A frequent criticism of the current state of California gang laws is that they permit prosecutors to enter in damaging and prejudicial evidence that generally would not be admissible, under California’s Evidence Code section 352.
That is the critical provision that allows the court, at its discretion, to “exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will… substantial danger of undue prejudice…”
However, under current gang case law, cases that are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand and extremely prejudicial are allowed in, under the guise of allowing the prosecution to establish predicate gang offenses in order to establish that the gang is a criminal street gang that has committed any number of previous criminal acts as a gang.
In a recent case that just concluded in Yolo County, Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens was able to get in such evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay, under the guise of establishing predicate acts. In the process, he managed to get Judge Stephen Mock to admit vivid and damaging details of a juvenile crime by one of the defendants, through a gang expert’s testimony.
This was not a new controversy, as it first emerged during a preliminary hearing the Vanguard covered in September, in which the defense attorney, Deputy Public Defender Charles Butler, attempted to get Judge Mock to strike the gang charges against his client Jose Duran, accusing Mr. Couzens of intentionally airing confidential juvenile records in a callous disregard for the rights of his client.
Mr. Duran, who recently stood trial as one of three defendants involved in an assault and robbery in April of 2010, faced gang enhancements despite his attorney’s efforts in August to get them dismissed.
During the preliminary hearing, Detective John Sample testified as a gang expert. Writes Mr. Butler in his Penal Code §995 Motion to Strike Charges, “Over the objection of defense counsel, Detective Sample testified about a police investigation for a crime involving Mr. Duran that occurred on March 19, 2006, when Mr. Duran was fourteen years old.”
He continued, “Detective Sample did not participate in the 2006 investigation, but reviewed police reports about the case in the Versadex department reporting system.”
“Over renewed objection, Detective Sample testified about the information contained in the police report, including the weapons involved, the presence of ‘several other codefendants who were Norteno gang members,’ the location of the crime, the details of the crime, some ‘graffiti at the residence,’ the color of Mr. Duran’s clothing, Mr. Duran’s statements during the investigation, and the ultimate disposition of the case.”
Mr. Butler argued, “Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 states that a juvenile case file may be inspected only by a specific list of individuals. The list includes police officers, but it does not include the general public; the preliminary hearing was conducted in open court and the officer testified regarding the content of the police reports from Mr. Duran’s juvenile case file.”
Mr. Butler fundamentally argued, “Because the police reports in the file are confidential, it was improper for an officer to testify to their content in open court.”
Mr. Butler continued that hearsay evidence was admitted as expert testimony, but the contents of the police report goes well beyond this kind of hearsay that courts have found admissible.
Mr. Butler argues, “Without this inadmissible testimony, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause.”
“Police reports are just police reports, they are not integrally a part of the juvenile file, they are just a person’s observations, which are not cloaked in privilege just because they go into the juvenile file,” Mr. Couzens added.
According to Mr. Couzens, then, officers were not allowed to delve into a juvenile file for information about a juvenile case, however, they are allowed to testify about their own knowledge and they are allowed to refer to police reports.
In the course of their arguments, Mr. Couzens continued to reference material from Mr. Duran’s juvenile file.
When Mr. Butler objected that Mr. Couzens was violating section 827.1 of the code, Mr. Couzens responded mockingly that, “yes I technically committed a violation of 827.1 in my argument,” and requested, equally mockingly, that Mr. Butler or the court report him to the Attorney General for so doing, as a way to demonstrate the absurdity of such courses of action.
Judge Mock, presiding over this matter, said that there is no evidence that would permit the discovery of this information under present California law. He therefore ruled that Judge Fall erred in allowing Detective Sample to testify about the content of the police report.
Judge Mock ruled that, while Detective Sample should not have been allowed to testify on confidential juvenile matters that he had no direct personal knowledge of, there was nothing that would preclude Detective Sample from saying that Mr. Duran was a gang member.
Judge Mock, however, underestimated the ingenuity of Deputy DA Ryan Couzens.
During the trial, Detective Sample was asked to state his opinion as to whether Mr. Duran was an active gang member and, clearly announcing that the information was based on facts derived from conversations with other police officers, Detective Sample and Mr. Couzens were able to avert the previous restrictions on the police report.
Mr. Sample would then testify in critical detail of a 2006 incident, when the defendant was just 14 years old, where he and a group of others would use firearms to threaten, tie up and beat an individual whom they considered to be a Sureño gang member – enemy to the Norteños. They even went so far as to use the individual’s ATM card to withdraw money from his account. The individual would eventually escape and they would be arrested and convicted of the robbery and attempted kidnapping.
