At the outset of the murder trial of Billy Wolfington and Shannon Silva, Deputy DA Ryan Couzens laid out what this case was all about for the District Attorney’s office: gangs and fear. He argued that gangs act as the veritable schoolyard bully, seeking to induce fear in the populace, and that fear brings respect to the gang.
At the same time, he warned the jury that the stories told by the witnesses would not all add up. The witnesses were high on alcohol and meth. This incident occurred at a party – a party which is probably closer to a group of meth addicts smoking their product than anything else.
He also told the tale of witness intimidation. That the witnesses were fearful of retribution from the gang. Mr. Couzens was in part doing damage control – alerting the jurors that his witnesses were not going to be the most reliable witnesses in the world. That’s certainly not his fault – he cannot control the caliber of witnesses.
At the same time, he is playing the gang intimidation card that has become a trademark of Mr. Couzens and the Yolo County District Attorney’s office. Carlitha Gordon, in testifying on Thursday, was visibly shaken and frightened.
Simone Mitchell, before being arrested for being under the influence of drugs on the witness stand, testified that she knew the defendants were from the Broderick Boys gang and was scared.
The first two days of the trial led some of the commenters on the Vanguard to remark, “I remember seeing previous articles on this forum claiming that the Broderick Brothers were not a criminal gang, and posed no significant threat to the community; in arguing against a gang injunction.”
Another quipped, “Ah, the non-existent ‘Broderick Boys.’ “
However, the facts of this case are not in yet and people need to slow down just a little bit. While the facts, if proven accurate during the trial, are nasty – a minimum of 14 stab wounds, viciously delivered – the facts of this case do not necessarily point to a gang crime here.
Under the gang statutes of California Penal Code section 186.22, being a gang member and committing a crime does not automatically mean this was a gang crime. Instead, it requires “the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members.”
You have basically two guys in a motel room who end up beating up and then stabbing a man, who supposedly do this to “promote, further, or assist” – or in short, how is this attack related to gang activity as opposed to the acts of two individuals acting as individuals?
That’s where the issue of fear and intimidation come into play, with Deputy DA Couzens trying to draw the nexus between fear and intimidation actually furthering the reputation of the gang.
He alleges that, upon the attack, Mr. Wolfington shouted something about either being a Broderick Boy or shouted Broderick itself. But where would the DA have learned that information? From one of the individuals high on meth?
The bigger argument relates to fear and intimidation. But he runs into the same basic problem: one of the biggest side-effects of long-term meth use is paranoia.
According to the Meth Project, “In a study of methamphetamine users conducted by UCLA, 77% suffered from persecutory delusions— believing that people are out to get them. 53% believed that people could read their minds and 33% thought that someone had planted an idea in their mind.”
When meth is used it stimulates the pleasure censors of the brain, but as Dr. Richard Rawson, a professor in the department of psychiatry at UCLA explained in an interview, “when those feelings are triggered unnaturally, the brain is thrown off balance and sometimes tries to compensate in harmful ways.”
“As a result, the same drug that once caused excitement and a sense of clarity later causes lethargy and paranoia,” the report said.
The Mile High Meth Project writes, “The big cause (of paranoia) is changes in brain chemistry. Lack of sleep also plays a big part. We also don’t know why some people have serious problems with paranoia and others never do. It does seem that your chances of experiencing paranoia increase the longer you use.”
So the question that the prosecutors are going to have to tease out is whether the witnesses are legitimately afraid for their safety because of the presence of the gang, or whether that fear has been heightened due to persistent meth use.
Moreover, separating the fear that would naturally be associated with the close proximity to violence and a murder must be separated from the additional fear of a gang.
Adding to this is a question as to whether that paranoia might have be inadvertently fueled by responses from investigators and even the prosecutor. One officer was asked about statements from Carlitha Gordon, and the deputy public defender asked him whether Ms. Gordon seemed nervous while giving her statement, to which the officer responded no.
Given Ms. Gordon’s very obvious fear and trepidation on the stand, one must wonder whether this is true fear or just meth-induced paranoia. And given that ambiguity, should we be relying on the meth-influenced impressions at all to make determination as to whether this was a gang crime?
Attorney Mark Merin, in his appellate brief filed this spring, argued, “The People did not introduce any evidence that there was a gang entity to which supposed gang members ‘belonged.’ “
Instead, he argued that the prosecution merely showed a string of crimes that occurred mainly in a geographical area over the course of more than a decade. The total number of assaults committed by 94 identified Broderick Boys was 31 over the course of the entire decade.
“The real critical thing is the question of acting in concert,” Defense Attorney Mark Merin told the Vanguard two months ago.
