It was an ordinary communication sent out on September 3, 2011, by the West Sacramento Police Department depicting a murder that had occurred the evening before.
Two suspects were attempting to flee the scene and hide in nearby bushes when they were located by responding officers. The suspects were identified as Billy Wolfington, a 28-year-old white male from West Sacramento and Shannon Silva, a 30-year-old white male from West Sacramento. Both suspects were on California Department of Corrections Parole.
The report goes on to say that Mr. Wolfington and Mr. Silva were arrested on murder and conspiracy to commit murder charges. Both are being held without bail at the Yolo County Jail.
Lt. Tod Sockman of the West Sacramento Police Department told the Vanguard on Sunday that there is no further information available.
What the communication does not note is that Billy Wolfington was a central figure in the first West Sacramento Gang Injunction, as well as a defendant in the second one in which Judge White ordered the injunction imposed earlier this year.
Mr. Wolfington was part of District Attorney (at the time just a Deputy) Jeff Reisig’s plan to get the original gang injunction imposed with a minimal fight – a strategy that would backfire.
The district attorney in that first gang injunction only served one person, Billy Wolfington, who at the time was an alleged Broderick Boy who didn’t even live in West Sacramento. On January 5, 2005, the district attorney filed a proof of service on Mr. Wolfington.
“If there had been proper notice, the state would have to provide clear and convincing evidence that they were gang members,” said Anne Brick, an attorney with ACLU, to the News and Review in a 2007 article.
No other gang members mentioned in the case were personally served with notice of the district attorney’s complaint against the Broderick boys, and thus they were not given notice that an injunction was pending, and therefore they were given no opportunity to appear in court on their own behalf to fight against the accusations.
According to a 2005 article in the Sacramento News and Review, “The district attorney argued that by picking Wolfington as a sort of ‘agent of service’ for the criminal street gang, news of the injunction would travel throughout the Broderick Boys organization, and anyone who wanted to argue against it could appear at the court hearing.”
At the time, Professor Mike Vitello told the News and Review that he “sees serious problems with the way the district attorney handled notifying those who might come under the rules of the injunction. He said there was only a ‘hope and a prayer’ that an individual like Wolfington could or would really notify all gang members – and others who might not be gang members – that the injunction was coming.”
“What if I wanted to come to court and say I’m not a part of this gang? What if I wanted to come and say this injunction is unconstitutional? This doesn’t let me do that,” Professor Vitello explained. “To say this was adequate notice, to me, seems fanciful.”
As Rick Gore, a former Yolo County investigator recalled in his infamous 2008 letter, “I remember you telling me that you specifically selected Mr. Wolfington for being a less than ‘smart person,’ you said he was ‘too stupid’ to show up for court, he lived out of the area (in Sacramento) and he would likely not tell anyone.”
He continued, “At the time, I specifically requested additional service packets from you, to serve other gang members and you told me, very strictly, that you did not want this getting out, wanted it kept secret to ensure it would pass and you wanted only one person served. You were very concerned that if this got out and the ACLU got involved, the injunction would not pass. You told me that it was much harder for them to overturn it once it was passed.”
He added, “I also feel you misled the appellate court when you argued, as an officer of the court, that serving only one person during the initial injunction was intended to result in the word getting out to the rest of the Broderick Boys. You and I know that the opposite was true and Wolfington was not high up in the organization and was not expected to pass the word to the others.”
Indeed, court records indicate, “When Investigator Gore gave Mr. Wolfington the notice, he asked Mr. Wolfington if he was a Broderick Boy and Mr. Wolfington responded, ‘Yeah.’ “
They add, “Investigator Gore told Mr. Wolfington that there would be a court hearing on Monday, January 3, 2005, at 8:30 a.m., if he wanted to appear. Investigator Gore also told Mr. Wolfington that he was looking for any other Broderick Boys who would want to appear. Mr. Wolfington told Investigator Gore that he would not be appearing.”
When Mr. Wolfington failed to show up in court to contest the injunction and neither did any other alleged members of the gang, Judge Thomas Warriner, seeing no opposition in attendance, simply granted a permanent injunction on Feb. 3, 2005.
It was a massive miscalculation by the District Attorney’s office that would cost them nearly four years and a six-month trial, in addition to pending appeals.
