The West Sacramento Gang Injunction trial took an interesting turn late Wednesday afternoon when Judge Kathleen White, as the proceedings were wrapping up, suddenly admonished the plaintiffs. Thus far the plaintiffs’ case has been a series of West Sacramento police officers testifying to various incidents they have witnessed and questionably admissible hearsay statements that have been relayed to them by the defense.
The result has been a long, tedious, incongruous process that has left all involved fatigued and at times puzzled as to how the pieces will fit into place. Judge White has already made it clear that while she will not tell the plaintiffs how to call their witnesses and layout their case, that she thinks it would benefit them to at least get some experts to layout an overarching theory.
On Wednesday, Judge White made a far more pointed statement. She said that, while she is not going to tell the plaintiffs how to plead their case, she would like to see non-expert witnesses, people besides a series of police officers and experts who can testify that this gang presents a nuisance to them.
Deputy DA Jay Linden seemed to indicate that non-experts were not in the works. He said that the DA’s office has an interest in protecting the safety of the people of West Sacramento and he feels that having them testify against the alleged-Broderick Boys gang would put them at risk.
At this point Judge White made her thoughts known quite clearly. She said, “you opted to put on a civil trial.” She then said, “I expect to see some real witnesses telling me that there are real problems and if I don’t see them I will be very disappointed.”
Is the issue of safety and intimidation a true concern here or is this merely an excuse? After all, in the real conditions of the court, there are no gang members sitting in the audience. The room in fact is generally fairly empty except for myself and a few of my interns and an occasional activist or two.
Honestly if there is a true concern about safety of witnesses, I see no need to name names of individuals who come to testify. The Davis Enterprise and Sacramento Bee came out for opening statements and may come back for exciting witnesses, but on an everyday basis there is not a lot of coverage of this trial.
The chances of intimidation are slim. Moreover, the DA’s office, while at times struggling to bring witnesses forward against the gang, rarely has a problem prosecuting most cases. They seem to manage to do it for a criminal trial, and while it may be true that they have less ability to compel witnesses in a civil trial, Judge White is correct that they chose to make this a civil trial – which was to a severe disadvantage for the defendants and co-counsel.
Recall that the Judge ruled that, due to the nature of the case and the fact it was a civil trial, the defense was not allowed court-appointed attorneys. Instead, the attorneys in this case are spending weeks and likely months without collecting a single dollar from their clients.
As an observer of this case, albeit a skeptical observer, I do not see how the plaintiffs can win this case as they are currently proceeding.
It is pretty clear at this point they can establish that there is a Broderick Boys gang. There are clearly questions about the make up and structure of that gang that to date have not been presented. They claim they have expert witnesses, and frankly I think it would have been better to have begun with them.
As to the rest of the case, they have to prove that they are conducting crimes as a gang, they have to prove they represent a nuisance, and they may have to prove that other remedies within the law do not exist. I think all three of these will be difficult to prove.
Our data shows that actually there have been relatively few gang crimes as charged within the California Penal Code section 186.22. The fact is only 98 crimes were charged over a five year period, leading to a questionable foundation. Moreover, only 35 people were found guilty of gang charges. Additional evidence is emerging now in the light of the Memorial Park incident that calls into question a number of those gang convictions which were done not by jury, but rather by plea agreement.
In short, it is not clear that this criminal street gang presents a real nuisance to the public. Crime is occurring in the safety zone, but not a huge amount of gang crime.
West Sacramento has undergone a facelift in portions of the safety zone anyway. Old drug and prostitution sites have been torn down and redevelopment money has changed the face of the city. The result is that crime has decreased and will continue to do so with or without the injunction.
Still it would be far more interesting to hear a series of members of the public tell about the real problems they face, than hearing every police officer testify about gang cases they have investigated in the last decade, half of which are questionable once the incidents are scratched below the surface.