“The collective activity described by the Court was simply not shown to exist, and there was no evidence of a gang ‘entity,’ that is, an identifiable group which operated, however informally, to aid or co-ordinate individual crimes.” Mr. Merin instead argues, “The supposed ‘gang’ in Broderick-Bryte was a social identity, a sense of loose affiliation based on neighborhood and family, particularly among neighborhood youth…”
We end up in the same place we were when the gang injunction trial concluded. We have evidence that crimes occurred in a geographic area over a period of more than a decade, the number of crimes that the prosecution actually identified was very low, and most of the claims about gang membership came from highly subjective accounts from police officers, at times relying on memory and a decade-old police report.
Is the Wolfington-Silva case any different from what we saw during the gang injunction – individuals committing sometimes very bad crimes with no clear nexus to gang activity or any notion of organization? These were two individuals at a meth party – was it really a gang attack?
The prosecution in these cases has seemingly never been forced to show any sort of connection between the crime and the benefit to gang activity. The proof offered most of the time is that the defendant is a gang member, that they committed this crime, that there is a gang in the area, and that when a gang member commits the crimes it advertises the gang.
In his opening arguments, Mr. Couzens likened gangs to a franchise model, where crime in one city by a given gang enhances the franchise reputation in other cities.
As the trial goes on, it will be interesting to see to see if the prosecution can adduce ties beyond these vagaries.
We are left to wonder, especially after observing the first few eyewitnesses, whether we are witnessing legitimate fear inspired by the gang as the sole nexus to this being a gang crime, or whether this is an artificially enhanced response due to meth use and inflamed by overzealous prosecution.
Unfortunately, these are likely not issues that the jury will grapple with. Rather, they will see a horrific crime and an alleged gang member, and draw the line closely from there.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Moreover, separating the fear that would naturally be associated with the close proximity to violence and a murder must be separated from the additional fear of a gang.[/quote]
[quote]Given Ms. Gordon’s very obvious fear and trepidation on the stand, one must wonder whether this is true fear or just meth-induced paranoia. And given that ambiguity, should we be relying on the meth-influenced impressions at all to make determination as to whether this was a gang crime?
[/quote]
These are very good observations on which I would like to elaborate. The effect of proximity in driving fear should not be down played. This is true even when the issue is not violence. I see this on a daily basis in my clinic when women realize intellectually her own risk of breast cancer is not elevated when an unrelated coworker gets the diagnosis. And yet emotionally, I have seen women sobbing over the possibility that they too will have the disease.
One other factor that you have not mentioned specifically is that of post traumatic stress disorder. Even people who are not under the influence of any paranoia inducing substance may behave irrationally fearful for years after an event as terrifying as being in the same room where a person is being stabbed to death.
It would seem important to me to take these potentially mitigating factors into account in deciding whether or not fear itself on the part of the witnesses represents the specific fear of a known gang vs the more generalized and completely understandable fear emanating from a terrifying experience.
Good thoughts medwoman, I hadn’t thought of PTSD, but it makes sense. I’ll be interested to see how the defense approaches this.
posted previously on this: I was a potential juror (and was excused) for this case. I witnessed another potential juror, who was not a meth addict, but a college graduate about to begin law school this fall, who grew up in the same community as the defendants, said one of the defendants was known to him, and that he feared for his safety if chosen as a juror. For me, that was the most damning information about the defendants, as it seemed to tie them to actual gang activity (I know almost nothing about gang activity in Yolo Co). But having said that, since the defendants’ attorneys freely admitted at the beginning of selection that these two individuals had done the deed, what I really don’t understand is why there have been suggestions that other individuals who live in the same community, and are known to the defendants and their associates, might be ‘not really afraid, just paranoid because of meth use.’ errr… really!!!??? which one of you, in their shoes, with zero drug use in your background, would NOT FEAR testifying against these defendants? I would. they killed a man. they admit to killing a man.
even if the defendants had zero known gang connections, i’d still fear testifying. because i’d guess that a.) they might get out and come after me, and/or b.) they might have some criminal friends who might come after me.
i’m frankly a little shocked (and irritated at the implied defense of the defendants) that an attack on the witnesses is being made not based on what they saw and its credibility (which would make sense), but their completely rational and reasonable fear of two people who admitted to killing the victim.