Not surprisingly, the defense attorneys for Mr. Duran and his two co-defendants were livid. Both Rod Beede and James Granucci called for mistrials, arguing that had they known that such a prejudicial case would have been allowed in, and in such detail, they would have made a motion to sever the cases.
However, Mr. Couzens argued that this material was relevant and it was introduced in the right way.
Judge Mock allowed the evidence to remain in place, arguing that Mr. Couzens had adhered to the evidence code, and so denied the defense request for a mistrial.
The Duran case marks just the latest example of how gang laws and gang expert testimony have stacked the deck against defendants.
Under current gang enhancement laws, not only do prosecutors have the power to seek harsher penalties if the defendant is convicted of the base offenses, but they are allowed to introduce evidence that under other conditions would be inadmissible either as hearsay or on other Evidence Code §352 grounds.
A 2006 article argues, “Aside from the concrete results of the gang enhancement – misdemeanors become felonies, bail gets higher, sentences get tougher – the allegation has intangible effects on a trial. It allows prosecutors to introduce frightening evidence and images about the gang, making it more difficult for the accused to get a fair trial on the underlying charges, defense attorneys say.”
Interviewed for that article, defense attorney John Pinnel argued, “When the gang card is out there, it is difficult for jurors – and it’s only human nature – to not be predisposed to want to remove these persons from our society… If he is a gang member, he is a bad guy already. So of course, (he) is more likely to have committed the crime. So we can’t get an even shot.”
But it is worse than even that. For example the article cites: “In trials where the defendant is an alleged member of the Colonia Chiques gang, prosecutors often play a gangster-rap music video produced by the gang. The video is an assault of crude, violent language and images of tattooed and shaven-headed Latino men flashing gang signs – which can inflame the fears and prejudices of jurors, defense attorneys say.”
Former Yolo County Public Defender Barry Melton argues that laws that require prosecutors to provide predicate acts of the gang make no sense.
By making prosecutors prove predicate acts just to show the gang is a gang, Mr. Melton argues, the prosecutor is allowed to bring in evidence of past crimes perpetrated by the alleged gang, even if those crimes occurred before the defendant was even born.
Two seminal gang cases in particular, People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal. App. 4th and People v. Hill (2011) 191 Cal.App. 4th, allow gang experts to use hearsay to form their opinions.
“Gang experts can rely on hearsay as part of what forms their opinion,” Mr. Melton told the Vanguard recently.
However, there is a caveat to that hearsay exception.
“What the gang expert is saying is not to be taken for the truth, it’s only to be shown the basis on which he formed his opinion,” Mr. Melton said. “As if the jury can distinguish what those things are.”
“When the DA gets in hearsay, jurors, most people forget that it’s offered for a limited purpose. They don’t necessarily understand those fine distinctions anyway. The fact is that they use their backdoor methods for bringing [in] material that would otherwise be inadmissible,” he added.
In the Gardeley case from 1996, the court held, “So long as this threshold requirement of reliability is satisfied, even matter that is ordinarily inadmissible can form the proper basis for an expert’s opinion testimony.”
Expert witnesses have previously been ruled to be able to base their opinion on “reliable” hearsay, which would include out-of-court declarations from other people.
Therefore, the court in Gardeley ruled, “because Evidence Code section 802 allows an expert witness to ‘state on direct examination the reasons for his opinion and the matter … upon which it is based,’ an expert witness whose opinion is based on such inadmissible matter can, when testifying, describe the material that forms the basis of the opinion”
One reason that hearsay has generally been ruled inadmissible is that it presents problems for the defense to confront such evidence.
A more recent case, the Hill case, presents further problems for defending those accused of gang crimes.
“There is a very recent supreme court decision, called Crawford [Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S.36]…basically said you have the right to confront your accusers and a more literal interpretation should be applied to the confrontation clause of the United States constitution,” Mr. Melton told the Vanguard.
However, the Hill case negates that clause and allows the court to avoid the Crawford decision in gang cases.
The problem with cases of these sort, however, as Mr. Melton points out, is that “if the hearsay’s old enough, you can’t confront it.”
“It’s bad enough that they use what this kid did when he was 14,” he said. “They can bring in horrible facts… stuff that Norteños did 35 years ago against a 20-year-old defendant. They can pick the most grisly – if they could do it, probably beheadings or something that make people gasp.”