Attorneys opposing the original gang injunction claimed that “the Broderick Boys was not an unincorporated association, and service on Billy Wolfington did not comply with California law because no mailing was done and there was no showing of Wolfington’s gang status.” In addition, they argued that service on one alleged gang member of unknown rank violated due process.
The DA on the other hand argued that when Mr. Wolfington was served notice while at the police station to complete his gang registration papers, he admitted gang membership but said he would not appear, moreover he was then seen “talking to another gang member, while a third member was “several” yards away.”
The district attorney argued this method of service was proper, but according to the court records, he later conceded that service on one member of an unincorporated association was “not necessarily constitutionally adequate.”
In the appellate court ruling on April 23, 2007, the court held, “The district attorney served only Billy Wolfington, a single gang member of unknown rank, trusting that he would spread the word.”
The court added, ”However, when he was served, Wolfington immediately said we would not appear in the proceeding, i.e., he would not oppose the People’s request for an injunction against The Broderick Boys.”
Thus they ruled, “Under these circumstances, even if service on Wolfington complied with state law regarding service of process, the service on him alone was not reasonably calculated to apprise the gang and its other members of the pending action.”
Later they indicated, “The declarations show that Billy Wolfington is a member of the Broderick Boys, but say nothing about his rank.”
The court wrote, “The district attorney knew of ‘veteranos’ and ‘shot callers’ yet served only Billy Wolfington, whose rank is unknown but who was characterized as a ‘soldier’ at oral argument in this court; further, when served Wolfington disavowed any intention to appear. Thus, whether he would tell others was a matter of chance.”
They added, “On this record, service on Billy Wolfington alone was insufficient under state law absent proof that he was of sufficient rank and character within the Broderick Boys that it is reasonable to infer that service on him effectively apprised the gang of the pendency of the legal proceeding.”
The arrest of Billy Wolfington on murder charges likely does not change the fact that the DA erred in his initial calculation that he could get away with noticing just one alleged gang member. The lengthy trial last year that ended early this year saw a number of named defendants, including Mr. Wolfington.
During the trial, in mid-October, Mr. Wolfington was part of an exchange between Defense Attorney David Dratman as he was cross-examining Joe Villanueva.
Mr. Dratman asked Joe Villanueva about Billy Wolfington, who Mr. Dratman directly represents in this trial. He asked Detective Villanueva questions about his arrest, but the detective could not remember much.
After a series of lengthy questions about the arrest, Mr. Dratman asked the detective what Mr. Wolfington did for the Broderick Boys gang. Detective Villanueva requested a 1040 privilege. This is the part of the evidence code that allows a public entity to refuse to disclose “official information” or “information acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and not open, or officially disclosed, to the public prior to the time the claim of privilege is made.”
Mr. Dratman became angered by this and argued that it was crucial for the defense to know what Mr. Wolfington did for the gang in order to place things into context and understand why he was arrested on a particular occasion – an arrest that never made it to this civil proceeding.
Judge White, however, granted Detective Villanueva the privilege, and took the court reporter, the detective and herself into her chambers.
When they came back out, Mr. Dratman requested that whatever was said should be reconsidered by Judge White, and should not affect her decision when concluding the trial because the defense is unaware of what was stated without their presence. Judge White said the confidentiality of what was spoken will not affect her decision.
Unfortunately, given the politics involved in the gang injunction, it is likely that the new arrest of Mr. Wolfington on murder charges and his subsequent trial will become a centerpiece in the DA’s case that attempts to justify his anti-gang policies and the gang injunction itself.
What we do not know is whether this was an actual gang incident or yet another isolated crime, allegedly committed by a person who happens to be a gang member.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Interesting, why do you think the gang connection wasn’t mentioned? Or would it be typical for the DA to wait until later in the process to bring up potential gang involvement? Has Mr. Silva surfaced before?
[quote]Unfortunately, given the politics involved in the gang injunction, it is likely that the new arrest of Mr. Wolfington on murder charges and his subsequent trial will become a centerpiece in the DA’s case that attempts to justify his anti-gang policies and the gang injunction itself.[/quote]
Well it certainly weakens the credibility of those who claim there is no gang activity in West Sac.
