For the first time, a different picture started to emerge on Tuesday as the three remaining defendants who were arrested in West Sacramento made their first appearance in court. At the scene, the Vanguard was told that the four individuals arrested were on probation and were validated gang members.
The juvenile in the case had a no-bail warrant out for him. However, charges were dismissed against the juvenile on Monday and the information about two of the co-defendants was heavily disputed by defense counsel at their arraignment hearing Tuesday afternoon, in front of Commissioner Kent O’Mara.
The Vanguard obtained a copy of the criminal complaint with the formal charges against Jesus Baeza, Joshua Cadenaz-Lopez, and Ricky Hernandez.
It is Mr. Hernandez who faces the most serious charges, which include: Exhibiting a Fire Arm with a Gang Enhancement, Malicious Discharge of a Fire Arm from a vehicle with a gang enhancement, Criminal Street Gang Activity while armed. All of those related to the events of October 18.
That means that the most serious offenses were alleged to have been committed by Mr. Hernandez on October 18.
The rest of the charges fall to all three defendants, but for the events on October 20 which led to their arrest. These include a carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle when firearm is stolen, with a gang enhancement; carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle that is loaded, with a gang enhancement; possession of marijuana for sale, with a gang enhancement; and a stand-alone charge for criminal street gang activity with an enhancement for being armed.
They also charged Mr. Hernandez with a misdemeanor for exhibiting a firearm, with a gang enhancement for his activities on October 20.
Attorney Richard Lansburgh, representing Mr. Baeza, and Rod Beede, representing Mr. Cadenaz-Lopez, both made the arguments that their clients were minor players in this incident. Mr. Lansburgh would call this a broad brush case – one person is a gang member, therefore everyone involved is a gang member.
He would argue that his client was, in fact, not a gang member. He noted that Mr. Baeza had no adult record and only a very minor juvenile record. He currently holds a job and is a productive citizen. Mr. Beede joined Mr. Lansburgh in his objection. He noted that his client not only holds a job but has a young son.
They were requesting release on OR.
Probation strongly opposed release on OR, based on the charges. Deputy DA Jay Linden noted that, for the purposes of bail, the court has to assume the charges are true. He said that, given the charges, the defendants are a danger to public safety and they are charged with being gang members.
Probation indicated that, based on the severity of the charges, there was no pretrial service report. However, Mr. Lansburgh and Mr. Beede requested a report from probation. There will be a hearing on Thursday. Mr. Lansburgh noted that his client is not named in the 10/18 charges, only in the 10/20 charges.
Commissioner O’Mara followed the recommendation by the probation department and denied the request for OR.
Bail was set at $100,000 for both Mr. Baeza and Mr. Cadenas-Lopez – $50,000 for the gun charges and $50,000 based on the gang enhancement. Mr. Hernandez, represented at this hearing by Dean Johansson of the Public Defender’s office, was given $170,000.
The OR hearing is set for Thursday, while a preliminary hearing at this time is set for November 8 in front of Judge David Reed.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What’s the different picture you’re referring to?
It looks like one guy fired the gun on Tuesday and the other two just happened to be in the car two days later when the arrest was made. Also I was told they all had extensive criminal records – that part was clearly not true and I think the gang charges are in real doubt.
David wrote:
> I think the gang charges are in real doubt.
I understand why criminal defense attorneys defend criminal gang members who terrorize the (mostly) people of color who live in the poor minority neighborhoods where gangs are active (it’s there job), but I don’t understand why David finds the need to to defend (almost) every gang member that is arrested.
P.S. David might want to think twice about his next ride along in an area where gang members shoot guns out of cars:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/10/24/madera-police-ride-along-shooting-caught-on-video/
What evidence do you have that any of them are gang members?
To answer your question, “I don’t understand why David finds the need to to defend (almost) every gang member that is arrested.” It’s not that I see the need to defend gang members so much as challenge the declaration that some of the defendants are gang members in a lot of these cases.
David wrote:
> What evidence do you have that any of
> them are gang members?
1. The DA says they are gang members
2. Even one of the “defense” attorneys calls out one of the guys as a gang member when he says “one person is a gang member”…
P.S. To David (or anyone else) can you name any kids that drive around in cars with guns in West Sacramento or Woodland that are not gang members?
P.P.S. That is not an “unanswerable question” is it a simple “yes or no question”…
“The DA says they are gang members”
They’ve been wrong before
“Even one of the “defense” attorneys calls out one of the guys as a gang member when he says “one person is a gang member””
Actually what he said was they are using a broad brush to declare that if one person is a gang member they all. That’s not an admission that one is.
“To David (or anyone else) can you name any kids that drive around in cars with guns in West Sacramento or Woodland that are not gang members?”
Isn’t one of the questions now whether several of the occupants in the car even knew there was a gun there?
