with a baby in the backseat.
No, he set up the case that this was a gang murder, a murder about the need for gang members to put in work to get respect. And the ultimate prize in this case being a police officer.
Mr. Hamilton went on to talk about Mr. Topete as a leader among the Northern Structure Prison Gang at Pelican Bay and that he was a big fish going back to Woodland where he would be an influential member returning to the streets.
They, of course, showed his Norte tattoo to the jury during the opening statements.
The problem with the gang theory of this case is that it is not the theory that makes the most sense. The better theory of this case is that Mr. Topete, as Garrett Hamilton argued, was a man who on June 15, 2008 was running out of time.
They told him that he had to find a permanent address and register there or be taken back into custody. His wife testified that they had saved up money to put the deposit down for an apartment in Woodland.
He also had two strikes, a third strike would mean 25 to life in prison and Mr. Topete was well aware of that. At the point at which he had been contacted by Deputy Tony Diaz, he had already been in violation of parole by drinking, he was driving drunk with a child in the car, he may have had an illegal firearm in the car – in short, he was a desperate man who was going to go to prison for the rest of his life if he were caught.
He then added to that by fleeing the scene when Deputy Diaz first approached his vehicle, he led him on a chase and stopped at his friend’s house where he took the fatal shots.
The DA builds the gang case based on his red shirt and his apparent involvement in a shooting in North Woodland.
Mr. Hamilton is quick to label friend Jesse Gonzales as a gang buddy. But on the stand, the claims that Mr. Gonzales was a gang member were credibly disputed by Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Gonzales claimed to be a Norteno when he was a teen. He got at that time a “Norte” tattoo. But, as the record shows, he never did anything criminal for the gang.
He has a lack of a criminal record and he testified that he quit the gang when he grew up.
Mr. Gonzales testified that he had not seen Mr. Topete, who frequently socialized with him and his wife Melissa, show any signs of being an active Norteno after he got out of prison.
The Vanguard spoke to Angelique Topete back in March about the gang charges. She questioned most of them.
She did not know for sure what happened while Marco Topete was in prison, but she said that she saw no evidence that he was a prison gang leader once he was out. They struggled financially from the beginning.
He did not hang around with validated gang members while he was out of prison. “For goodness sake we were living with his mother in the beginning,” she pointed out. “They [had] never seen him around validated gang members while he was out.”
She argued that it was mere speculation that he was in Woodland that night with validated gang members.
Instead, she argued that it was Father’s Day that day, and he with was with his child all day. She pointed out that, according to gang “rules,” gang members would frown upon his taking his child around while “banging.”
She felt that if he were a big time gang member, they would have lived better while he was out of prison.
The decision to attempt to turn this into a gang case is really the only questionable twist in this case. One really does not need to establish a gang connection to create a viable theory. Mr. Topete violated his parole, he committed additional felonies that would have been his third strike, he panicked, he did not want to go back to prison and he attempted, and succeeded, to kill Deputy Diaz in order to escape.
That is probably a theory that, given the fact that he had killed a Sheriff’s Deputy, a law enforcement officer, would get him the death penalty. So why the need to introduce the gang evidence?
Well, that is what this District Attorney does. He has staked his career on a fight against gang members in West Sacramento and Woodland. He put forth the gang injunction in West Sacramento. They attach gang enhancements to every case they can get a handle on.
So you have the most celebrated murder case in your tenure as District Attorney, the killing of a Sheriff’s Deputy, and if you can tie it to gangs, then you have made your case with the community.
It almost did not happen. For a time, the gang charges were removed from the case. However, the DA got them put back in, arguing that the case the judge relied on as the sole legal authority for striking them was a case that is being heard by the Supreme Court.
DA Jeff Reisig and Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton argued, “Because courts are legally precluded from hearing a 2nd 995 motion unless there is a substantial change in the law, this court must have relied upon the case then cited by the defense, People v. Rodriguez (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 722, as supplying such a change.”
They went on to reason, “However, on January 12, 2011, the California Supreme Court granted review on the Rodriguez case. Thus, the opinion is no longer good/citable law and this court’s prior ruling on the defendant’s 2nd 995 must now be set aside and Count 5 should be reinstated.”
They concluded that the court had to reverse course and vacate its dismissal order arguing, “To do otherwise, would allow defective law to govern the outcome of a serious felony charge in this capital case involving the murder of a peace officer.”