He added, “This sounds even more prejudicial because they took something that the defendant did himself, what he was actually involved in when he was 14.”
A very recent case may offer limited hope. The court in People v. Archuleta, Case No. E049095 (CA Dist. 4 Ct. App. Div. 2, Dec. 29, 2011), while upholding that decision based largely because the evidence of the defendant’s gang involvement was overwhelming, nevertheless addressed a critical point that a “testimonial hearsay statement that defendant directed a gang-related robbery should have been limited or excluded as basis evidence under state evidentiary law, namely, Evidence Code section 352.”
In that matter the court concludes, “Testimonial hearsay statements, when offered as expert opinion basis evidence, should be analyzed under Evidence Code section 352 and limited or excluded to the extent necessary to prevent undue prejudice to the criminal defendant or other adverse party, whether in criminal or civil trials.”
The court goes on to write: “The admission of testimonial hearsay statements as basis evidence presents a particular risk of undue prejudice to the adverse party under Evidence Code section 352. By definition, testimonial statements are given and taken ‘primarily for the purpose‘ of establishing ‘some past fact for possible use in a criminal trial’ and ‘under circumstances that imparted, to some degree, the formality and solemnity characteristic of testimony.’ “
Critically, they rule that such statements are “factually assertive,” which they find to be “difficult if not impossible to disregard for their truth.” Moreover, they find such statements to also be of “suspect reliability” and in particular “when the adverse party has not had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant concerning the statement.”
At the time that this article was written, the jury had not issued forth their verdict in the Duran matter. Such matters are often difficult to sympathize with to begin with, because many times the crimes are heinous themselves.
Barry Melton went to great lengths to make it clear that these tactics are perfectly legal. He told the Vanguard, “If you’re a prosecutor and you have three predicate acts, it’s best to use the one most prejudicial.”
Nevertheless, he is far from the only defense attorney to complain that the gang charges themselves and the particularities of proving gang law made it more difficult for their clients to get a fair trial.
In the 2006 article that appeared in the Ventura County Star, a member of the Ventura County Public Defender’s office argued that “his client didn’t get a fair trial because the gang allegations overshadowed the crime.”
The article said that once “jurors saw a blown-up photo of his client’s gang tattoos, Hirsch said, it was impossible for them to ‘come to an appropriate decision’ ” on the current allegations.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Judge Mock allowed the evidence to remain in place arguing that Mr. Couzens had adhered to the evidence code and denied the defense request for a mistrial.”
Sounds as though Judge Mock considered all of the issues that he should have under the law (including the probative vs. prejudicial value considerations) and found that Mr. Duran’s trial was a fair and appropriate one.
How would you have prosecutors prove a defendant’s gang connection? Certainly the court shouldn’t just take the DA’s opinion–this is a serious enhancement and should have to be PROVED each time someone’s on trial for offenses that involve gang inhancement issues. How about a separate hearing by a judge to determine the designation?
There could be a provision for the defense to accept the gang designation to avoid the need for prosecutors to prove it in court in front of the jury that will been deciding on the new allegations. Of course, if defense attorneys feel compelled to fight admission even of gang tattoo pictures (Ventura Co.), it’s a dilemma.
Judge Mock decided that Couzens had adhered to case law. Although Mock had some discretion under 352 in particular because it was a juvenile case to exclude it. Mock seems to err on the side of allowing material in. Occasionally he has been struck down by the appellate courts for this.
The problem with the defense accepting the gang designation is that in effect would accept the enhancement because most of the time juries are inclined to find the enhancements true if they believe the guys are gang members. This is not a trivial matter, we’re talking an additional 8 to 24 years in prison at least.
I don’t see what purpose is served by proving predicate acts. The courts could limit the use of them in a number of ways.
It seems to me the matter of the gang expert offering up his opinion and the basis is prejudicial. The jury is the finder of facts.
It was striking to me talking to an attorney with the Innocence Project on another matter, witness identification for a future story, she told me she would not qualify as an expert witness. For that you need a forensic psychologist or an MD evaluator. But for gang experts, a police officer who took less than a quarter’s worth of training course on gangs is qualified as an expert. It gives a huge stamp of authority when the gang expert testifies that in his opinion, a guy is a gang member and can base that opinion on unimpeachable hearsay evidence.
To me that’s a huge problem and the courts have allowed so it is perfectly legal.
But what are the facts of the current case? Another robbery. Seems like Mr. Duran is not a sympathetic representative for keeping his juvenile history out.
