By Mariel Barbadillo
On the morning of Monday, August 15, 2016, the trial commenced in the case against Jason Lopez and Stephon Ramirez. The co-defendants are charged with the attempted shooting at an inhabited vehicle and three counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm, with enhancements for use of a firearm during the commission of the felony as well as committing the felony for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. They also face a felony charge of criminal street gang activity and a misdemeanor for resisting or obstructing a police officer.
Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes began his opening statement by beating his chest with his fist, saying, “This is my turf. You don’t belong here.” He went on to allege that Mr. Lopez and Mr. Ramirez are active members of the Broderick Boys gang in West Sacramento, and he believes they targeted the alleged victim because they thought he was a rival gang member.
The prosecution then detailed his understanding of the incident to the jury. He said the alleged victim had stopped at a liquor store with his wife and children when the defendants approached him. The defendants, he said, asked the alleged victim, “Are you from around here?” and, “Do you bang?” The prosecutor told the jurors they will hear from an expert witness who will elaborate on the significance of those questions.
According to the prosecution, the alleged victim was driving with his brothers-in-law later on in the day when he recognized the defendants from the liquor store. One of the witnesses riding with the alleged victim said, “They got a gun.” They allegedly saw Mr. Ramirez holding a gun out of the passenger window, but the gun seemed to be malfunctioning, as Mr. Ramirez was initially unable to discharge the weapon.
Following this encounter, the alleged victim and passengers drove to the police station. They spoke to officers and gave statements of the incident. That is when they noticed the defendant’s black vehicle drive by.
The officers went after the vehicle and apprehended Mr. Lopez. Mr. Ramirez, however, was seen sprinting from the vehicle. A K9 unit was sent after Mr. Ramirez, believing him to be armed. He was later apprehended.
The officers searched the defendants’ vehicle and found one live round of ammunition. Mr. Ramirez’s hands also tested positive for gunshot residue.
The prosecution told the jury they will hear testimony from Officer Anthony Herrera, who will provide expert information on criminal street gangs, the violence such gangs engage in, and what is expected of members who come into contact with rival gangs.
Mr. Ramirez is being represented by the Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira, and Mr. Lopez by Attorney James Granucci.
Mr. Granucci gave an opening statement simply outlining the timeline of events. He began on May 8, 2016, at about 3:30 to 4:00 PM at Lighthouse Market & Deli in West Sacramento. He said the defendants were just about to leave when the alleged victim walked up to their car and they had a conversation. He asserted that there was no violence and no argument involved in that encounter, and the two parties parted ways after a few moments.
The second encounter was while the alleged victim was with his brothers-in-law. Mr. Granucci described this encounter as a “misunderstanding” at an intersection, lasting about five to ten seconds until the alleged victim drove away.
The alleged victim went to the police station and saw the defendants drive by on their way to Mr. Lopez’s apartment. The officers followed them, apprehended Mr. Lopez at the driveway to his apartment, and chased after Mr. Ramirez. He said Mr. Ramirez ran because he was scared.
Mr. Granucci asserted that the evidence provided by the prosecution will not be enough to convict Mr. Lopez and Mr. Ramirez of the crimes they are alleged to have committed.
Mr. Ramirez’s attorney, Martha Sequeira, said she would give her opening statement later in the trial.
The prosecution’s first witness was “VB,” the alleged victim. He is originally from Los Angeles, but he moved to West Sacramento four years ago. He said he does not belong to nor is he familiar with criminal street gangs.
The prosecution asked the witness if he has tattoos. VB disclosed that he has two: one on his upper left arm that was not visible under his sleeve and another on his forearm, which he showed to the court. He described the tattoo as signifying the Mexican holiday, “Day of the Dead,” including a woman’s face and ghosts. The prosecution asked if there are parts of the tattoo that appear to be dots. The witness said the eyes on the faces could look like dots from far away.
The witness said that, on the day of the incident, he was taking pictures with his family at a mall in Sacramento. He was driving to his in-laws’ house when his wife said her head was hurting. The witness stopped at Lighthouse Market to buy Advil. He noted that he saw a black Dodge Durango in the parking lot when he arrived.
When he went to pay for his items, he said he saw an individual in front of him in line with a tattoo on his forehead, but he did not interact with him at that point. The prosecution asked VB to describe the person he saw, and he mentioned seeing an ankle monitor.
Immediately, the defense counsel objected and asked to approach the bench. Prior to trial, the defense had filed a motion in limine to exclude any reference to Mr. Lopez’s ankle monitor, as it could be prejudicial. Mr. Hasapes, however, did not admonish the witness prior to his testimony.