While the court threw out the charge of 186.22(a) temporarily, it left in place Special Circumstance C, the gang special circumstance which, of course, is part of the push for the death penalty.
In doing so, the Court went on to cite the fact that Mr. Topete was found wearing gang clothing and that he was associating with Benito Fuentes, a known gang member, prior to the incident, as evidence that the incident may have been gang-related.
But the DA does not need the gang special circumstance charge to sustain the death penalty. As the defense argued, “Mr. Topete has been indicted for a number of charges that have nothing to do with the gang special circumstance. He has been indicted for the special circumstance for murder of a peace officer, the special circumstance for murder committed to avoid and prevent lawful arrest, the special circumstance of lying in wait, various firearm offenses, evading a police officer with reckless driving, abusing or endangering the health of a child, and a number of case enhancements based on his prior convictions. The gang evidence in this case has little, if any, relevance to any of these crimes.”
The defense is largely correct here. The District Attorney does not need the gang charges to get the death penalty.
But the DA argued otherwise. In their pretrial motions they argued, “The People disagree with the defendant’s claim that gang evidence in this case is irrelevant to the other charges in this case. A jury in this case is going to be deliberating on his guilt for the premeditated murder of Deputy Diaz.”
They add that evidence from the video dash camera of the deputy’s vehicle shows that there “was no valid reason for Topete to stay there and murder Deputy Diaz in cold blood. He could see that Deputy Diaz was facing and shining his lights in the opposite direction.”
But they forget that he is panicking and not thinking clearly, as he was heavily intoxicated, according to his wife’s testimony.
In the end, given the accusations of a shooting in Woodland, his tattoos and his red shirt, the jury will probably convict him of the gang charges as well. From the standpoint of his sentencing, it matters not; they have him on enough special circumstances anyway.
As Mr. Hamilton would argue in his opening statement, for a gang member, “killing a cop is an ultimate prize.”
“He lured him like a predator lures his prey to an area where he had a total advantage,” Mr. Hamilton told the jury.
He was “lying in wait having totally set him up, in so doing he was doing the ultimate as a Norteno,” he added.
However, there seems to be a reasonable case that fear of returning to prison and three strikes are ultimately why Mr. Topete, in a state of drunkenness, determined that he had to open fire and end the life of Deputy Tony Diaz, rather than due to some vague notion of putting in work and glory as a Norteno. But of course that does not sound nearly as enticing or threatening to the public. They want Topete to be the ultimate monster, the cold and calculating gang member, putting in work, and taking down law enforcement. It surpasses the story of his being simply a frightened man, afraid of being sent back to prison for the rest of his life.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Testing assumptions=
If his wife is off work at 7PM and he is drunk when he picks her up then why is he still drunk at about 9:30PM, the the shooting started. There is a 2 1/2 hour gap in there. Of course he might have consumed more alcohaol but then again he might have been more sober than you think.
Not sure I buy this notion of lying in wait ambush – not really consistent with fleeing with a police officer right on your tail and arriving at the “ambush” site moments before the officer arrives. I wonder if he picked up the gun (and test fired it) in Woodland and that is why he tried to flee from the officer at the truck stop – probably had the weapon exposed on the seat of the car.
DA said “[b]there “was no valid reason for Topete to stay there and murder Deputy Diaz in cold blood. He could see that Deputy Diaz was facing and shining his lights in the opposite direction.””[/b]
The also forgot he left his child in the car – he could not make a clean getaway without getting both the car and the kid back.
I need more coffee – too many typos.
[quote]There was a lot of focus, this opening week of the Topete trial, on the sideshow. In the end, the point I am going to make is probably not crucial. [/quote]
Probably not.
[quote]She argued that it was mere speculation that he was in Woodland that night with validated gang members.[/quote]
Ms. Topete is hardly an unbiased witness… nor would she necessarily know what Topete was doing while she was at work or every hour of the day…
[quote]But the DA does not need the gang special circumstance charge to sustain the death penalty. [/quote]
From what I have seen, prosecutors often throw everything but the kitchen sink at a defendant in terms of charges. It is a tactic – every prosecutor has their own style. Just because the prosecution could have conducted the trial in a different way does not make the prosecution necessarily wrong in choosing the “nuclear option”…
[quote]The defense is largely correct here. The District Attorney does not need the gang charges to get the death penalty.[/quote]
Of course the defense would say this… the defense would always choose the prosecution to present the softest case possible in terms of charges…
[quote]However, there seems to be a reasonable case that fear of returning to prison and three strikes are ultimately why Mr. Topete, in a state of drunkenness, determined that he had to open fire and end the life of Deputy Tony Diaz, rather than due to some vague notion of putting in work and glory as a Norteno. But of course that does not sound nearly as enticing or threatening to the public. [/quote]
Precisely – the prosecution is putting forward the strongest case he -possibly can – and the defense would argue the prosecution should “lighten up”. Of course the defense would want the prosecution to “lighten up”! I’m not seeing an issue here…
How did the wife have first hand knowledge that the defendant panicked if she was not present?