[quote]Well it certainly weakens the credibility of those who claim there is no gang activity in West Sac.[/quote]
How is that exactly? There’s been not even an official mention that this was a gang-motivate and yet you jump to that conclusion.
No one claims that there’s no violence in West Sacramento.
[quote]would it be typical for the DA to wait until later in the process to bring up potential gang involvement?[/quote]
Charges can and are added later to the sheet depending on what else turns up during the investigation. For this defendant however, I would think that the DA would be dying to find a gang motivation for this murder. The absence of gang charges at the outset suggest that there were no obvious signs that this was a gang crime, signs such as particular clothing, particular phrases used or hand signs, or if the deceased was a gang opponent.
Absent any of that however, there’s always the claim that this was just done just to put in work for the gang to improve the perpetrator’s status or to just generally spread fear which would supposedly benefit the gang… show some gruesome photos, play a tape of someone screaming, throw in some predicate crimes from up and down the state — easy as pie! If the excerpts of Mr Gore’s letter from above about dishonest conduct are to be believed then that sort of thing is probably underway already at the DA’s office.
[quote]ERM: Well it certainly weakens the credibility of those who claim there is no gang activity in West Sac.
Dark Ages: How is that exactly? There’s been not even an official mention that this was a gang-motivated incident and yet you jump to that conclusion.
[/quote]
Are you really trying to argue Wolfington was not a gang member? See below:
[quote]What the communication does not note is that Billy Wolfington was a central figure in the first West Sacramento Gang Injunction, as well as a defendant in the second one in which Judge White ordered the injunction imposed earlier this year.[/quote]
[quote]Later they indicated, “The declarations show that Billy Wolfington is a member of the Broderick Boys, but say nothing about his rank.”[/quote]
This is an unusual instance when a black victim of violence is hurt (or in this case killed) allegedly by a white (or white Latino) person. That occurs in 11.5% of the cases in which blacks are victims of violent crimes.
The USDOJ statistics ([url]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf[/url]) show that when a black American is the victim of a violent crime, 77.7% of the time the alleged perpetrator is also African-American or a black born outside the U.S. (For white victims, the alleged perpetrators are white or white Latino 69.7% of the time.)
Here are how the percentages break down when blacks are victims of violent crimes:
Black — 77.7%
White* — 11.5%
Other** — 8.2%
Multi — 2.6%
*Note 1: The white perpetrator number includes whites who are also Latino/Hispanic.
**Note 2: “The other offender race category includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, and other Pacific Islanders. The two or more race category includes offenders who were of more than one race. Excludes data in which race of the offender was unknown.”
Note 3: I don’t know exactly where the brown-skinned Latino fits in with these numbers.
Note 4: My guess is that the DOJ numbers overstate inter-racial crime percentages, because I suspect they under-count crimes of domestic violence which go unreported. Those are overwhelmingly within the same race.
[quote]Are you really trying to argue Wolfington was not a gang member? See below:
‘What the communication does not note is that Billy Wolfington was a central figure in the first West Sacramento Gang Injunction, as well as a defendant in the second one in which Judge White ordered the injunction imposed earlier this year.’
Later they indicated, “The declarations show that Billy Wolfington is a member of the Broderick Boys, but say nothing about his rank.”[/quote]
GREAT POINT!
Where are all those [“MANY” as lossely defined by David Greenwald] posters who previously asserted that BB’s did not exist and the like?
[quote]In the appellate court ruling on April 23, 2007, the court held, “The district attorney served only Billy Wolfington, a single gang member of unknown rank, trusting that he would spread the word.”[/quote]
Appellate court record clearly denotes that a particular person is a member of a particular gang…
[quote]court records indicate, “When Investigator Gore gave Mr. Wolfington the notice, he asked Mr. Wolfington if he was a Broderick Boy and Mr. Wolfington responded, ‘Yeah.’ “[/quote]
Hmmmm…..
Too bad the DA was unable to keep this guy off the streets.
[quote]Are you really trying to argue Wolfington was not a gang member?[/quote]
Nowhere do I argue that he is not a gang member. The issue is whether the incident happened for a gang purpose or for something else. Can you really not comprehend that concept?