If that were the case, he would not have had to the lengths that he did to get the evidence to be admissible and even then it was admitted for the truth but rather as the basis for the expert’s opinion. Of course as Melton argues, the jury generally does not differentiate.
You haven’t published the facts of the current case so its hard to know but it sounds like they were trying to get in that he is a repeat offender, something that, if true, makes him unsympathetic as a poster boy for prosecutorial overreach.
Do you believe everyone is entitled to a fair trial?
Sure but definitions of what constitutes fair are open for debate.
I’m mean was Mitt Romney’s 14% effective tax rate fair? Legally or ethically are different questions. Mr. Duran’s trial is fair legally or ethically? Its hard to know without knowing the facts of the case whether his history is relevant.
The problem Mr. Toad is that his history was already deemed irrelevant to directly admit. So instead, the prosecutor used a back door method. As Butler argued, you shouldn’t be able to get through the backdoor what you can’t get in through the front door.
But that is precisely what happened here. The gang experts testimony is unimpeachable by the defense. They cannot cross examine him on it because he would not be able to know facts of the past case that may contradict his conclusions. Under normal conditions, that would be inadmissible hearsay. Here is admitted not because the prior bad act is relevant, but because he can use it to form the basis of his opinion that Duran is a gang member.
[quote]Mock seems to err on the side of allowing material in. [/quote]
Judges usually err on the side of admissibility.
[quote]It was striking to me talking to an attorney with the Innocence Project on another matter, witness identification for a future story, she told me she would not qualify as an expert witness. For that you need a forensic psychologist or an MD evaluator. But for gang experts, a police officer who took less than a quarter’s worth of training course on gangs is qualified as an expert. It gives a huge stamp of authority when the gang expert testifies that in his opinion, a guy is a gang member and can base that opinion on unimpeachable hearsay evidence. [/quote]
From [url]http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/expert-witness/[/url]
[quote]An expert witness is a witness who has knowledge beyond that of the ordinary lay person enabling him/her to give testimony regarding an issue that requires expertise to understand. Experts are allowed to give opinion testimony which a non-expert witness may be prohibited from testifying to. In court, the party offering the expert must lay a foundation for the expert’s testimony. Laying the foundation involves testifying about the expert’s credentials and experience that qualifies him/her as an expert. Sometimes the opposing party will stipulate (agree to) to the expert’s qualifications in the interests of judicial economy.
Experts are qualified according to a number of factors, including but not limited to, the number of years they have practiced in their respective field, work experience related to the case, published works, certifications, licensing, training, education, awards, and peer recognition.[/quote]
Yes of course I’m aware of the evidence code (much of which that was lifted from). But that is not what I’m talking about.
It is striking to me how little scientific evidence much of this opinion is based on.
For example, police gang experts often testify as to things about gang members that actually apply to non-gang members. This journal article ([url]http://www.springerlink.com/content/521pw578255kq78q/[/url]) notes “Police gang experts often mistakes signs of urban youth culture for gang membership and criminal conspiracy.”
A gang expert will often pull MySpace or Facebook photos showing kids wearing “gang colors” and “throwing signs” without any kind of double-blind neutral evaluation as to whether or not that is unusual. Now anecdotally I have gone and bookmarked a bunch of facebook photos of kids who are wearing colors and throwing signs – except they are not gang members.
The training and experience of most police officers amounts to less than a quarter’s worth of gang training classes and observations from the street.
For a long time forensic “science” had scientists with credentials expressing opinions about forensic evidence that it turns out had never been tested in double-blind proven scientific methods and most gang expert testimony has similarly gone unscrutinized by experts who lack the real training and experience in addition to inherent bias.
I am curious about why it is acceptable to have widely disparate levels of training to qualify as an “expert witness” in seemingly similar areas.
I know why in medicine that widely different levels of training are necessary to qualify say as a Family Practitioer as compared with a Neurosurgeon. But there is a well established “basement” of training, namely college, 4 years of medical school, and 4 years of residency before one can claim any level of “expertise”. I find it curious that there seems to be such a glaring disparity here. What am I missing ?
DG wrote:
“It is striking to me how little scientific evidence much of this opinion is based on.