I concur with ERM, the DA can strategize his case in chief in the manner he sees fit – considering the defense’s viewpoint as it pertains to gange related matters is probably a very low priority, at best.
Question, is it a fact that – Topete was a gang member, wore a red shirt etcetera? The DA may cite germaine facts, no?
[quote]Ms. Topete is hardly an unbiased witness… nor would she necessarily know what Topete was doing while she was at work or every hour of the day… [/quote]
Neither is the DA.
The DA can cite what they want, but that doesn’t make them germaine facts. Was Topete engaging in gang activities the day of the incident? Most of the facts that we know suggest he was not other than a rather ubiquitous and largely unsubstantiated claim that someone saw him leaving the scene of a shooting North Woodland. Well if they did what evidence is that he was there and fired a shot? They should be able to match the bullets of the shooting to the gun, but they presented no such evidence.
Everything else is presumption. He was a gang member in prison and apparently as a teen ager, but what evidence is there that he was still active from 2007-08? What known gang associates do they link him to? What activities did he participate in?
He wore red. I have a number of red jerseys, does that make me a gang member? It looked like a sports jersey and sports short that he was wearing.
If that is all you have, I think you have a weak case that this was a gang related shooting given his drinking, his driving his baby around, etc.
[i][quote]”…it is worth making the case that I think the prosecution’s theory of the murder is partially flawed. It was a bit surprising and very telling that the first words out of the mouth of Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton were, “Norteno Gangs.”The problem with the gang theory of this case is that it is not the theory that makes the most sense. The better theory of this case is that Mr. Topete, as Garrett Hamilton argued, was a man who on June 15, 2008 was running out of time.”[/quote][/i]Why is it worth making such a case, particularly since Hamilton surprised you from the first words he uttered? You’re at a real disadvantage in arguing the “better theory” of the case; the DA knows all of the evidence that has been collected and will be presented.
I can evaluate the case they’ve laid out and they have almost completed it.
Why is it worth it? Because the gang issue has implications well beyond this particular case.
[quote][i]”But it doesn’t make them right either, I think their theory of the case is off….Another point that keeps coming up as I look into the case is that the DA has thrown out this gang shooting in Woodland, no one is quite sure where that came from and it’s really not corroborated by their evidence….You are missing my point, I don’t think it strengthens the DA’s case to add in the gang charges. If anything it distracts from it.”[/i][/quote]I guess I still don’t get your point, either. What is it? And where are you getting the information to support your point(s)?
Maybe it’s confusion over your claim to know the DA’s “theory of the case” to describe what little you (or anyone else) has been able to gather from the prosecution’s opening and Topete’s wife’s “honest and revealing testimony”–already under question by your faithful readers.
What have you found as you “look into this case,” other than the ignorance (“no one is quite sure where that came from”)? One thing you apparently have found is that Topete’s gang connection “is really not corroborated by their evidence.” How did you get to see their evidence before it’s been presented?
Your most recent comment, “I can evaluate the case they’ve laid out and they have almost completed it,” now makes me wonder if I’ve gotten mixed about which Topete trial we’re discussion. Are you saying the prosecution’s case in chief is wrapped up, allowing you to draw the conclusions you have–and do so without seeing any of the defense’s rebuttal evidence?[quote][i]”Why is it worth it? Because the gang issue has implications well beyond this particular case.”[/i][/quote]If that’s your real purpose, why not wait to see what implications (if any) [u]this[/u] case might end up having for your crusade against anti-gang laws?
What is your point? You note that it isn’t critical, in any case. But, it also seems to be buried someplace.