Davis wrote:
> Isn’t one of the questions now whether several of the occupants
> in the car even knew there was a gun there?
Any reason you asked another question without answering my simple yes or no question?
As far as “if they knew the gun was there” another simple yes or no question is “have you ever discovered that you unknowingly got in to a car where someone was packing a loaded gun?”
South of Davis
““have you ever discovered that you unknowingly got in to a car where someone was packing a loaded gun?””
Another simple question to which the answer is “yes”. It happened once in 1972 when I was hitch hiking to school. I got out as soon as the lights permitted it, but had we been stopped before that happened, I would have been in a car with a man packing a loaded gun…..or at least he said it was.
“Also I was told they all had extensive criminal records – that part was clearly not true” Have you seen their juvenile and adult jackets? How do you know whether it is true or not?
Because two attorneys made the argument in open court and the Deputy DA did not dispute their representation of the clients criminal record.
So if a defense attorney said “my client is not guilty” you would conclude that the defendant was “clearly” not guilty? I have no idea but lacking documentation it’s hard to conclude one way or the other based on a verbal characterization. The DA may have felt no need to dispute this point at that time.
The issue of a criminal record is an established fact, guilt is what needs to be proven in the court proceedings. Not a good analysis. The DA would have offered the evidence to the contrary in support of his position that the defendants should be denied bail and the attorneys would not have offered false assertions into the record.
David wrote:
> The DA would have offered the evidence to
> the contrary in support of his position
I’m not a DA, but I have been told that if I know there if a 2 inch think file full of crimes a guy was convicted of as a minor I an not allowed to “offer this evidence” in adult court to support my position the guy is a criminal. Can anyone who knows more about the court system clear this up?
The DA could have stated that he has an extensive criminal as an adult and a juvenile. That is permissible. Had they had an extensive record, they would have argued it. Moreover, the defense attorney cannot make a false representation to the court.
“The issue of a criminal record is an established fact” which is why I asked if you had seen it rather than relying on a representation of the record by a biased person.
“the defense attorney cannot make a false representation to the court.” Defenders often make false representations to the court. They say their clients are innocent when they know they are guilty for example. They may say an ADW is a “minor” issue. Maybe they are right and there is no record but I don’t see how you conclude that at this stage.
“They say their clients are innocent when they know they are guilty for example. ”
This is actually untrue. First of all, they plead not guilty. Second, they rarely claim their clients are “innocent” so much as the evidence is insufficient and fails to make the burden of proof.
But all of this is different that make a representation on a fact – guilt has to proven – past criminal record is a fact. You’re not distinguishing here.
“Second, they rarely claim their clients are “innocent” so much as the evidence is insufficient and fails to make the burden of proof.” I have been in court and heard defense attorneys say ‘innocent of all charges’ in their remarks.
“But all of this is different that make a representation on a fact – guilt has to proven – past criminal record is a fact. You’re not distinguishing here.”
Above I asked whether you had seen the record or were relying on a characterization of it by a biased person.
That’s fine, but how do you know they know the guy is guilty?
I trust Richard Lansbourgh and Rod Beede. I haven’t looked to see if there is a criminal record.
quielo wrote:
> So if a defense attorney said “my client is not guilty” you would
> conclude that the defendant was “clearly” not guilty?
quielo is new to the Vanguard so I’ll try and explain that if the person was a minority gang member who had been arrested 20 times and even had a tear tattoo above his MS13 neck tattoos David will typically “conclude that the defendant was “clearly” not guilty”.
If the person was a white veteran police officer who had never had a single complaint, was active in his church and has been a Cub Scout den leader since he became an Eagle Scout David would typically “conclude the guy was guilty”…
SOD
“To David (or anyone else) can you name any kids that drive around in cars with guns in West Sacramento or Woodland that are not gang members?”
The answer to this question is “yes”. The example is the youngest of the individuals who happened to be in the car at the time of the stop. Simple question. Simple answer.
Tia wrote:
> The answer to this question is “yes”. The example is the youngest
> of the individuals who happened to be in the car at the time of the stop.
How long have you known the 13 year old kid and his family and how do you know he did not recently join a gang?
Are you aware that most kids start hanging around gangs and watching for cops well before they are 13 and are often full fledged gang members at 13?
http://exposure.org.uk/2015/06/the-rise-and-fall-of-a-13-year-old-gang-member/
South of Davis
I am well aware that age does not preclude gang participation. But we have a principle in this country that one is innocent until proven guilty. Since the charges were dropped against this individual as reported by David, I can only conclude that he was considered to be innocent. Thus, my answer to your question.
quielo – you don’t seem to have a firm grasp between a claim of innocence versus a representation of a material fact. this isn’t tv, there are stereotypes about attorneys, but most of the time, you don’t know whether or not your client is innocent or guilty, there are cases where you believe that your client is guilty and you often try to knock down some of the charges or the sentence and cases where you believe your client didn’t do it or might not have done it. what you can’t do in court is tell a falsehood knowingly, certainly not on matter like criminal record that can be easily contradicted.
south of davis – i have walked into a car with people who had guns or drugs, many times. what’s your point?