If the issue truly is safety, I would think that Judge White would accommodate those concerns and I can offer to the DA’s office a promise that whenever there is concern for the safety of witnesses, names are not used. Heck, in a lot of cases witnesses and victims are identified by first name and sometimes last initial. Why not do that here? I see no compelling reason why the public needs to have full names on every witness.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Hello i am a parent of one of the boys that was in the memorial park fight in west sacramento, this has been the hardest thing a mother has had to deal with, the yolo county DA’s has labled my son as a Broderick Boy my son lives in west sacramento not broderick. It’s sad to say that my son had to plea to something that he is not to make the DA happy and now will have a gang charge for the rest of his life. How can the DA just say that kids that live in west sacramento are Broderick Boys,i see this happening over and over again it seems that any crime in West Sacramento or Broderick gets to the DA’s office and it is automatically Gang related, that’s sad i have lived here for 30 years and i dont see this town as a gang infested town just a small community and everyone seems to know each other, the street’s are not filled with gang members,nor are the parks. I worked in Broderick for almost 13 years and i never felt at any time in fear of gangs, i would go to the store on my breaks or lunch or even sit at the park and never once did I see a gang member on the street’s commiting a crime, they even have stopped the kids that work at target becuase of a “RED” shirt and ask them if they are a gang member wow it is so hard for kids to grow up here, they are stopped for no reason by west sacramento police they can just be ridding a bike down the street or walking and they will stop them and ask them if they are a gang member.
“…Had to plea…?”
He did [u]NOT[/u] have to make a voluntary plea.
And you know just like many of us that when West Sacramento incorporated as the 444th city in CA, it’s became West Sacramento.
“He did NOT have to make a voluntary plea. “
I do not know what the exact situationl was but I bet this is pretty close – the kid had the choice to accept the plea or otherwise he and his friends (4 or 5 teenagers) would all go to trial together and would face 3-4 felonies each. The DA was busy playing the teenagers against each other in an effort to convince them all to agree to the same deal. The families faced a long and expensive trial – out of pocket cost would be $20K to $30K per kid. The DA gave all of the defendants and their familes 3-4 hours to make their decision.
So tell me is that a coerced plea or is it a voluntary plea?
dmg: “At this point Judge White made her thoughts known quite clearly. She said, “you opted to put on a civil trial.” She then said, “I expect to see some real witnesses telling me that there are real problems and if I don’t see them I will be very disappointed.””
My thought as to what the judge is indicating here is that parading police officers to give what amounts to their opinion of ongoing gang violence is just not enough. The judge wants to know where the residents are, that this injunction is supposed to protect, to verify the nuisance that is allegedly going on that would require a gang injunction to continue. If the DA cannot produce the necessary residents to say they want the injunction because of an ongoing nuisance, the spin that may be put on this case to save face is the gang injunction served its useful purpose, was successful, and is now not necessary anymore.
It certainly sounds like the judge is sending a clear signal to the prosecution that they have so far not met their burden of proof…
[quote]He did NOT have to make a voluntary plea. [/quote]
If you look up voluntary you will see things like “unconstrained by interference”, “having power of free choice”, “provided or supported by voluntary action”, when the DA is sitting there threatening life in prison, 20 years on prison, keeping you in jail and telling you will not get out on bail and will be in jail until your year long trial is heard, when the DA tells you I will throw the book at you and will charge your family or go after your wife or have your kids taken by CPS and many other things common statements or implications are used to get “voluntary plea bargains”, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that a plea bargain is NOT voluntary and basically “a legally coerced” deal. If someone other than the DA made these same statements (threats), it would be a crime of extortion, intimidating a witness, compelling a witness, threatening a witness and probably lots of other crimes.
Since it is done by the DA it is called a “voluntary plea deal”. Wake up people.
Primoris, I have known this kid and his mother for years. He is a good kid and she is a good mother who works and pays her taxes as I do. If you are a sixteen year old kid that has NEVER been in juvenile before and all of a sudden you are looking at 9 years or more in CYA and possibly prison are you not going to take a plea deal? but, why does this plea deal have to be a gang charge or he is taking the max. I dont care what you call it, I call it “Blackmailing” from the DA’S of yolo county. I live in the “Broderick” neighborhood and happen to know that there is no gang problem. The only GANGING up going on in my community is from our own DA’S.
We seem to have forgotton the two kids who were badly beaten & hospitalized.
Are we two assume that only 1 person (the one who was convicted) in the large group at this fight was responsible for the beating; and none of the others in this group should accept any kind of responsibility? As I see it, this is a warning shot across the bow and a 2nd change: straighten up guys: if you are caught again you are going to be penalized extra!
I wonder what other plea options may be legally available, short of a trial, to give more than a slap on the wrist to persons at the beating? For example, is some community service an option?
What is the expiration or review time to get yourself off the gang membership official list?
Are members of the list reviewed every few years for gang activity; and taken off the list if they’ve gone a few years without gang-like activity? Is this history on their permanent record (ie. remains on record even after taken off gang list), and is this record accessible by employers?
[quote]We seem to have forgotton the two kids who were badly beaten & hospitalized. [/quote]
On the contrary, what I have argued is that the people who beat the kid need to face the penalty. But instead, we are play politics with gang admissions and let the people who did the beating go free.
