by Misha Berman
This morning in Department 8 the case against Defendants Jason Lopez and Stephon Ramirez reconvened. Both Mr. Ramirez and Mr. Lopez are not in custody. Before the jury was let in, both the prosecution and defense attorneys discussed important matters regarding the case.
“I am ruling on a motion to exclude using the evidence of the gunshot residue because it is not appropriate for this section of the case,” stated Judge David Reed.
Judge Reed granting a motion not to admit residue from a gunshot into evidence, for this portion of the trial, was an example of the many important matters that were discussed before the jurors were called in. The prosecution then told Judge Reed that he has seven witnesses and Detective Anthony Herrera needs to testify as an expert witness. The prosecution also pointed out that one of their witnesses, a woman, will arrive at 3:30pm due to having to drive from Irvine.
“I won’t bring the jury until then,” responded Judge Reed, after the prosecution informed him about the fact that one of their witnesses could not testify until 3:30.
Judge Reed also stated that he would not grant another exclusion motion, one specifically not to include pictures from cellphones. Judge Reed then reviewed the photos to see which ones he would not exclude from evidence. Judge Reed decided not to include certain photos because some of them were “duplicative,” according to him.
One of the photos Judge Reed looked at was one where a little girl was dancing. Judge Reed stated that he was going to include this picture as evidence because he stated that the girl is doing gestures that are common in gangs.
“That is really prejudicial,” declared Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira, representing Mr. Ramirez.
After Ms. Sequeira and Mr. James Granucci, representing Mr. Lopez, objected to the photo, the prosecution and Judge Reed got into a debate on whether the photo of the little girl dancing and doing gestures that are common in gangs is enough evidence to use in this court case, or whether Judge Reed and the prosecution are being “prejudicial.” Mr. Lopez got really irritated and grunted in frustration and asked if he could have a break.
Judge Reed then decided that the court will have a 15-minute break. After 15 minutes, Officer David Asaro, a police officer for the West Sacramento Police Department, was called to the witness stand, without the presence of the jury. The prosecution was the first to ask questions. The first questions he asked were whether Officer Asaro was on his shift on Februrary 17, 2016, and, if he was working that day, whether he got any calls on that day and what they were for.
Officer Asaro responded that he was on shift on that day and he did receive a phone call because, according to him, one of the other officers working that day needed back up because of recognizing an “outstanding vehicle.”
“Why did you need to stop the vehicle?” asked the prosecution.
Asaro responded that the vehicle needed to be stopped because it might have been in a shooting. Officer Asaro then described what he did when he got to the area where the vehicle was, which was to stop the vehicle and have the people in the vehicle get out.
“When I looked at the FI (field identification) card the first names of the people in the car were something like Ramirez and ‘W,’” replied Asaro.
Officer Asaro then stated that, after he got all the people out of the vehicle, he took Mr. Ramirez into custody. Ms. Sequeira then stood up and asked Judge Reed if, on February 17, 2016, Asaro did not actually go to the area where the vehicle was until the Vallejo Police Department arrived there as well. Judge Reed said this happened.
“I don’t recollect whether Mr. Ramirez was a passenger or driver,” said Asaro.
Officer Asaro was then given the report so he could refresh his memory, and he then stated after reviewing the report that Mr. Ramirez was one of the passengers.
“Mr. Ramirez was detained while Vallejo police were arriving,” said Asaro.
Ms. Sequeira then pointed out that Officer Asaro didn’t say in the FI card that Mr. Ramirez had a tattoo. Asaro at first did not recall, but then Ms. Sequeira asked him to look at the FI card and tell her what he put in the tattoo section. He stated he did not include the tatoo.
“I am not sure why I did that even though it is not true,” explained Asaro.
The jurors were then brought in, despite indications they would only be brought in once the witness from Irvine arrived, and Officer Asaro was asked the same questions again, by both the defense and prosecution, that he was asked before the jurors were in the courtroom.
By Raya Zahdeh
The People v Ramirez and Lopez trial reconvened in the afternoon on August 24, 2016, in Department 8, Judge Dave Reed presiding. A few witnesses were called back briefly to continue giving their testimonies regarding the case.