DP, Maybe we have to agree to disagree on this. When an attorney characterises someone’s juvenile record as “minor” that can mean almost anything. It is not an assertion it is an opinion. Therefore my question of David, does he know what the record contains or is he relying on the description provided by the attorney for the accused?
Or am I missing something?
i am sure that david is relying on the representation of an attorney that went unchallenged at a point of time where the da would have challenged it had it been false, an attorney or attorneys he no doubt has seen in court numerous times and trusts.
that said, why have you once again raised a point on such a minor issue?
Data anomalies interest me. When David presented some information and and a conclusion I did not see how he reached the conclusion from the data presented.
DP wrote:
> south of davis – i have walked into a car with people who had
> guns or drugs, many times. what’s your point?
My point is that most people that are not gang members or criminals don’t drive around in cars with illegal loaded guns (even most “actual criminals” don’t drive around with loaded guns)…
I’m curious what you are doing in cars with guns and/or drugs. Were you out on the town gangbanging or just heading to a city council meeting with friends that happened to have an eight ball and a Derringer in their pockets?
Was is guns “or” drugs or guns “and” drugs?
P.S. I’m also interested to hear how you “walk” in to a car (are you a little person)?
It seems to me that a lot of Americans drive around with loaded guns. Some of them are very adamant about their constitutional right to do so.
Someone who lived near me got arrested while waiting outside a Davis elementary school with a loaded gun. He was there to pick up his girlfriend’s child. Turned out he also had some drugs in possession. But there was no gang enhancement, probably at least partially because he is a white guy.
Don wrote:
> It seems to me that a lot of Americans drive around with loaded guns.
What percentage to you consider “a lot” 50%, 2%, .00002%? How many of the parents in the pickup line at NDE today do you estimate will be packing a loaded gun?
> But there was no gang enhancement, probably at least partially
> because he is a white guy.
Maybe is was “probably at least partially” because he was NOT in a gang…
P.S. I’m wondering if Don knows that many racist white skinheads are arrested every year and spend more time in prison due to “gang enhancements”?
I wonder how they would know that.
Somewhere in that range, yeah.
More than you think, and more than we’d like.
Forgot to answer this one.
The answer is yes.
have had a few motorcycle cases with gang enhancements. don’t recall skin head cases, the ones i had came before gang enhancements.
this matter is so typical – there is one gang member (or might be) therefore the whole car are gang members? who owned the car? is there evidence tying the non-drivers to the guns?
I have an immigrant client who was tagged as a “gang member” by police b/c he answered his phone and talked to former high school classmates whose own phones happened to be wiretapped as the police suspected the other guys were involved in distributing marijuana. My client was not “profiled” by the police as a gang member (that involves a lot of paperwork), but labelled as an “associate” on two lists in about 250 pages of discovery, because he answered his phone and talked to the guys the police had profiled as gang members. Not a shred of any other evidence that he was involved with anything related to these other purported gang members. In fact, there was exculpatory evidence in the phone transcripts — with him telling these guys to leave him alone and not try to involve him in their “business.” He has known these guys since childhood, is related to a couple of them, and lives in the same neighborhood (not by choice but due to lack of income). He was arrested in a “sweep” done of all those “suspected” — though in the related search which resulted in his door being broken down, nothing at all was found in his home — except his girlfriend (now wife) and his young child. He spent 2 months in jail before ALL charges were dismissed, but now faces deportation (though he is eligible for legal status which has been denied so far, because ICE now also believes he was in a gang — b/c the police said so and the jail placed him in a gang segregated area, so he “must” be in a gang). Full disclosure — this was NOT a Yolo County case, however.
A gang expert in Oakland (and former gang member himself) states that there is substantial evidence that this is typical of the ‘broad brush’ that occurs in many jurisdictions — including our own. Also, note that our Yolo D.A. gets federal or state grants specifically for gang prosecutions — and so it benefits the D.A.’s office financially to prosecute as many people as possible for being in gangs. Hmmmm. Same re “child abductions”– grants for those prosecutions as well — of which we have soooo many in Yolo County that the D.A.’s office will even prosecute mothers who flee the country to escape domestic violence with their children — b/c most certainly it is in the best interest of the children to be placed with abusive fathers and their mothers jailed. Yep. We should definitely believe every verbal, unsubstantiated statement of the D.A.’s office as true. And of course they never withhold actual evidence from the defense, oh no! Right.