“I guess I still don’t get your point, either. What is it? And where are you getting the information to support your point(s)? “
My point is explicitly stated in the article: I think the prosecution’s theory of the case is wrong, at least the gang part. The sources I cite come from the trial and from briefs that have been filed.
“How did you get to see their evidence before it’s been presented?” I didn’t, they led with the gang expert.
“Are you saying the prosecution’s case in chief is wrapped up, allowing you to draw the conclusions you have–and do so without seeing any of the defense’s rebuttal evidence?”
Yes, the prosecution’s case in chief is all but wrapped up and the defense will get to begin to rebut perhaps as soon as Monday.
[quote][i]Yes, the prosecution’s case in chief is all but wrapped up and the defense will get to begin to rebut perhaps as soon as Monday.”[/i][/quote]My apologies, for this trial is further along than I’d realized. So, speculate along about whether the DA’s strategy of incorporating gang elements is wrong and if he’s provided evidence to support the charges.
If you’re right that he’s wrong, what difference will it make with Topete’s case?
[quote]If that is all you have, I think you have a weak case that this was a gang related shooting given his drinking, his driving his baby around, etc.[/quote]
Weak, shmeak – you bring what you have to the table, if that is your prosecutorial style. Some lawyers prefer to hone down their case to what is absolutely provable. Others like to throw in everything but the kitchen sink. Neither is WRONG or INAPPROPRIATE or ILLEGAL. It is a matter of style. When you pass the bar and get a job as prosecutor, you get to do things your way (within the law). I’m just not seeing any issue here…
“If you’re right that he’s wrong, what difference will it make with Topete’s case? “
As I said at the very beginning of the article: “In the end, the point I am going to make is probably not crucial. In all likelihood Mr. Topete will get convicted on all charges and sentenced to death.”
However, from a broader policy standpoint, it matters a lot that the DA has attempted to make every case a gang case and play up the gang issue as a wedge issue between communities. That’s my interest in this.
“Neither is WRONG or INAPPROPRIATE or ILLEGAL.”
I never said any of it was. I only said I disagreed with the theory of the prosecution in this case.
“When you pass the bar and get a job as prosecutor, you get to do things your way (within the law). I’m just not seeing any issue here…”
As long as I’m a resident and citizen, I have a god-given right to dissent and criticize the government. Just as you have the right to disagree with me.
David, your assessment is probably correct, however is not as lucrative as the claims made by the prosecutor. In other words, they will go with whatever looks good on paper for the grant money. I suppose that they can cash in big for this one.
“They want Topete to be the ultimate monster, the cold and calculating gang member, putting in work, and taking down law enforcement. It surpasses the story of his being simply a frightened man, afraid of being sent back to prison for the rest of his life.”
The story of his ‘simply being a frightened man’ doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Did he think he was going to get away with this murder? Seems to me he was either drunk and not thinking rationally (panicked; but this is at odds with the cool ambush he laid) or more likely knew his goose was cooked and decided to go down in a blaze of glory (w/regard to his gang associates) by killing a cop; given that he was going to be imprisoned for a long time anyway. In any case; I’m sure glad this guy is behind bars; and I hope the consequences for Topete will serve as a warning to others who pack murder in their toolkit.
One of the things that might come out is that this was not the cool ambush that the prosecution has portrayed, he simply saw Dep. Diaz’s outline with the gun and thought it was Diaz or him and so he opened fire.
[quote][i]”One of the things that might come out is that this was not the cool ambush that the prosecution has portrayed, he simply saw Dep. Diaz’s outline with the gun and thought it was Diaz or him and so he opened fire.”[/i][/quote]And, where did you come up with this little tidbit?
The real question is whether the defense will attempt to paint a different picture in this trial than what the prosecution has. If it does, it will alleviate my concern that this is a show trial with the defense attorney complicit or whether it will be a true defense.
Good morning. No, the real question is:[quote][i]”Where did you come up with this tidbit?”[/i][/quote]Are you saying that you made it up? Do you have any basis for your suggestion that the defense attorney(s) is/are “complicit” in the DA’s efforts to get a conviction here?
What more will you need to see to confirm your theory of the crime? (Not Topete’s crime, the DA/defense’s crime). Or, will a guilty finding (that you’ve already written is around the corner) be enough for verification?
It will either come out in trial or it is a moot point anyway.