The first witness called to the stand was Officer Meganya of the Salinas Police Department. He stated that he was on duty on January 16, 2008, and had been assigned to the violence suppression unit.
Around 4 PM that day, he recalled making lawful contact in Salinas with several men, including Jesse Diaz (an associate of the “Norteno” gang) and Stephon Ramirez. At this point, Officer Meganya was released from the witness stand.
The second witness to provide testimony was West Sacramento Officer Rinaldo Monterrosa. During Officer Monterrosa’s testimony, the attorney for the prosecution played footage from the officer’s in-car camera, which dated back to May 8, 2016.
The footage showed three men sitting curbside in the West Sacramento Police Department’s parking lot, facing three police officers standing in front of them. Officer Monterrosa also identified the alleged victim’s vehicle in that same parking lot.
The final witness of the day was Detective Anthony Herrera, also of the West Sacramento Police Department. Detective Herrera’s testimony focused mainly on his background, expertise, and experience with gangs and narcotics.
Detective Herrera explained that he keeps himself and law enforcement officials updated on what is going on among gangs in the streets by talking to various gang members while undercover. He also added that the “Broderick Brothers” gang is a subset of the larger “Norteno” gang.
The trial is going to resume on August 25, 2016, in Department 8 at 10 AM. Judge Reed anticipates that they will be finishing the evidence and will most likely continue with closing arguments on Friday, August 26, 2016.
By Ribhu Singh
On Thursday, August 25, 2016, the trial of Jason Lopez and Stephon Ramirez resumed in Judge David Reed’s courtroom. The defendants, two alleged members of the Broderick Boys gang of West Sacramento, are charged with the felonious attempted shooting of an inhabited vehicle with a semi-automatic firearm, with numerous enhancements for their alleged gang member status. Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes prosecuted the case, and attorneys Martha Sequeira and James Granucci represented the co-defendants.
The proceedings began with the recall testimony of a Yolo County criminologist, who, acting as a witness for the prosecution, provided insights into the firearm purportedly used by the two defendants in the shooting. The criminologist testified that she had performed the customary analysis, SEM/EDX (scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray analyses), of the firearms in the shooting, and she assured the court that the tests were done “according to trained experience.”
Deputy DA Hasapes inquired into the purpose of the test and also asked the expert witness to explain the significance of her findings to the court. The criminologist testified that the SEM/EDX testing was used to analyze the chemical residue left on firearms after shootings and also stated that the results of the analysis were characteristic and consistent with the firing of a pistol.
The defense objected to many of the witness questions, and both Ms. Sequeira and Mr. Granucci objected on the grounds of hearsay and foundation numerous times during Mr. Hasapes’ line of questioning. Forced to rephrase his questioning, Mr. Hasapes then inquired into the specificities of the SEM/EDX analysis and further questioned the witness regarding gunshot residue.
The witness responded, stating that she had performed 200 SEM/EDX tests in her career as a criminologist and that this particular test had yielded an above-average reading of particulates, the metric by which gunshot residue is measured. Mr. Hasapes asked her to elaborate on this abnormality and she stated that the average test yielded a gunshot particulate reading of five or six particulates, while this test had resulted in a reading of ten particulates.
Mr. Hasapes then asked the expert witness if it was possible for any of the residue in question to come from a police officer discharging their weapon, and the expert witness replied, stating that such a scenario was “possible but improbable that they came from a police officer.” Mr. Hasapes then asked about the potential ways, excluding the discharge of a firearm, by which gunshot residue could appear on a particular surface.
The expert stated that “gunshot residue could be present on the person or surface that a firearm touches after being discharged.”
Mr. Hasapes concluded his questioning by asking the expert witness whether or not the tests were reviewed, and the expert witness responded by telling Mr. Hasapes that the tests were reviewed by her supervisor.
As the direct examination was the result of a witness recall, the defense was unable to cross-examine, and the witness was excused.
The jury then broke for a short recess and then, shortly thereafter, was sequestered from the courtroom yet again for a lengthy sidebar between the defense and prosecution regarding the potential admissibility of Facebook pictures and captions as evidence.
The trial will reconvene tomorrow on August 26, 2016, at 9:00 AM in Department 8.