[quote]GREAT POINT![/quote]
Not really. It’s shows little comprehension of the issues at trial. There was never any dispute that there are people who say they are Broderick Boys and Broderick Girls or norte or xiv or whatever. What that means exactly and how connected the individuals are who are claiming those things is what was probed and challenged during the trial.
Whether you agree or not that it’s possible for a admitted gang member to have committed a crime which was not intended as anything to do with the gang, it seems that you aren’t even able to comprehend that distinction to begin with.
You know something that is getting me is that everybody on here is comparing this arrest to a gang crime. The “Broderick Boys/Girls” are allegdly a hispanic gang….the crime committed was a murder allegdly by 2 white men. I do not see any gang ties to this crime, other than the fact that Billy was the only person served in the first injunction. Crimes happen every damn day….does that mean that everything is gang related? No it doesn’t! Today a man went on a shooting spree and killed people in Carson City….was that gang related? I wish everybody would think about things that before they go and just assume.
“Where are all those [“MANY” as lossely defined by David Greenwald] posters who previously asserted that BB’s did not exist and the like? “
On the other hand as someone pointed out to me, if Mr. Wolfington is indeed a gang member, the gang injunction being in effect, what does a murder in the heart of the safety zone say about the ability of the gang injunction to prevent such crimes?
We really don’t have to worry about the Broderick Boys because they are allegedly associated to the Norteno gang. Didn’t you listen to the expert put on by the defense in the last injunction trial. The Norteno gang doesn’t even exist.
DARK AGES: [i]”There was never any dispute that there are people who say they are Broderick Boys and Broderick Girls or norte or xiv or whatever.”[/i]
This issue seemed to be very much in dispute when the idea of the gang injunction came up. Many people–including some on this blog–said there was never a Broderick Boys gang and hence there could be no injunction against them, because they did not exist.
Here was part of an exchange ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=855:west-sacramento-community-members-rally-against-gang-injunction&catid=74:judicial-watch&Itemid=100[/url]) on this topic:
D. GREENWALD: [i]”One the issues that has been raised repeatedly by those against the gang injunction is that [u]there is no Broderick Boys gang[/u].”[/i]
PHIL BARROWS: [i]”I’m hear to tell you that there isn’t a Broderick Boys gang. That’s not to say that there isn’t gang members in West Sacramento, Woodland. The gang they’re really looking at is the Norteño Gang, and now they’re using the term Norteño. But [u]there’s never been a Broderick Boys Gang[/u]. That’s what we’re trying to prove, that there isn’t, and because there isn’t, and because this injunction has no effect on crime, then we don’t need to have an injunction.”[/i]
[img]http://mafiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Norteño-gang.jpg[/img]
@Rifkin…..I’m a Broderick Girl, but I’m not part of any gang….just to clear up any all questions….being from Broderick isn’t about being a part of a gang….being from Broderick is about family. To know the history of neighborhood, then you would fully understand that Broderick is compiled of multiple families that have been here for generations. My aunt’s father in law described it best when he said that the original Broderick Boys was a little league baseball team.
Furthermore, I’m sick of hearing about Nortenos and all that. Anybody who knows anything about prison gangs and the Broderick neighborhood knows that everybody from Broderick is considered “Drop-Outs”….meaning that they have no damn ties to the Nuestra Familia. Everybody from our neighborhood just wants to live life now. Yes, there are still some that have their problems….which I have made the point a thousand times that West Sac/Broderick has a DRUG problem, not a GANG problem.
David made an excellent point though….if the murder was committed in the heart of the safety zone….by a “Broderick Boy”….what the hell is the purpose of the injunction other than to make peoples lives hell.
[quote]This issue seemed to be very much in dispute when the idea of the gang injunction came up. Many people–including some on this blog–said there was never a Broderick Boys gang[/quote]
Rifkin, yes they did and thank you for all those underlined quotes but they are a waste because you obviously didn’t read my comment closely enough. Thank you for comment [b]mistyd[/b].
Let me put down what I wrote earlier for Rifkin’s sake and for others who are having trouble with comprehending this.
