By Antoinnette Borbon and Catherine McKnight
Gang Task Force And Police May Have Chosen The Wrong Kids This Time – What was proposed to be a short jury selection yesterday for the trial of four young men accused of second degree robbery and assault with great bodily injury, along with a gang enhancement, turned into nearly a two-day process. It appeared to be obvious some of the defense’s questions were hard to answer, even emotional, for some potential jurors.
During jury selection all four defense counsel kept their foundation based around the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Robert Spangler, defense counsel for one of the young men, asked the jurors if they had a problem rendering a verdict because of religious or moral beliefs. Defense attorney Jeff Raven geared his questions and statements more toward the presumption of believing someone’s innocence before assuming their guilt.
But she also stated the alleged victim and main witness would change the story he gave police because he feared being labeled a snitch. Johnson stated, “It is often difficult to put on a witness that has a criminal background.”
Ms. Johnson went on to state that one of the young men had been found drinking a Pepsi, which was an item that the alleged victim, Mr. Nichols, had purchased in the store. Johnson also said the girlfriend of Nichols had identified one of the men through his ponytail and tattoos.
Ms. Johnson stated, “They were found within close proximity of the store, one hiding in a bush until detectives got him out of the bush.”
DDA Johnson continued by explaining to the jury what she believes the facts of the case will show.
DDA Johnson informed the jury that the People’s last witness will be John Perez, who will be testifying as a gang expert with the Yolo County Gang Task Force. She explained that Mr. Perez will be talking about the Norteño criminal street gang in particular and he will explain how Norteños operate in the city of Woodland.
Further, she said that Mr. Perez will tell them about how Norteños gain respect, what that means, and what should ultimately happen if one of the Norteños is disrespected – especially in front of other members. Ms. Johnson ended by saying that Mr. Perez will also discuss each individual defendant and their association with the Norteños and how that ties into the street gang’s benefit. She said she is convinced that the jury will find the defendants guilty and that these crimes were committed to benefit a criminal street gang.
Mr. Staten said, “I gotta be really up front, Gonzalez didn’t do any of the three crimes.” He explained that on the videotape that will be shown at the 7-Eleven where the alleged attack and robbery occurred, his client is nowhere to be found.
Mr. Staten explained that once the police arrived on the scene, they were told that it was a “bunch of young Mexicans,” which was when they ran across Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Ozuna and stopped them both. Mr. Gonzalez, he continued, cooperated with police. Mr. Staten proceeded to tell the jury that the key witness in this case, Mr. Perez, will be talking about gang life and culture in order to tell them “that these things happen in gang areas.”
“Justin Gonzalez may have been out there, but he’s not the one that was involved.”
He stated there are three major witnesses in this case and each will tell a different story. Staten went on to say that on the video jurors will see will show Nichols punching the kid who Nichols stated got smart with him.
He stated you will see that Nichols punched the kid and laid him out. He stated then you will see five to seven people fighting outside the store. But not his client.
Staten stated it was the girlfriend who summoned the cops and after 15 minutes or so, the cops brought back the four to be identified by the alleged victim and his girlfriend.
Mr. Spangler, who is defending Juan Fuentes, stated in his opening, “It is going to be your job to make the difference in each of the witnesses’ statements. He stated, “It is not just an arena of common sense but of reasonable facts.” He stated, “You need to make sure you don’t just use your common sense but your logicalness.” His opening was short and to the point.
Attorney Jeff Raven had quite an emotional and lengthy opening statement to the jurors. He began with “Ladies and Gentlemen, my client was not involved in the fight but is seen on video walking into the store with Mr. Roe [forgot name].” Raven went on to say his client was wearing a white shirt, and when his hands were checked by police, he had no marks to prove he had just been in a fight. Raven stated emphatically, “My client was NOT disheveled and in the video you will see him shrugging his shoulders as he did not know what was going on outside.”
Raven asserted, “There is no evidence consistent with a fight.” He stated his client cooperated with the police that night even with guns drawn on him while he lay on the ground.”
Mr. Raven informed the jury that they will be hearing testimony that Mr. Nichols is a meth user and was on methamphetamine the night in question. Mr. Nichols, he continued, is going to say that an individual involved has tattoos on his neck. “Don’t be confused, my client with tattoos is in the store.”
Lastly, Ava Landers, defending Anthony Ozuna, gave her opening statement to the court. Ms. Landers said that her client was simply walking around at the wrong time and that he was only out that night to meet up with some girls with his friend, and that was when the police showed up. He asked, “Why are we getting detained?” She explained that the police said there was a robbery down the block, and that the two told them they were not involved. They were arrested shortly after, “and now we are here.”
Ms. Landers informed the jury once again that Mr. Nichols, who was allegedly on meth that night in June, will likely testify that he does not know who exactly attacked him and that he does not know what they were wearing.
The further jury trial will continue Thursday morning under the Honorable David Rosenberg with the People’s first witness and the alleged victim in this case, Mr. Nichols.
i think the prelim in this case covered. there were clearly some who were involved and caught, but the net was too broad.