by Catherine McKnight
The further jury trial resumed on Thursday morning in the multi-defendant case involving an alleged attack and robbery at the 7-Eleven in Woodland. Deputy District Attorney Robin Johnson presented her first witness in the case, the alleged victim, Christopher Scott Nichols.
She began her direct examination by asking Mr. Nichols a string of questions on his three previous felony convictions, which include possession of methamphetamine, selling methamphetamine, and spousal abuse. He is also in custody right now due to a failure to appear for the spousal abuse case.
Mr. Nichols’ girlfriend, Dawn, was present on the night in question. He said that they went to 7-Eleven on his friend’s bicycle to get some snacks. After purchasing their items and as they were leaving the store, Mr. Nichols said that two young men passed them and said something along the lines of “tweakers.” Then, three to five other young men approached and said something to his girlfriend.
Mr. Nichols asked what was said, and then he believes they yelled “Bosque.” He yelled back, and a fight ultimately broke out. He said that after he knocked one of them down, the others came running up. He said that the two that entered the store were not involved in the fight, from what he can remember.
Shortly after, the police arrived and Mr. Nichols said that the police went directly to the young men, who never really left the vicinity. He said that there were two in front walking, and four others behind.
Eventually, Mr. Nichols told the police what happened but admitted that he could not identify any of them because he said he never got a good look at their faces. He also said that he refused to press charges and refused medical help. The police took him to look at the suspects individually, but he did not pick out anyone in particular. He continued to say that there was one he remembered because he had neck tattoos.
DDA Johnson asked whether or not he wanted to be a witness and testify in court today, and he said no because he did not want to be labeled a snitch. He continued his testimony about getting jumped every day, twice a day, for almost two weeks as a result of already being labeled a snitch because of this case. Also, while in custody, he said that he was told to “roll it up” out of the main area in the jail, because it was not safe for him there.
It was told to him recently in jail that there is paperwork with his name on it, speaking about the police report from this case. DDA Johnson then talked with him about each of the times he was jumped after he was released from jail the first time.
As they were talking about these attacks and details surrounding, there was an ongoing objection from the defense attorneys for foundation and hearsay. Judge Rosenberg informed the jury that Mr. Nichols’ testimony on these subjects is not for the truth of the matter, but for the limited purpose as to the witness’s state of mind and credibility in court.
Mr. Nichols said that there was an “SOS” out for him, which essentially means that if any Norteño spots him around town that they have to “smash on sight.” He said that this “SOS” was allegedly a result of the police report, which said that he identified suspects. Mr. Nichols said that he did not call police from being jumped because he has been on the streets his whole life.
“What happens to snitches?” asked DDA Johnson. He said that they “get beat up, everyday.”
Going back to the night at 7-Eleven, Ms. Johnson showed Mr. Nichols the police report. After reviewing, he grew upset, and said that it did not refresh his recollection because it does not depict what he said at all that night. He repeated that the police report was not true and that it does not reflect what he told the police.
She finished her direct examination, and Attorney Keith Staten, representing Justin Gonzalez, began cross-examination of Mr. Nichols. He asked him whether or not he was on methamphetamine the night of the incident at 7-11. He said he and his girlfriend both used earlier in the day. He said when they were outside, he was “protecting his woman” and that “any man would do that.”
Mr. Staten asked him whether or not he believed there was a robbery that night, and he said no. He said that all it was, was a fight, and that they “weren’t trying to rob me or anything.” The night in question, he said he was not put under oath, but that he is now and that he is telling the truth. He repeated that he told the police that he refused to press charges and that the “cops didn’t want that.” Mr. Staten got to his point that Mr. Nichols believes he was persuaded to ID suspects that night.
“When you were shown individuals that night, it is your testimony that you didn’t want to ID them, and it wasn’t a robbery?” “Hell no,” he replied, agreeing with Mr. Staten.
Mr. Robert Spangler, who is representing Juan Fuentes, asked Mr. Nichols about his presence in Woodland and whom he knows. He said that he knows many people because he grew up there and was on the streets a lot. When talking about the streets, he asked, “Is there a code or unspoken rules?” Mr. Nichols said that there are street rules, and “I’m breaking it right now.” He said that even if somebody is not in a gang, it is just known that one shouldn’t snitch.
During Attorney Jeff Raven’s cross-examination, he wanted to clarify that the two men that entered the 7-Eleven did not come back out and fight. Mr. Raven, representing Jose Jiminez, also wanted to make sure that it is his testimony that he never identified anybody and that the police report is incorrect.
Ava Landers, defending Anthony Ozuna, asked Mr. Nichols on cross if he recalled whether or not the young men were wearing red that night. He said that he did not recall, and that he believes they were mainly wearing white tees. He also said that not all young Mexican males are gang members, and that labeling them right away could be wrong. Mr. Nichols also said that the reason he believed they were in a gang is because they said “Bosque,” which is a common reference to the Norteños gang in Woodland.
On re-direct, DDA Johnson asked Mr. Nichols if he recognized anyone in the courtroom who was present that night. He said that he did not. He also said that he feels as if he is on the borderline of snitching because his presence in court is bad enough. “Just for being right here, I’ll have an SOS.”
On re-cross, Mr. Staten asked him whether or not he was shown the police report, shown in court today, during his interviews with the DA’s office and the police. Mr. Nichols said that today was the first time he had ever seen the police report.
To end the witness’s testimony, Mr. Raven said that it is very clear that he does not want to be a witness in this case, and that there is no reason to lie now because he has already been labeled a snitch. Mr. Nichols agreed by saying “thank you” and proceeded to say that the truth is that he never ID’d anyone.
The trial will resume Friday morning.
Good article–really illustrates the witness intimidation that goes on in many crime-plagued neighborhoods, including gang neighborhoods. How can crimes be prosecuted if nearly everyone is intimidated into silence; and what kind of a neighborhood is it when crimes can be committed with very little liklihood of punishment?
Cops cannot protect anyone 24/7. That’s why people are afraid. A solution is to change laws so truly dangerous people are incarcerated and truly dangerous people are pursued by law enforcement. Then the cops might have better luck with people cooperating, and trusting them.