by Antoinnette Borbon
The multi-defendant trial involving four young men in what is being said, by the Yolo County Gang Task Force, to be a gang-related crime has taken on more challenging testimony by alleged victim Scott Nichols and his girlfriend Donna Beatty this past week.
On Friday we heard testimony from the girlfriend of Nichols, who has appeared to have little recollection of what she told police on the night of June 19th. She claimed she was “a mad woman!” and under the influence of drugs and alcohol. She stated she never told police she could identify the attackers positively. But, in testimony given by both Officers Lara and Lutrell, it was said she identified one young male by his Mongolian-style hairdo, tattoos and large necklace.
She was then approached by cops and gave her statement. Officer Lara took her to do a field line up on two different locations. Nichols was taken separately to both locations to identify the assailants.
But the police reports would conflict with what both Nichols and Beatty would later testify to as being the truth.
In cross-examination by Jeff Raven, he asked Nichols if he were telling the truth on the stand, and he answered yes. Raven questioned Nichols about his client’s involvement that night, and Nichols kept saying he was in the fight and could not really identify any of the young men involved, but he did state that Jose Jimenez, Raven’s client, was not involved in the fight.
On video shown to jurors it was clear that Jimenez was seen walking into the store and, shortly after, running toward the fight only to return to the store minutes later. He had no visible blood on his shirt or any kind of demeanor that showed he was disheveled from a fight. Raven pointed out there were no red marks on his hands when he was checked out by police later.
Defense counsel Keith Staten asked Beatty about the items purchased and what kind of chips were bought. But there were no chips on the receipt. Beatty stated she must have brought them with her while she and Nichols were walking to the store.
At the end of the day on Friday, an employee who was working at 7-Eleven the night of June 19 testified to seeing three men come into the store to buy beer and chips while Nichols and Beatty were inside. He stated two of the young men, Fuentes and Jimenez, were longtime customers. He was asked by DDA Johnson to tell what he saw outside.
He said he walked to the front of the door and saw about 5 or 6 guys fighting at the end of the parking lot. But he never heard anything said in regard to gang slurs.
Defense attorney Jeff Raven asked him if he saw Jimenez fighting, and he stated “no.”
Monday morning Nichols was brought back to talk briefly about a few statements given to a deputy sheriff who transported Nichols last week to court. The deputy had written down that Nichols stated, “If I would have pointed them out, I would be f—!” He also made derogatory comments about DDA Johnson, stating how she had lied to him and he was done answering her questions.
Nichols admitted to making the statements to the deputy, for the most part. It was unclear if his testimony was going to be impeached.
Later was the state’s last witness, gang task force expert Perez. Perez described his expertise for the jury and, at the direction of DDA Johnson, went on to talk about all the incidents involving each defendant. Most of these were mere field identity checks. In other words, for a person who has been a known gang member, there is a card on them to identify them for police. Perez stated the cards are put together by identifying characteristics of a gang member.
He stated there are certain tattoos, clothing and symbols which represent what gang one is associated with. He talked about the element of respect within the gangs and how they gain it through violent acts. He stated that the haircut on defendant Juan Fuentes, in his opinion, represented being associated with gangs.
In cross, Attorney Bob Spangler asked how many people he knew with that hairstyle who were not in a gang, and Perez replied, “I don’t really know too many.”
Staten, defense attorney for Justin Gonzalez, went straight for all the details of each police incident regarding his client. He asked Perez if, during these field stops, his client had ever been arrested. Perez stated “no.” But there were a couple of incidents where Gonzalez may have been involved, along with a shooting injury in which Perez stated they arrested the person responsible for shooting Gonzalez.
Raven asked Perez about how far it was from where his client lived to where he was found walking that night. Perez explained it was about a couple blocks. Raven asked Perez if he knew whether or not Jimenez had a job at the time of arrest, and Perez said he was unsure. Then Raven had a hypothetical question for Perez. Raven asked,” If a man walks up to you and asked you where you were from and you answered, where the f- are you from, would it be fair to say the person answering like that may cause the fight?” Perez replied, “Yes, it’s possible.”
Raven also asked about the field stops on Jimenez and if he had been arrested on any of those occasions. Perez stated, “No, not to my knowledge.”
Defense attorney Ava Landers asked about the questionnaire filled out by her client, Anthony Ozuna, when arrested that night. She asked, “Why do you say he is a gang member when he wrote on the jail questionnaire that he is not and he refused to sign the document?” Perez said often times gang members don’t want to reveal that once they are detained. “You said in your report that Ozuna was argumentative and uncooperative that night, right? Don’t you think it was because he was trying to tell you he was not involved in a gang?” Perez answered, “No, he has been known to be seen with gang members.”
She continued: “Is it true you found no tattoos on Ozuna either? That would tell you he is in a gang?” “That is correct,” Perez stated. “So why do you think he is a gang member?” Perez stated, “He has association with gang members and has been seen with gang clothing, paraphernalia.”
In her re-direct, DDA Johnson asked Perez to give his opinion on the incident in June, as to whether he believed it to be a gang-related crime, and his answer was, “In my opinion, yes.”
Testimony continues and wraps up Tuesday, November 19.
Cash for convictions.
People would trust cops and DA’s more, if they were not allowed to lie, without any consequences whatsoever. After a cop lied to me, when questioning me, I stopped cooperating. Lying is wrong.
JD
[quote]People would trust cops and DA’s more, if they were not allowed to lie, without any consequences whatsoever.[/quote]
I recently had an extended conversation about situations where police are not only allowed, but encouraged to lie, ostensibly to get needed information or to protect the innocent. The example that was used was that of a kidnapping, where lying may be perceived as necessary to extract information necessary to save a life. While I agree that there may be a few extreme examples where this might be justifiable, it was my feeling that this justification is used far too liberally simply to gain confessions or
to provide information against a third party whom they suspect. I personally have been lied to by a police
officer in a completely non urgent, non safety related matter, which did absolutely nothing to instill confidence in me in their honesty, adherence to the rule of law, or over riding concern with justice.
This involved two officers, not the entirety of police, however, it has strengthened my belief that police should be subject to the same degree of honest they expect from those they questions except under the most extreme circumstances.
Medwoman,
Good points. Thank you for reminding me, in your case, it “involved two officers, not the entirety of police”. That is good for me to keep in mind in my experience, too.
I guess there could be rare, urgent instances where police could justify lying. Just as there are rare instances where citizens are justified in lying. For example, (hypothetical) if a battered woman is married to a cop, her friend may be justified in lying to the police: “No, I don’t know where that woman is located.”
Also, during WWII, when Jewish people were hiding, a citizen would be justified in lying to the Nazi’s to hide them.
And if citizens fear their lives and their kids’ lives in a situation of criminal retaliation, maybe it is okay to lie? Because the cops can’t protect you 24/7.
But only in very rare instances is lying justified.
My car was once broken into by a a landscaper. I don’t trust any landscapers.
Mr. Obvious, I doubt if the landscaper harassed your family for no reason. Not a great analogy.
I wasn’t looking for a good analogy. I was showing how silly it is to lump together an entire profession because of one experience.
Mr. O
The same way it is wrong to assume all Mexicans are dangerous gang members.
Or all Italians are Sicilian murderers. Or all blacks listen to rap.
Oh, and it’s wrong to assume every skateboarding kid in Davis is a pothead….and every football jock in Davis drinks alcohol.