[quote]It’s shows little comprehension of the issues at trial. There was never any dispute that there are people who say they are Broderick Boys and Broderick Girls or norte or xiv or whatever. What that means exactly and how connected the individuals are who are claiming those things is what was probed and challenged during the trial. [/quote]
[quote]Not really.
It’s shows little comprehension of the issues at trial. There was never any dispute that there are people who say they are Broderick Boys and Broderick Girls or norte or xiv or whatever. What that means exactly and how connected the individuals are who are claiming those things is what was probed and challenged during the trial[/quote]
Try again my friend…
Are you knew to the area?
Um, “new” not knew…
…haste makes waste…
[quote]Whether you agree or not that it’s possible for a admitted gang member to have committed a crime which was not intended as anything to do with the gang, it seems that you aren’t even able to comprehend that distinction to begin with. [/quote]
DA, your lack has no bearing on the extent of my knowledge.
I have not indicated as you seem to suppose…
[quote]You know something that is getting me is that everybody on here is comparing this arrest to a gang crime. The “Broderick Boys/Girls” are allegdly a hispanic gang….the crime committed was a murder allegdly by 2 white men. I do not see any gang ties to this crime, other than the fact that Billy was the only person served in the first injunction. Crimes happen every damn day….does that mean that everything is gang related? No it doesn’t! Today a man went on a shooting spree and killed people in Carson City….was that gang related? I wish everybody would think about things that before they go and just assume. [/quote]
“Everybody?”
Really?
Misty, yes or no: was BW a self-validated Broderick Boy?
[quote]On the other hand as someone pointed out to me, if Mr. Wolfington is indeed a gang member, the gang injunction being in effect, what does a murder in the heart of the safety zone say about the ability of the gang injunction to prevent such crimes? [/quote]
Say it isn’t so Joe…
People commit crime despite our 24/7 police forces?
Really?
Rifkin wrote:
[quote]This issue seemed to be very much in dispute when the idea of the gang injunction came up. Many people–including some on this blog–said there was never a Broderick Boys gang and hence there could be no injunction against them, because they did not exist.[/quote]
Thanks submitting for the info…
[quote]I’m a Broderick Girl, but I’m not part of any gang….just to clear up any all questions….being from Broderick isn’t about being a part of a gang….being from Broderick is about family. [/quote]
Misty your straw man argument is weak at best.
No-one is asserting as you opine…
The issues pertain to the Broderick Boys…not a local boy (or girl) who happened to live in the former Broderick…
Give me a break…
[quote]Today a man went on a shooting spree and killed people in Carson City….was that gang related? I wish everybody would think about things that before they go and just assume.[/quote]
A little disingenuous, I see.
So far, the only person making the above claim is YOU!
Misty, what the CC shooter’s family is saying,however, is their relative had mental health issues…
…you know what they say about assume and you — not me…
[b]adremmer[/b], you win.
I give up.
Well, at least on this particular comments page.
I’d like to say though, that I was touched that you called me “friend.” I will try to be nicer from now on. Please forgive me if my comments in the past have been harsh-toned — I lose my patience quickly and I react. Who knows, it might happen in the future or even in the rest of this comment.
But before we part ways, let me just ask what it is you think I should “try again” at? [b]mistyd[/b] commented that she is a Broderick girl, but is not a gang member. So what meaning does that leave in a label of Broderick Boy or Girl? We should be asking, well if someone says that, what exactly do they mean by that, rather than just to say, oh well, he said he’s a Broderick Boy so he just self-validated himself. I leave the possibility open that the person could be in a gang, but they also might not be and that would be useful to determine. Of West Sac, if people there or anywhere are throwing up gang signs, or dressing a particular way, at some point it should be asked well where did they get that from? Again, it’s possible that they are true gang member and that’s where they got it, but they also might not be and that’s what would be useful to know. Another question is how connected the individuals are who have committed crimes allegedly as part of a gang.