The training and experience of most police officers amounts to less than a quarter’s worth of gang training classes and observations from the street. “
You ought to read appellate case law on the subject matter…I recollect a case back when that involved a farmer with 20+ yrs. and little to no formal”scientific” evidence who was deemed an expert by the court…
DG, you really got to rely more on real world basis of fact and not your less than formal lay person limited experience bolstered by a little horse sense, as we used to say…
[quote]I am curious about why it is acceptable to have widely disparate levels of training to qualify as an “expert witness” in seemingly similar areas. [/quote]
The issue with gang experts and “education” is actually rather simple. You can’t get a real education about gang members in a sterile classroom. Sure you can learn about the story of, psychology of gangs ect.. But to learn actual gang members you have to be in the streets. You have to observe them, talk to them, and learn their connections. Wasn’t the “expert” that said there was no Norteno gang a college professor? It’s been a while, I may need to be refreshed.
A carpenter can go to a carpentry class and learn how to swing a hammer. He will not become an expert carpenter without hands-on experience.
Mr. Obvious,
Hmmmm… Thanks for the perspective. I can’t help but feel that both formal education and street experience might be requisite to truly be considered an expert in gangs. I can’t imagine that one quarter of specialized training in addition to “steet experience” would be enough to establish “expertise” but confess to my profound ignorance in this area.
Mr. Obvious:
I don’t disagree with you that having street experience is helpful, but part of the problem I see in gang expert testimony is assertions from officers that have a lot of experience in the field, that are nevertheless untested generalizations. Just as I might not use a carpenter to describe structural integrity of buildings, I also think that gang experts make a lot of assumptions based on their very narrow range of observations that may not be generalizable beyond their experience.
I also think that the purview of facts and opinions should be in the jury’s hand rather than in the hands of a biased gang expert as to whether the defendant is a member of a criminal street gang.
ADRemmer: “DG, you really got to rely more on real world basis of fact and not your less than formal lay person limited experience bolstered by a little horse sense, as we used to say…”
Yes That is what I’m trying to say too although I am not a lawyer. The DA wanted it in and got it in. Sucks to be twenty with two robbery raps.
Anyway, you never told us the facts as best you understand them. Why do I care? Because I know people who often know these people whose cases you write about so I wish you would follow up with the outcomes and the facts.
When you wrote about Richard Scirnhoffer there were people who knew him but hadn’t heard about his death and yes we mourned his death. There are others you have written about that I know or whom people I know have had contact. I don’t really want to make a list here. Its funny you seem more interested in the process than what happens to these people. For those of us that are interested in the outcomes it would be nice if you followed up since you monitor these cases regularly. For example you wrote about a marijuana sales case last year but never followed up with the outcome. I’m still wondering.
I’m still confused about what’s really bugging you here. You write that Deputy DA Couzens was able to introduce “otherwise inadmissible evidence” in Mr. Duran’s trial because of “current gang laws.” But, it sounds as though the “otherwise inadmissible” stuff was admissible only for very limited purpose (proving the gang connection) or that it ended up not being admitted.
If the state has laws to discourage gang crime because the gangster element adds something more undesirable than your basic robbery or assault or murder, then it follows that the prosecution should have to prove: 1. the original assault, 2. the connection to the big group, and 3. the badness of the big group. That sounds like the track that was followed in the Duran case, so what’s the problem?
But then you evolve into problems with use of juvenile records, then to complaints about rules of evidence, then move on to problems about use of expert witnesses.[quote]”…she told me she would not qualify as an expert witness. For that you need a forensic psychologist or an MD evaluator. But for gang experts, a police officer who took less than a quarter’s worth of training course on gangs is qualified as an expert.”[/quote]Where is this standard written for qualifying expert witnesses, or are you just describing what you think are limited qualifications for this one particular expert witness?
If you’re just describing Detective Sample, I’d lay money that you are not reporting the complete qualifications that were listed when Detective Sample was qualified as an expert for this trial.
As you know, these kinds of determinations are made on an individual basis. What expertise did the Innocence Project attorney think should have qualified her as a expert? I don’t understand her contribution to this discussion.
Are you arguing that Mr. Duran didn’t get a fair trial? Because of the use of expert testimony, the need to prove his gang connection, the need to prove his gang was a gang, the use of hearsay, or other rules of evidence? Are you arguing that he’s innocent of the charges?
“Anyway, you never told us the facts as best you understand them. Why do I care? Because I know people who often know these people whose cases you write about so I wish you would follow up with the outcomes and the facts.”
Toad: There has not to my knowledge been verdict. This article was specifically about the gang issue, and it only pulled an example from the Duran trial – it was not meant to be an article about the Duran trial but rather about gang laws and policies.
Just Saying:
I’m confused about why you would be confused, I thought I laid out my concerns very clearly and used Barry Melton to amplify those concerns.
I can see where you might disagree with these concerns but not sure why it is confusing.
