LOS ANGELES — During a Nov. 2 pretrial hearing in a homicide case, defense attorneys challenged the prosecution’s proposed use of photographs of the accused individuals’ tattoos, arguing that the images did not clearly connect them to the alleged crime and could unfairly prejudice jurors.
The prosecutor argued that the photographs were relevant to establishing the accused individuals’ alleged association with the Langdon Street gang. The defense countered that without knowing when or why the tattoos were acquired, any connection to the alleged crime was speculative.
The photographs included intertwined letters “S” and “L” on one accused individual’s arm, an “L” on his leg and the words “Rest in Peace Manos” below his ear. According to the prosecutor, Manos was allegedly a gang member.
The prosecutor also pointed to tattoos on another accused individual, including the same phrase below his ear and “Langdon St.” across his upper back.
In support of introducing the photographs, the prosecutor argued that a gang expert’s knowledge of tattoo practices within gang culture, including patterns in which tattoos are acquired after a felony, could help establish their significance.
She also cited testimony from Officer Hernandez at a preliminary hearing indicating that one of the accused individuals did not have certain tattoos before incarceration. The prosecutor argued that social media posts also supported this pattern.
Defense attorneys disputed the prosecutor’s interpretation, describing the proposed connection between the tattoos and the alleged offense as “pure speculation.”
“Doesn’t matter what the tattoo shows, it’s the question of when or why,” a defense attorney stated, emphasizing that there was no concrete evidence establishing when the tattoos were obtained or whether they had any connection to the alleged homicide.
Defense attorneys also offered alternative explanations for the tattoos, suggesting they could represent family members or loved ones or could have been acquired out of fear while incarcerated rather than reflecting involvement in the killing.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Andrea Thompson drew a distinction between using the photographs to establish alleged gang membership and using them to suggest that the accused individuals committed the charged crime.
Thompson initially indicated that she would likely allow the photographs into evidence but had not yet determined how the prosecutor could use them in her arguments.
She asked the prosecutor to identify the specific photographs she intended to introduce and explain the purpose of each.
Another defense attorney expressed frustration that evidentiary questions remained unresolved after jury selection, with the trial scheduled to begin that afternoon.
The attorney said the uncertainty required the defense to adjust its arguments at the last minute and described the situation as something he had never previously experienced.
The defense also raised concerns about the potential effect of displaying numerous photographs of the accused individuals’ tattoos to the jury.
An attorney argued that the images could create a frightening impression and improperly influence jurors beyond the evidence itself.
Responding to concerns about prejudice and the timing of the dispute, Thompson said, “I already ruled photographs could be taken,” referring to an earlier decision permitting photographs of the tattoos to be obtained.
The prosecutor maintained that the photographs were necessary to establish gang membership, which she considered a significant factor in the case.
She argued that tattoos have become more common and that the images were not inherently frightening, describing them as names rather than graphic imagery.
The prosecutor also said care had been taken during jury selection to identify jurors who would not be biased against gang members.
Thompson ultimately rejected the argument that the tattoo photographs were inherently prejudicial but imposed restrictions on their use.
She permitted the prosecutor to introduce only nonduplicative photographs and limited their evidentiary purpose to establishing alleged gang membership, rather than directly connecting the accused individuals to the homicide.
The judge also indicated that the defense could reference the tattoos in presenting its own arguments.
The jury trial was scheduled to begin Monday afternoon, with the prosecution permitted to present evidence of alleged gang affiliation under the limitations established by the court.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