[quote]Is this history on their permanent record (ie. remains on record even after taken off gang list), and is this record accessible by employers? [/quote]
I did an interview with people who were gang validated, I’ve never run that interview, but they have told me that it has prevented them from getting jobs and everytime they even get a traffic stop they end up getting their car searched. It’s a real problem.
we have not forgotton the boys that were badly beaten you need to know that those boys are the ones with a gun and set up this fight, so are they gang members? they went to that park with 15 of there friends and then called and say “go to the park or are you scared” so they have a part in this, this is not a gang fight this was a fight, its sad that he was badly hurt and my son is taking responsibility for his actions but a gang memeber that is worng the DA has the right to just lable young boys as gang members that is sad just so he can try to get a new gang injunction this town is not filled with gang member and all of these kids know each other school, sports and my son was friends with them you people dont know the truth of this story you just hearing it from the DA’s side he has made this a “gang fight’ and has labled these kids as broderick boys, the broderick boys have died out years ago and that is a hispanic gang these kids are white, black and so how can the DA call them broderick boys?
cleyva: “they went to that park with 15 of there friends [to fight]…”
Sounds like a gang to me…
E Roberts Musser: not to the DA they are being called
‘victims” that is because they did not tell the police the truth they told the police they were by them selfs just walking to a park and got jummped that is not how it happen they went there with there friends to fight not a gang to me but just a group of boys wanted to fight, just like my son dumb to go but did and now he has been labled as a gang member and has a strike
cleyva: “just like my son dumb to go but did and now he has been labled as a gang member and has a strike…”
Yes, kids do stupid things. Frankly, this is where the educational system should come in. We need police officers to go into schools and warn kids what happens if they are at the wrong place at the wrong time…
“just a group of boys wanting to fight” can be construed as a “gang”, which young men/their parents need to learn. My son was the victim of gang violence right here in “safe” Davis, so I am not particularly sympathetic towards those involved in gangs. But I do think kids can get inadvertantly sucked into a fracas without meaning to. In the aftermath, it is then hard for law enforcement to sort out who the bad guys are…
E Roberts Musser, your son too
Bottom line here is the DA’s of Yolo County do not care about this case at all. They just want admittance to being a “Gang” member. Had this role been reversed and the group of so called “Broderick Boys” been attacked,would this be a big issue? I think we all know the answer. If he DA’s of yolo county get grant money ,maybe they should be using it for gang and drug prevention at the schools so these kind of events do not carry onto the streets. The sooner all of you doubters wake up and realize whats really going on in the broderick neighborhood maybe then we all as a community can join together and expose our crooked DA’s for what this is all really about. AN INJUNCTION!!!!
David,
“everytime they even get a traffic stop they end up getting their car searched. It’s a real problem.”
Are validated or admitted “gang members” constitutionally protected from unlawful searches and seizures? Are any of these “gang members” on parole or probation? Did they consent to these searches? It’s definitely a problem if their rights are being violated, but it’s not clear to me that that’s the case. The problem, too, is that people don’t know their rights.
valerie,
“If he DA’s of yolo county get grant money ,maybe they should be using it for gang and drug prevention at the schools so these kind of events do not carry onto the streets.”
Do you think the DA’s office is receiving grant money for prosecuting gang crimes? I have not found any documentation to that effect?
BTW, to ALL, are we still of the belief that grant money is a potential motivator behind the gang admission plea agreements, despite there being no such grant according to the County’s “Functional Charts”? If anyone has additional information, let us know.
ERM, “Sounds like a gang to me…”
But not the legal definition of a criminal street gang? Of the two, which is most relevant to this case?
Thank God that the judege is fianlly steppin up and saying something to put the plaintiffs in check. this trail is a waste of time and money….just like cleyva, my step-son is also one of the boys involved in the memorial park fight….and it was not by far a gang fight….however the DA forced these to take plea deals which said that they are gang members or admitting to gang crimes so that they would not get a harsher sentence.
things happen, kids fight….life goes on. that doesn’t mean that they are hard-core gang members out to destroy the neighborhood.
Superfluous Man,
What is the motivation for the DA’s office to get this injunction to pass for? I agree with you that people do not know their rights. But,this is so relevant to what the real problem is here. This is all for gain by the DA’s of yolo county and a whole community has to suffer for it. I am sure there is some knuckle heads in your community, if they commit a crime they should be punished. But why does a gang charge have to come along with it. Lets talk about the real motivation here from the yolo county DA’s.