[quote]As long as I’m a resident and citizen, I have a god-given right to dissent and criticize the government. Just as you have the right to disagree with me.[/quote]
Sure you have the “god-given right to dissent and criticize the gov’t”. The question is how much CREDIBILITY do you have, when blowing a non-issue completely out of proportion, when you don’t have any particular knowledge of trial work or how prosecutors work? Trial work is not as it is portrayed on television, where everything is over in an hour, and tied up in a nice neat package at the end. Each prosecutor has his own style, own ways of presenting cases, etc. That does not make it WRONG, ILLEGAL, INAPPROPRIATE. Secondly, trials are inherently messy, unpredictable – very noisy affairs with a lot of sound and fury, oftentimes signifying nothing or signifying everything! Because of that unpredictability, some notion of “ideal” or “perfection” in trial work is like asking sausage to be perfect! Like it or not, much of it is a matter of taste! 🙂
“That does not make it WRONG, ILLEGAL, INAPPROPRIATE.”
Along similar lines I think there needs to be a corollary here, and that is, every time I write an article where I disagree with something the DA does, doesn’t mean I think they acted wrongly, illegally, inappropriately, sometimes I might just disagree with them, much as I disagree with Saylor on the water issue or Souza on the budget issue. In this case, you are arguing against points that I never made or implied.
“Trial work is not as it is portrayed on television, where everything is over in an hour, and tied up in a nice neat package at the end.”
You’re really going to lecture me on this point, I’ve probably seen more criminal trials than most citizens, yourself included in the last 20 months.
[quote][i]”You’re really going to lecture me on this point, I’ve probably seen more criminal trials than most citizens, yourself included in the last 20 months.”[/i][/quote]I’m sure you’re right about seeing lots of trials. But, you have to admit you walk into many (most?) of them having already decided that the DA’s charges are wrong and, for some, having already written that the defendants are not guilty of charges BEFORE trials begin. This is pretty much unlike any court reporting I’ve ever seen before the [u]Vanguard[/u].
Your parallels (your political disagreements with Saylor or Souza) aren’t even close to the way you cover law enforcement and the DA’s office. When you “disagree” with the DA, you base it on actions in which he’s following the law or base it on conjecture about things for which you have no knowledge or for which you’ve obtained from claims that come from mysterious sources or ones with reasons to lie.
How you can suggest that your articles “where I disagree with something the DA does, doesn’t mean I think they acted wrongly, illegally, inappropriately”? It’s nonsense to contend that you would write an article to criticize the DA’s actions if you don’t think something’s wrong with them? Take some responsibility.
I agree with Elaine that you don’t give enough consideration to how the decisions you make on what and how to cover criminal issues affect the [u]Vanguard[/u]’s credibility in the community. It’s a lecture you shouldn’t resist and dismiss so much.
[quote][i]”As for complicity… It has been the contention by Mr. Topete, his wife, and others familiar with the situation all along that the defense led by Mr. Gable and then Mr. Purtell were too close to the prosecution and hired because they would help ease the way to a conviction. That’s a chief reason that Mr. Topete fired his counsel last fall. I’ve never fully bought into it, but if the defense does not raise valid points to at least change the nature of the prosecution’s picture, then I will be forced to agree.”[/i][/quote]That was then. But now your contending that Dwight Samuel and Hayes Gable III, the attorneys valiantly fighting insurmountable evidence, are part of a continuing conspiracy to conduct a fraudulent trial unless their defense theory of the case doesn’t match up with yours. It doesn’t take much to convince you, even in a case for which you already have declared Topete guilty, not that I disagree with you on how this will turn out.
I’m sure that you realize this is one of the most serious charges you leveled since the horrendous cheese-theft case (which we agree was a miscarriage, not a violation, of our legal system). And your proof will be whether Samuel and Gable raise your made-up, “saw the deputy’s outline and shot” point.
[quote]The DA can cite what they want, but that doesn’t make them germaine facts.[/quote]
The facts revolving around Topete & gangs is germaine in a criminal matter with a law enforcment victim.
[quote]As long as I’m a resident and citizen, I have a god-given right to dissent and criticize the government. Just as you have the right to disagree with me.[/quote]
David, the point is you want to play ball in the major leagues when you are simply a litte leaguer.
A novice chess player criticizing the strategy of professional chess player is not the same as merely disagreeing with him.
“I’m sure you’re right about seeing lots of trials. But, you have to admit you walk into many (most?) of them having already decided that the DA’s charges are wrong and, for some, having already written that the defendants are not guilty of charges BEFORE trials begin.”