I appreciate your post and your perspective. Here’s mine: I have covered a number of murder trials – some involving people every bit as bad if not worse than the defendants here. The conduct of the witnesses is something I have never seen. We hear about witnesses all of the time who are said to be afraid. I’ve seen witnesses who have had to be put in custody to get them to come to court before (not usually on the stand like Friday). I’ve not seen what I describe here before. This is not a defense of the defendants. They may well be guilty of all charges, but there are aspects of this case that are a bit over the top.
the witnesses could be terrible liars, paranoid schizophrenics, who knows. it’s not relevant in this particular argument however, because those 2 men have killed someone. maybe the witnesses were over the top. I defer to your experience. but do you believe that any reasonable person, on or off drugs, should NOT be afraid of testifying against 2 admitted killers who then ran and hid, even if that was the only thing the witnesses knew about the defendants (and since they associate with the defendants and/or their associates, i’m guessing they might well know more)? i believe that meth can make users paranoid. I’d also be willing to believe that any number of meth users may well have underlying mental health issues which may or may not have contributed to their drug use. My point is, that at the end of the day, any reasonable person would fear these two men. I would fear them knowing nothing more than they killed a guy and then took off, and so did the potential juror who knew one of them (and apparently has more knowledge than i do).
you’re using the argument that because someone’s on meth, what would be a rational fear for non-drug users is perhaps no longer a rational fear due to drug use. and that doesn’t work.
what would be unreasonable and really over the top is if someone were to testify that they are unafraid of these two men, in providing testimony that may help get these men convicted. that’s when you’d think they’re on drugs or delusional.
and i think a competent jury would conclude that a rational person would feel fear under those circumstances (even if the jury pool hadn’t heard the potential juror’s statements about his own fear).
perhaps you are not used to seeing someone strung out? and i’m not saying the witnesses were, but it may explain their odd behavior a lot better than saying their fears aren’t as valid as a non-drug user’s.
“because those 2 men have killed someone.”
The point in question has yet to be determined here. One of the defendants is claiming that he did not kill the victim. The other has yet to offer their defense.
That is point one.
The second is that it does matter because these were the only witnesses to what happened, if they end up being not credible, then the prosecution is going to have more difficulty getting a conviction here.
The third is the type of murder will factor heavily into what the sentence would be. The issue of gang charges and special circumstance will determine if this ends up a life case or something else.
None of this is known yet.
“you’re using the argument that because someone’s on meth, what would be a rational fear for non-drug users is perhaps no longer a rational fear due to drug use. and that doesn’t work. “
I’m simply positing that some of the fear here might be induced artificially. If the DA wants to link fear as evidence of the gang crime (which he did in his opening statement), then this is a pertinent point.
Finally, “perhaps you are not used to seeing someone strung out?”
I’ve seen far more than i’d ever like both in personal life and in professional life.
” i’m not saying the witnesses were”
Did you read the article where the witness was arrested for being under the influence?
I would argue that many of the fears (or ‘paranoia’) of meth users are not irrational; but are in fact quite rational.
Meth users interact with dangerous people. Many of the distributors/dealers may be or hire violent thugs for protection/enforcement. To support their habit, they may resort to performing burglaries or thefts; which induces a fear of getting caught, even at some point long after the theft. Or they may borrow from an underground loan shark to get $ for their next fix; if they are late with payment they may have every reason to fear something like broken kneecaps or worse. So indeed, many meth users may have legitimate rational fears that someone is out to get them. Certainly testifying against two violent thugs who likely have thug connections can generate a rational response of fear of retribution; I don’t see why you discount Iggee’s information on this.
Would be interesting to know what the known criminal history is of the defendants. Maybe they’ve had a role as enforcers.
“The point in question has yet to be determined here. One of the defendants is claiming that he did not kill the victim. The other has yet to offer their defense.
That is point one. “
You weren’t present I take it, during jury selection. That Mr. Wolfington stabbed the victim, causing his death, is a fact not in dispute, as stated by defense attorneys. That Mr. Silva was involved in the altercation is a fact not in dispute.
One has admitted to inflicting mortal injury to the victim, the other has admitted to being involved in the altercation, though apparently not admitting to causing mortal injury.
simply put, these 2 men killed someone. and their attorneys admitted it. that one defendant would attempt to separate himself from the charges (presumably Mr. Silva), was strongly hinted at, during jury selection. but that he was in fact involved, was not disputed.
so yes, these men killed someone. the circumstances of that killing may be in dispute, but the acts and involvement, are not. that they ran and hid, is also not in dispute.
a reasonable person would fear them. and you are ignoring that another juror, who knew one of the defendants, stated in court he feared for his safety (I fear for my safety if i’m on this jury, were his words).
and yes i did read the article, but as the witnesses who were arrested are innocent until proven guilty (of being under the influence of drugs), you cannot convict them here, if you’re not going to acknowledge Mr. Wolfington and Mr. Silva committed a murder, though they’ve admitted to just that, in court, in my hearing (their attorneys did, and they didn’t offer objection, look surprised, or otherwise bothered during this admission).
you are far afield, mr. greenwald.
I obviously did not explain myself well here… I personally was not present at the jury selection, so I don’t know what was said. However, murder is a specific charge, Mr. Wolfington has not admitted to committing murder (which was the point I was attempting to make, but admittedly failed in my previous post, so I apologize). It is believed they will offer a self-defense defense, but since they have not given their opening statement, it’s impossible to know for sure right now. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Mr. Silva did offer a defense in his opening statement.