The defense requested a mistrial, since the jurors heard the prejudicial information the defense sought to exclude, which would interfere with the defendants’ right to a fair trial. Judge Reed deferred ruling on the motion, but he had the witness’ last statement about the ankle monitor stricken from the record.
After a short recess, VB continued his testimony. The prosecution asked if anything Mr. Lopez did caught his attention or if anything unusual happened. The witness answered to the negative.
VB went on to describe his encounter with both defendants, when he was leaving the store and they had just pulled out of the parking space. He said the driver, Mr. Lopez, asked him a question, so he approached them. He was about eight feet away from the vehicle when Mr. Lopez asked if he was from around the area. The witness answered yes.
The witness walked closer so that he was about four feet away from the vehicle when Mr. Lopez asked, “Do you bang?” The prosecution asked if VB had any knowledge of what that meant. VB said he thought he was being asked if he was a “gangbanger,” and he said he is not.
The prosecution proceeded to play surveillance footage from the Lighthouse Market parking lot, time-stamped at 15:42 hours on Sunday, May 8, 2016. VB was seen driving a white Jeep and pulling into a parking spot directly next to the defendants’ black Dodge Durango. VB exited his vehicle and walked into the store.
A few minutes later, Mr. Lopez was seen leaving the store briefly. He approached his car from the right side, talking to Mr. Ramirez in the passenger seat. He entered the store again, and then returned to the car and got in the driver’s seat.
The defendant was seen pulling out of the parking space, starting to drive away, until VB walked out of the store. VB walked over to the defendant’s vehicle. They appeared to be speaking briefly, perhaps a matter of seconds, and then he walked back to his Jeep. VB said he was getting money from his car so he could pay for his items.
The prosecution asked VB if he noticed the green sticker on the back of the defendant’s vehicle. He said he “kind of” noticed it, but it did not particularly catch his attention.
The prosecution showed the witness a visual of an aerial view of Lighthouse Market and the surrounding area. He asked VB to mark with a red pen where he saw the defendants go as they exited the parking lot. VB said he did not know where they went at that point.
Three minutes later in the surveillance footage, VB was seen leaving the parking lot. He said he did not mention the conversation to his family or anyone else. When the prosecution asked why, the witness said he did not tell anyone because he did not see a reason to be concerned about the conversation.
After leaving Lighthouse Market, VB drove to his brother-in-law’s house. He said he conversed with the family for about 35 minutes before leaving to go to a store to buy meat for the barbecue they planned to have that night.
The witness drove his Jeep to the store he described as being down the street from his brother-in-law’s house. His two brothers-in-law were in the car with him. They came to a stop on Casselman Drive because oncoming traffic from Andrews Street has the right of way.
At this point, VB said he saw a black Durango traveling from their left and he recognized the driver, Mr. Lopez. He said the driver and passenger were the same people he spoke to at the liquor store. He thought he was saying this to himself at the time, but he apparently said it loud enough for the defendants to hear.
The defendants’ Durango came to a complete stop approximately 25 feet from the witness’ car. The passenger door opened and one of the witness’ brothers-in-law said he noticed that the passenger, Mr. Ramirez, had a gun.
That is when VB said he saw Mr. Ramirez holding a gun with his finger on the trigger. The witness held up his hand to approximate the size of the gun, which Judge Reed said looked to be about six to eight inches. The witness then reenacted the defendant’s actions, moving his index finger repeatedly as if on a trigger to indicate that the gun was “jammed or something,” and then moving his other hand in a sliding motion to indicate cocking the gun.
Possibly Gang-Related Attempted Shooting Trial Continues
By Jamie Moddelmog
The trial of Jason Lopez and Stephon Ramirez resumed after a break for lunch, discussing, with the jury not present, defense counsel’s request for a mistrial. The request had been made based on the testimony of witness VB, who stated that Mr. Lopez had an ankle monitor on at the time of the incident.
Defense counsel claimed that knowing that Mr. Lopez had an ankle monitor was irreversibly prejudicial and that the deputy district attorney did not give the witness proper instructions on what information was and was not admissible.
Judge Reed ruled that the mention would not be grounds for a mistrial and that, as long as he gave admonishments to the jury to disregard the statement when coming to a conclusion, it would still be fair.
After that, the jury was called back in and questioning of witness VB resumed. VB was the alleged victim of the attempted shooting, who was driving the car at which Mr. Ramirez was accused of aiming his firearm.
Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes was the first to examine the witness after break, asking him questions about how the events unfolded after Ramirez and Lopez allegedly shot at their Jeep from a black Durango.
VB claimed that they pulled up to the intersection of Casselman Drive and Andrews Street when the black Durango pulled up 25 feet away from them, traveling on the opposite street. VB didn’t notice that one of the vehicle’s occupants had opened the door and had a gun pointed at him until other passengers in his car shouted, “Gun!”
He stated that he was in sort of shock and that he “froze” as the incident unfolded. He saw Mr. Ramirez point his gun over the top of the Durango’s open passenger’s side door, right at them, pull on the trigger several times and then pull the top of the gun backwards in a “cocking motion.” Once he snapped out of his daze, he drove straight forward through the intersection and proceeded driving toward the police station. The police saw him outside the station and searched him and the car’s other passengers for weapons.
It was around then that VB noticed the same black Durango they had seen earlier at the intersection, parked by the police station. They identified the car for the police, the car took off and some of the officers pursued it.
The questioning was turned over to the defense team, with Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira beginning. She asked VB if he was being uncooperative with the police when they attempted to search him. He said he was not. Ms. Sequeira asked if the police officers there at the time would be lying if they said he was being uncooperative. He said he may have appeared uncooperative because he was trying so hard to convey what was going on, and he was very nervous.
Backing up to his first encounter with Mr. Lopez, VB described that he saw Lopez in front of him in line at the Lighthouse Market, as well as shortly after when he was called over to Lopez’s car in the parking lot. He did not notice any weapons when walking up to the car.
VB has lived in the Broderick area for four years but has never had any interaction or involvement with anyone who was or claimed to be a “Broderick Boy,” a member of a local gang. He did not surmise, by the defendant’s tattoos, that the defendant was in a gang.
When relaying the moment the gun was pointed at him, he said that about five to ten seconds passed in between the time the passengers in his car yelled, “Gun!” and when they yelled, “Go go go!” and he took off.
He claimed that the door of the other vehicle was open and the shooter was trying to shoot over the door. The defense brought up VB’s previous testimony from the preliminary hearing of this same case, wherein he said that the shooter had the gun pointed out the window. VB clarified that he meant the assailant had one foot outside the car and was shooting over the top frame of the door.
Ms. Sequeira noted that VB had an “L.A” tattoo, and asked if it was gang-related, stating that the tattoo could often be used to show allegiance to the “Sureño” gang, a bitter rival of the “Norteño” gang, with which the “Broderick Boys” were associated. He claimed that to him it just meant “Los Angeles,” that he didn’t know anything about gangs and that he just liked the Dodgers.
During Mr. Hasapes’ second line of questioning, he asked VB if he was scared to be in court testifying. VB said he was very scared, that he had a wife and three kids and did not want them to be in danger.
The next witness called by the prosecution, “JG,” was one of the passengers in VB’s Jeep. JG stated that he had lived in Los Angeles all of his life and drove up to West Sacramento to visit his mom for Mother’s Day. He claimed not to be familiar with street gangs, and never to have hung out with a member of a street gang.
JG was in the car on his way to a store where they could pick up supplies for a barbecue with his brother-in-law and VB.
He said that the first thing he saw in the black Durango, when it pulled up roughly 25 feet away, was movement on the driver’s side, a slight bouncing movement from the driver. He heard his brother-in-law yell, “Gun!” and then he saw Mr. Ramirez pointing the weapon at their Jeep. He said he could hear the driver of the Durango screaming, “Pop it! Pop it!”
He then ducked his head, but the seats were too small in VB’s Jeep for him to get completely covered so he ended up having his head stick out and being able to see everything. Sitting in the passenger seat of the car, he saw the barrel of the gun pointing in their direction. He stated he saw Mr. Ramirez pull the trigger several times and then execute a cocking motion. Then he hit VB, who was in the driver’s seat, trying to get him to go, because he was frozen in position. JG estimated that the whole time the gun was pointed at them was about three seconds.
JG also testified that he believed the shooting to be a joke at first, and didn’t take it seriously, assuming the gun was a toy. He said that he could tell only by the look on Mr. Ramirez’s face that it was not a joke.
Like VB, he agreed he could have come across as “confrontational” with the officer who approached them at the police station, as he said he just didn’t like being treated like a suspect when they were the ones who had called about the attempted shooting.
He too said he was scared to testify because of possible retribution from gang members.
The Ramirez and Lopez trial will resume on Tuesday at 9:00 in Department 8.