I am happy to hear that Judge White is insisting on hearing from real people that live in the community. I am hopeful that Judge White will continue to insist that the DA’s office bring forth real evidence of the need for a gang injunction–especially if others are claiming that the DA has orchestrated this gang problem.
mistyd,
“just like cleyva, my step-son is also one of the boys involved in the memorial park fight….and it was not by far a gang fight….however the DA forced these to take plea deals however the DA forced these to take plea deals which said that they are gang members or admitting to gang crimes so that they would not get a harsher sentence.”
In your post, I did not hear you once deny that your step-son is, a gang member, just that it was not a gang fight. Did your step-son simply admit to being a gang member to avoid the possibly harsher sentence he could face if convicted by a jury of his peers?
What’s more, as your step-son was most likely advised of by his attorney, he had every RIGHT to decline to accept the prosecution’s plea deal and take his case to trial at which point his attorney would (should anyway) zealously defend him in open court before a judge and jury.
valerie,
“What is the motivation for the DA’s office to get this injunction to pass for? I agree with you that people do not know their rights. But,this is so relevant to what the real problem is here. This is all for gain by the DA’s of yolo county and a whole community has to suffer for it. I am sure there is some knuckle heads in your community, if they commit a crime they should be punished. But why does a gang charge have to come along with it. Lets talk about the real motivation here from the yolo county DA’s.”
What is the motivation? I don’t know for sure, but money doesn’t seem to be it because I see no mention of any gang grant in their 2009-10 budget. Does the DA’s office receive grants for prosecuting various crimes: yes. But for prosecuting gang crimes, the budget does not indicate that they do.
The motivation could be that DA Reisig really thinks this injunction is in the best interest of the public, isn’t that possible? Despite what you or I may think about him or the injunction or the purported gang activity in B&B, he may have nothing but the best of intentions, but is going about it in such a way that is (or will) actually causing the community to “suffer.”
I suspect you believe that the DA has some ulterior motive(s). It could be political grand standing, I suppose. It could be that if he “gave up” on the injunction, after realizing that it’s ineffective or the effort futile, that he would look “weak” or admit that his claim to fame if you will, is not so hot. No elected official wants to look bad, so saving face is a possible motive, I suppose.
You want to talk about the “real” motivation behind the DA’s gang injunction/prosecution of gang crimes and I say have at it. What do you think his real motivations are?
Re: comments to the effect that kids get into fights and its no big deal.
I agree that it doesn’t need to be a big deal; and that authorities do not necessarily need to be involved, if the kids understand how to fight honorably and stick to honorable fighting tactics.
An honorable fight was part of an adolescent ritual for many young guys when I was growing up; the objective which was to assert dominance or redress greviances–when I was growing up, in junior high and up until about 10th grade, two kids might agree to have a fight after school, in a designated place. A circle of friends and other spectators would surround the combatants, each of the combatants would normally have several of their friends cheering them on. The spectators were there to make sure the fight did not get out of hand. It was understood that the fight was fists only (no weapons); and the fight was usually over when one of the fighters fell down or gave up (it was dishonorable to give up right away though, without any kind of a fight!)–there was no kicking the guy when he’s down, or spectators interfering with the fight. I saw several of these fights and there were never any serious injuries (bloody noses, split lips, black eyes and bruises were common; and there were some bruised egos). After about 10th grade, when a lot of guys were getting big enough to really do serious damage with bare fists; the same thing was done but with both combatants wearing boxing gloves.
I’m out of touch with current generation of youth–has this tradition been completely lost; and kids only left with extreme options of only being little angels or thuggish little devils that seek to seriously injure the other party in a fight, gang up on them and use weapons, and keep on kicking them after they are down? Not really a fight, but a beating! I submit that the tradition of honorable fighting is healthy; would be sorry if it was gone (without an outlet of honorable fighting; theres liable to be ugly destructive breakouts of inter-personal violence, and the start of kids clustering into ‘gangs’.
Superfluous: I think most do not know their rights. I think some are probably improperly searched. I don’t know to what extent validation gives search authority. I do know that in a lot of these pleas it involves searchable probation for five years.
kimt: “I’m out of touch with current generation of youth–has this tradition been completely lost; and kids only left with extreme options of only being little angels or thuggish little devils that seek to seriously injure the other party in a fight, gang up on them and use weapons, and keep on kicking them after they are down? Not really a fight, but a beating! I submit that the tradition of honorable fighting is healthy; would be sorry if it was gone (without an outlet of honorable fighting; theres liable to be ugly destructive breakouts of inter-personal violence, and the start of kids clustering into ‘gangs’.”