The witness admitted to using drugs on the stand, under oath.
In terms of the fear issue, it will be interesting to see how that all plays out. As I said, I’ve seen a number of murder trials, I have not seen anything like this.
Iggee: As a retired defense attorney, one question I have for you is whether you heard the defense attorney admitting guilt or did the defense attorney posit a hypothetical, “what if you heard the defendant admitted to killing the victim” would you able to reserve judgment as to whether the killing was premeditated, self-defense, gang related (whatever the point of contention is in this trial, it’s not clear to me what Wolfington is arguing)?
Let’s not split hairs. I wrote the wrong word in the last part of my last post (murder should have been written ‘killed’). Mr. Wolfington’s atty did not admit that he had committed the crime of murder. But he did admit that Mr. Wolfington killed a man. He admitted the two men were involved, that they had hidden from police. Reserving judgement for a guilty or not guilty verdict is easy enough, as I hadn’t heard the arguments, just the hints of what might be arguments in future. However, that is not the issue. The simple issue is: Would a reasonable person fear two people (or heck just one of them, doesn’t matter does it?) who had killed someone? I would fear anyone with their admitted
1. known history of criminal behavior (the attorney for Mr. Wolfington also stated Mr. Wolfington had a criminal record though he did not say what that record was), and
2. their ‘suspected’ (not proved) gang affiliation (whether they are or are not affiliated in reality is not the issue. the suspicion alone, by a reasonable person would be enough to induce a reasonable fear, and
3. their admission that Mr. Wolfington, with involvement (though involvement was unclear but admitted) by Mr. Silva.
Those 3 alone, regardless of the outcome of this trial, would be enough to induce fear of the defendants in a reasonable person. Whether the defendants were justified or not, in their actions, is not yet clear, though it was hinted they would argue self defense (Mr. Wolfington) and that Mr. Silva would argue he wasn’t a part of the killing (and therefore likely to argue he shouldn’t be there).
i’m not sure why this is hard to understand, or if the arguments here are for some sort of fun academic exercise for some (the meth paranoia in place of rational fear certainly seems fanciful to me, hence my original comment).
incidentally, i’m in complete disagreement with the idea of the gang injunction, as the way it’s written, it denies an individual due process right to refute whether they are in fact a gang member before limiting their civil liberties.
i also have no idea whether the current case involves acts simply committed by gang members, or as part of an official gang act. I’m not following the trial (in that i’m not present in court), but no hinting was done by any party concerning what the arguments for this might be, though the prosecution did say there were gang enhancements added to the charges (though they weren’t read explicitly to us).
After being excused, I googled the two defendants, and learned that Mr. Wolfington was the individual served in the original gang injunction case. It made me wonder, if Mr. Wolfington already admits to being the killer, why is he on trial? Did he elect not to take a deal offered by the prosecution? I would imagine an attorney might advise him to do so, as my understanding is that deals are often somewhat less in sentencing than the possible outcome of a jury trial. Did the prosecution not offer a deal? Because Mr. Wolfington’s previous election as ‘representative’ for a gang by prosecutors was such an embarassment to Yolo County that now they’re just happy to have the chance to hold him up and say ‘look everyone really, he’s a terrible person, we weren’t wrong’?
Were the gang enhancement charges really based on solid data, or were they the result of this previous embarassment? Were they there to bolster the credibility of an overreaching prosecutor’s office (or whatever agency it is that pushed the gang injunction)? Do they NEED to make this a gang-related act in order to justify the illegal (in my opinion) limitation of the civil rights of certain individuals, in the absence of due process?
Would a quiet plea agreement not suit the prosecutor’s and judicial offices, as it is so much less likely to make good press?
I don’t know, it sounds like conspiracy theory a little. But then again, it’s pretty nuts that I could be walking down West Sac streets one day, dressed similarly to what Broderick Boys (do they have girls?) might look like, loiter a bit and look ganglike (tee hee) get ID’d as a gang member, and have my civil rights curtailed, boom…
granted, i’m not a fan of organized crime, and i’m all for limiting the civil rights of convicted criminals, to protect the population. but police officers shouldn’t be judge, jury, and executioner. why don’t we just force all suspected gang members to sew yellow stars onto their coats?
Good points here. I’m at the trial now, it’s break time and wanted to note that Ms. Mitchell has taken the stand again after spending the weekend in custody, she’s sober, coherent, believeable and unlike last week, testifying with no apparent fear. She also said she didn’t think it was gang related, she thought they started fighting over whether or not the victim should leave and it escalated from there.
The gang enhancement and gang special circumstance would make this a life sentence, without that, I’m not sure what they would get for a second degree murder (which is what this is looking like at least to me a few days in).
Judge Mock released Ms. Mitchell from custody after her testimony and remarked at how big a difference it was from Friday. Story on this tomorrow morning.