By Kelsey Landon
The trial for Jason Michael Lopez and Stephon Jerome Ramirez resumed Thursday morning in Department 9 of Yolo County Superior Court.
Deputy DA Kyle Hasapes called the first witness, a West Sacramento Raley’s Supermarket manager, to testify.
On March 7, 2016, the witness was working at the supermarket when an individual who appeared to be distraught entered the grocery store.
The witness assisted this individual by allowing him into a secure room that locked within the building.
The witness then testified that a couple of young men came into the Raley’s and appeared to be looking for someone. One of the men was shirtless and wearing red shorts and the other was in a sweatshirt.
Mr. Hasapes had no more questions for the witness, and the defense counsel had no cross.
The final witness called to testify was a gang detective provided by the Yolo County DA’s office.
The witness testified that, at the time of the incident, he believed Mr. Lopez to be a validated gang member of the Broderick Boys from West Sacramento, having met at least three of the criteria required by law enforcement.
Mr. Hasapes then proceeded to display a series of photos of both defendants with other young men in what the witness described as gang-signifying pictures.
The witness explained that these pictures connected the men with the Broderick Boys because the two men can be seen either holding gang signs associated with the Broderick Boys branch of the Norteños (themselves a street-level branch of the prison gang, Nuestra Familia), wearing red, or standing next to other validated gang members.
The witness proclaimed that the pictures taken of Lopez’s tattoos after he was arrested signified that he was extremely proud of being part of the Broderick Boys. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the witness believed Lopez to have been a part of the gang upon being arrested.
The witness went on to say that the location of the incident is also indicative of gang relations, since the incident took place within a territory claimed by the Broderick Boys.
According to the witness, the use of firearms is typical of the gang.
The statement, “Do you bang?” which the victim said had been asked of him, has significance as well, according to the detective.
As far as Ramirez goes, the witness stated that he had fled from officers upon contact, provided them with a fake name, wore red shorts at the time of the contact, and was utilizing a vehicle that did not belong to him.
Considering the tattoos, the location, and the content of the incident, the witness was of the opinion that Ramirez was also a member of the Broderick Boys at the time.
The jury was then dismissed for lunch.
The afternoon began with Judge Janene Beronio reading the defendants’ past stipulations to the jury.
After that, the detective’s testimony continued as he stated that he believes Lopez was a member of the Broderick Boys at the time of an incident he was convicted for in 2003. The witness said he believes this to be true because of law enforcement reports on Lopez, evidence of Lopez using gang signs, and tattoos Lopez had at the time.
Mr. Hasapes prompted the witness with a hypothetical situation to which the detective replied that the motive for the attempting shooting could have been because members of the gang felt an 
outsider was trespassing upon their territory.
The witness went on to explain that when Broderick Boys see an outsider in their neighborhood, they have an obligation to their gang to react.
It was then the defense counsel’s turn to cross-examine the witness.
Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira, representing Mr. Ramirez, asked the witness to specifically describe the boundaries of the Broderick Boys’ territory.
Ms. Sequeira asked the witness if the police officer that made the decision of where to do the traffic stop had specific assigned locations for those traffic stops and if there are any safeguards against choosing specific traffic stops that could potentially hurt the defendants.
The witness informed the jury that there are specific injunctions for law enforcement to make traffic stops.
Ms. Sequeira next asked if this was the first time the witness was testifying as a gang expert for a Broderick Boys case in Yolo County. The witness replied that it was.
The detective said that what he classifies as primary activities for the Broderick Boys are based on evidence analysis he receives from a crime analyst. He had never interviewed either of the defendants in the past.
Attorney James Granucci, representing Mr. Lopez, then took over cross-examination of the witness.
Mr. Granucci asked the witness if it is illegal to be a part of the Broderick Boys, have gang tattoos, or live in the Broderick neighborhood of West Sacramento, to which the witness testified it is not illegal to do any of those things.
The witness testified that it is only illegal to hang out with other gang members if you have received an injunction not to do so.
In Granucci’s questioning, the detective stated that he had never met Lopez prior to the trial, and had no personal knowledge of Lopez’s and Ramirez’s relationship.
The witness, upon being asked, went on to say that he does not know the intention of asking someone, “Do you bang?” nor does he have any knowledge that the defendants saw a tattoo on the victim.
Mr. Hasapes, in redirect, began questioning the detective again. In testimony, the witness claimed that the main activity for the Broderick Boys is to do whatever illicit activities they do to make money or protect their “territory.”
The detective became familiar with these crimes from personal observations, communication with other officers, and documentation of these crimes.
The Broderick Boys do not always commit crimes while they flash gang signs or wear gang colors, according to the witness’s testimony.
Ms. Sequeira began re-cross for the last time. She verified with the witness that the pictures displayed to the jury were not pictures of the defendants committing crimes.
In answering Ms. Sequeira, the witness stated that if the pictures were of gang members, they must do things other than just commit crimes.
The witness was then excused and the People and defense rested.
The jury will receive their instructions Tuesday and closing arguments will be heard.