Actually this is really not true. I walk in not knowing if the individual is innocent or guilty. Usually it becomes pretty clear if the person actually did it partway through. The focus of our site lends itself to reporting on what we see as problems in the cases, and close calls.
I will have a story at some point on the statistical analysis of cases, but I will mention it here because the number bear out my observation. In most cases, the individual committed some crime, but often the complaint is that the DA has overcharged the case or something more peripheral.
The numbers bear this out, about one-third of the cases are outright acquittals, but nearly two-thirds end up with the DA having overcharged the case. This is by the jury’s decision.
We have run a few straight up stories where the person did what the DA claimed and was convicted of it, but usually we are not going to run those stories, we are a watch dog organization.
“David, the point is you want to play ball in the major leagues when you are simply a litte leaguer. “
I consider Yolo County to be like Semi-pro ball to keep with your analogy.
“Your parallels (your political disagreements with Saylor or Souza) aren’t even close to the way you cover law enforcement and the DA’s office. When you “disagree” with the DA, you base it on actions in which he’s following the law or base it on conjecture about things for which you have no knowledge or for which you’ve obtained from claims that come from mysterious sources or ones with reasons to lie. “
Let’s keep it on this subject, I’m evaluating one line of argument in this case that he has put forward to the jury. I’m seeing the same thing the jury is seeing and evaluating it. If the DA knows more than they have presented, then they have done a poor job of presenting their case, I can’t anticipate that.
I haven’t made any argument here other than the gang part of the DA’s case is weak. It is. A number of other people who were actually at the trial agreed. You were attacking me before you even realized the prosecution was nearly done with their case. And once you learned, you went into a more general attack on my body of work.
“But now your contending that Dwight Samuel and Hayes Gable III, the attorneys valiantly fighting insurmountable evidence, are part of a continuing conspiracy to conduct a fraudulent trial unless their defense theory of the case doesn’t match up with yours.”
I’m not accusing them or contending anything. What I said was that it will be interesting to see how they attempt to cut into the premeditated murder argument and how hard they fight it and then I shared with you, when you asked, the belief of Mr. Topete and his family that there is a level of complicitly. I said specifically that I tended to doubt it, however, we will see what they offer up.
I got an earful on a number of inaccurate statements by the investigator who testified for the DA that the defense allowed to leave stand. Again, I’m not making the claim, only watching to see what happens.
[quote]You’re really going to lecture me on this point, I’ve probably seen more criminal trials than most citizens, yourself included in the last 20 months.[/quote]
See comments of JustSaying, who covered it nicely. Secondly, I’m not “lecturing you” on this point, but making sure your audience is not misled by things that you say/opinions you hold. Now I don’t say that with the intention of offending, but because I have had personal experience in this realm. During my divorce, I approached the law/courts with preconceived ideas of how I thought the justice system was supposed to work. Frequently it did not seem to work the way I thought it ought to. As a result, I went to law school, and obtained a license to practice law. Much of what was not clear to me has come into focus much better. The law is a very funny animal, with lots of twists and turns, and very often seems extremely unjust. But when you better understand the nuances of law practice (especially trial work), you better understand the reasons behind some of the rules/happenstances/policies/nuances.
Every prosecutor has his/her own style of handling cases. Would you so straightjacket a prosecutor that they cannot present evidence they deem relevant, as long as the judge agrees it is not cumulative or irrelevant or overly prejudicial? If the prosecutor has done nothing illegal, does it really matter whether the gang evidence is “weak” as you claim, if it is relevant evidence? I’m just not seeing an issue here…
[quote]I consider Yolo County to be like Semi-pro ball to keep with your analogy[/quote]
Nevertheless, you remain outclassed in the arena.
I am glad you tend to disagree with that conspiracy theory because personally I find it absurd. The defense hasn’t even gotten their chance to present their case yet and from what I see they have been fighting tooth and nail for the defendant to get a fair trial. They fought for a mistrial when there were outbursts in the courtroom, they fought to keep out the gruesome forensic photos, they fought to keep out the recreation video and they have tried to lay the ground work showing that Marco Topete was too drunk to make a rational attempt at lying in wait. All this and they have yet to present their side of the case yet. I’d actually say they are doing an excellent job so far. It seems that it is the Judge that does not want to give an inch of the playing field to the defense which cannot be controlled by them.