But I agree with you that I do “lack” — meaning that I’ve run out of patience in schooling you on the basics of comprehension. I give up. But as you suggested, I will try again, but on another page, my friend.
daq PENNED:[quote]schooling you on the basics of comprehension[/quote]
roflmao…
Thanks for the laugh Mr. Kettle…
However, I’ll continue to rely on my training, education, & experience over another poster’s opinion concerning a matter of which I am more than familiar…
@AdRemmer….it’s people like you, who have no understanding of our neighborhood, that give our neighborhood a bad name. To have a full understanding of what being from Broderick is all about, you need to grow up here. We take pride in going to the little league park, and seeing EVERYBODY…and cheering on each other’s children. And by the way, our little leagues fields/softball diamonds/soccer fields….are right smack in the middle of the safety zone….supposedly the most dangerous area in all of west sacramento. Are you aware that judge White took a tour of the safety zone, and seen no gang activity?
People who are from Broderick are PROUD to be from Broderick….and when I say that I’m a Broderick Girl, tell me….did I validate myself? Not at all! All because Billy said that he was a Broderick Boy, in that one little statement you’re telling me that means that he’s a hard-core member of a gang. Your ignorance humors me. AdRemmer, do us a favor, and so some of your own research. Come to my neighborhood and speak to as many people as possible….enlighten yourself to the history and pride of the Broderick community….and then come back, and tell me if you still feel that being from Broderick is about being a part of a gang. Then I would like for you to research cases claiming “gang” ties….then look at tox reports of people committing these crimes, and tell me whether or not they were under the influence of a substance at the time.
@DarkAges….thank you for attempting to school AdRemmer….it is very apparent that he has a lot to learn, and considering that he is very closed minded isn’t going to get us anywhere.
mistyd
I have absolutely no knowledge of your neighborhood. So in order to improve my knowledge I have a couple of questions for you.
Sometimes when people seem to disagree ( especially this dramatically) it is because of misunderstanding.
To the best of your knowledge, is there, or has there ever been a gang which identified itself as the
“Broderick Boys”? What I am thinking is that if there ever has been one, this could be a usage misunderstanding with some people using the benign connotation as you are, while others are still using the more ominous connotation.
You have stated that your neighborhood has a drug problem, not a gang problem. Is it possible that some of these drugs are coming into the neighborhood as part of gang related activity, regardless of the name of the gang ? This could be another source of misidentification.
Misty wrote[quote][i]it’s people like you, who have no understanding of our neighborhood, that give our neighborhood a bad name. To have a full understanding of what being from Broderick is all about, you need to grow up here. [/i][/quote]
Unfortunately for you Misty – you assume way too much. I was born in East LA, and hung out in West Sac. Get over your it. You know nothing about my experiences.
Misty also penned: [quote]People who are from Broderick are PROUD to be from Broderick….and when I say that I’m a Broderick Girl, tell me….did I validate myself? [/quote]
AGAIN, no-one except YOU — ever made such a ridiculous assertion.
Clearly the answer is no. Hence, I did [b][i][u]NOT[/u][/i][/b] claim that you self-validated.
Misty permit me to suggest you try obtaining an education on the validation process as it pertains to CA law enforcement agencies; then you may be better able to refrain from such conclusory statements.
Clearly you emote more than debate…
medwoman posted: [quote]To the best of your knowledge, is there, or has there ever been a gang which identified itself as the
“Broderick Boys”? [/quote]
Nail hit squarely on head….
I’m sure we can agree that the following can be true:
* neighborhoods can change for the better…
* just as neighborhoods can be run down from good to bad…
Misty’s answer will portray just how intellectually honest she is.
It is very likely she is young and was not around back in the day…
mistyd yes or no does “Broderick” still exist?
Does [b][i][u]:EVERYBODY”[/u][/i][/b] in West Sacramento still call the former Broderick “Washington,” even though it is [b]ALL[/b] “WEST SACRAMENTO?”
BTW, mistyd when will you answer the question I posed to you above? [quote]Misty, yes or no: was BW a self-validated Broderick Boy? [/quote]
AdRemmer
It was never my intent to assess the “intellectual honesty” of mistyd. There are any number of possible intellectually honest responses to this question including ” I don’t know”, “not to the best of my knowledge”
“maybe before I was born”……
I suspect as you do that mistyd may be of an age where she may not know the full history of the community, but this has no bearing at all on her ability to determine what BW meant by his affirmative response to the question of whether he was or was not a Broderick Boy. Unless she knows him personally, she would have no way of knowing how he interpreted that term.
mw, point well taken however, mistyd made her bed…