Yes, the evidence was only admissible for a limited purpose which is why I explain using Melton’s quotes why that is problematic.
The problem is that proving the badness of the big group also prejudices the jury which is why I included not only Melton’s views but the 2006 article to show the concerns in general.
There is a secondary issue in this case that is a problem and that is the use of juvenile records which would ordinarily be inadmissible not only under 352 but under juvenile provisions. In fact the judge ruled them inadmissible in the 995, but Couzens found a way to get them.
The problem of expert witnesses is really only a problem I raise in the comments.
I’m not just describing Detective Sample though I would note that he has a huge amount of training.
In the case of the Innocence Project attorney, she knew the case law very well but hadn’t performed clinic evidence and wasn’t even at a PHD level of forensic pyschology or some of the physical points that a Dr. Loftus made in one of the trials that we covered.
In the end, I don’t think Mr. Duran got a fair trial but even more so his two co-defendant who had nothing to do with Mr. Duran’s juvenile act did not get a fair trial and should have had their cases severed. In fact, there was quite a bit of playing the defendants off each other in this case, more so than in many codefendants cases I have covered and I wonder if the judge did not err in failing to sever.
The big question in this trial is the gang questions for Mr. Duran. The other two defendants had more questions than that and I think they have a bigger beef about getting a fair trial.
To DMG: Yet again, you seem to be dwelling on what the law SHOULD BE, not what the LAW IS…
Indeed, all you have to do is look at the title of the article and the interview with Melton to figure that out.
“In the end, I don’t think Mr. Duran got a fair trial but even more so his two co-defendant who had nothing to do with Mr. Duran’s juvenile act did not get a fair trial and should have had their cases severed. In fact, there was quite a bit of playing the defendants off each other in this case, more so than in many codefendants cases I have covered and I wonder if the judge did not err in failing to sever. “
Even though it’s difficult for a jury to put aside things that come up in trial that the judge tells them not to consider, it might be a difficult task for jurors who don’t take their jobs seriously. However, this is an issue for many things that end up not admissible.
In this case, did the other two defendants have to worry about the gang membership question? If they were not gang members, it seems as though their attorney should have asked for a separate trial and gotten one. If they also were proved to be gang members, well, that’s life.
There is some question as to whether one of the other two defendants was a gang member, even the prosecutor acknowledged it. The other defendant may not have even been involved in the attack and robbery.
I don’t really agree with your admonishment that well that’s life.
Guess I didn’t make my point clear. If Mr. Duran alone of the three was being charged with the gang enhancements, then whoever represented the other two should have/could have(?) gotten separate trials.
If all three were facing gang enhancements, that’s different. People make choices; people do bad things; people get caught–that’s life. If people break the law while engaging with a gang, knowing that things will go even harder on them is they get caught–that’s an even worse choice. It’s a shame that many of the people who end up getting caught apparently got recruited when quite young so they’d be available to to the gang’s dirty work.
But, in this case, the “damage” done by being tried together is minimal if all were facing gang charges anyway. Realizing, of course, you would want the gang enhancement laws dumped all together.
What do you mean, “there’s some question” about the one defendant being a gang member? Or that the third “may not have even been involved in the attack and robbery”?
It sounds as though you have another interesting story with the way the three were played off against each other. Hope you’ll include it if you do a story on how this trial ends up.
All the defendants were charged with gang enhancements, the argument was that they were operating in this case as a gang.
“But, in this case, the “damage” done by being tried together is minimal if all were facing gang charges anyway. Realizing, of course, you would want the gang enhancement laws dumped all together.”
I think there is a place for gang enhancement laws, this case in some ways is a better argument for gang enhancements than many I have seen in Yolo, but the courts have really pushed procedural issues to the breaking point and the point of creating pretty unfair situations. Any time evidence is introduced that can’t be impeached it’s a problem.
“What do you mean, “there’s some question” about the one defendant being a gang member? “
Two of the defendants appear to be gang members, the third may not be.
Or that the third “may not have even been involved in the attack and robbery”?
I’ll save that for the main story which is fairly interesting.
“It sounds as though you have another interesting story with the way the three were played off against each other. Hope you’ll include it if you do a story on how this trial ends up. “
I don’t think it’s a huge part of the story, but this case was less clear-cut that it should have been a joint trial. The DA tried to argument that it was a conspiracy and everyone was involved in everything even if they didn’t do it – the defense argued that it wasn’t and therefore it was someone else (generally unnamed) who did a specific act.