First of all, a fist to the fact can break a jaw, crush an eye socket, break bones. So there is no such thing as “honorable fighting” IMHO. However, the tenor of the fighting is very different now. It is more of a gang initiation to select a victim who cannot fight back (drunk, homeless, alone with no one else to protect him/her, small in size, slow-witted, etc.) and knife the victim, slug the victim in the head, push the victim into the side of a train, lure the victim to an unsafe place and beat the victim to near death. It is a harsh reality today…
correction: fist to the face
David, “I think most do not know their rights. I think some are probably improperly searched. I don’t know to what extent validation gives search authority. I do know that in a lot of these pleas it involves searchable probation for five years. “
It is surprising how many people aren’t aware that they can, for example, deny the officer permission to search his or her vehicle when asked for consent.
My point was, it’s only a “problem” if the searches are unlawful.
Being an admitted or validated gang member is not a crime, so how could that alone strip an individual of their right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures?
Two possibilities, one they are claiming that it gives them the right to search a car or second, they are using that to claim probable cause or actually a third, when they see gang pop up they look harder for a pretext by which to search the car.
Robert–
Like I said in my post, when the kids got bigger, boxing gloves were used.
The most serious injury I heard about was a high school fight where someone broke their nose.
I didn’t see that fight, but from what I heard it was a mutually agreed upon fight–afterward, just a quick trip to the doctor; but no lawyers or police ever became involved; by mutual approval of both parties in fight.
I guess part of the reason there were never any more serious injuries like you described is that the participants weren’t extremely vicious or sadistic (that I heard about); if a bigger guy was up against a smaller guy and clearly had the advantage; the bigger guy didn’t absolutely lambast the smaller guy and break his jaw; he’d tend to do something like just hit the smaller guy in the chest and knock him down. The smaller guy would then cry uncle and the fight was ended; but the smaller guy would have won respect from his opponent and from all the spectators (and those who heard about it) just for the fact of standing up to the guy and facing him.
I honestly think that such arranged fights released tensions and helped make for better behaviour–partly because if someone harassed or continuously disrespected someone; they knew they might have to face that person in the fighting ring (or a bigger friend of the person being harassed/disrespected).
Bullies weren’t respected and carried little or no influence in my junior high school and high school; they tended not to be bullies for long (there was always a tough ‘good guy’ who would put a stop to the bully’s behaviour)
Seems to me there are primal behavours that are part of our genetic legacy (we all have warriors in our ancestry); and they need some kind of an outlet in adolescence, before they are brought under control (hopefully) by adulthood. Rough sports (football, wrestling, etc.) can serve as that outlet for testosterone-laden teens; however one size doesn’t fit all and some kids seem to need to do 1-on-1 combat–if its well-managed, there need not be major damage done. In my day if a kid was challenged to a fight but had a real aversion to fighting; he could turn down the fight and not be subsequently bullied, but he would lose respect of many. Ocassionally, a friend would stand in for someone challenged to a fight; there was less loss of respect this way.
well of course kathleen m white is trying to prove that she’s not racist.
she’s not..she’s a gang member herself.
i don’t feel sorry for the mother of the child who’s stupid enough to wear a red t shirt in known gang territory.
seriously, perhaps the police should just step out of the ghetto and let the wheels of street justice take over.
they’ll kill each other off and the justice system will have saved some time and money trying to prosecute criminals who use bloggers like David to advocate for their rights.
i agree with you david. let the da and yolo county justice system just kind of leave the place alone for a while and before you know it…they’ll just kind of cancel themselves out.
who cares…..you obviously don’t want the police to do their jobs so good.. put your money where your mouth is..
ps. kathleen m white is a gang member herself..of course she wants to see some real “victims”
As a former resident of West Sacramento,I grew up in historic Broderick,which by the way was formally part of Sacramento along 3 streets of Oak Park and East Sacramento,I hung out and visited Sacramento with friends and were harassed with no knowledge of geographical whereabouts and so forth.If there’s a gang injunction-zero tolerance in “Broderick”,there should be one everywhere…
koyyayo – yea they seem to like to harassed people and now of days you dont even have to be hispanic if you live in broderick or west sac you are a “broderick boy” no matter what
Can anyone tell me when the injunction trial resumes? time,date,dept etc. I would like to attend. Does anyone know the stipulations in order to attend? I was told that if anyone testifies or gives a statement that they are not allowed in the court room during trial. Is this true? Does anyone know if there is a calendar with this information?
valerie- talke to yolanda