by Danielle Eden C. Silva and Teja Dusanpapudi
Argument over Testimony of Gang Expert
By Danielle Eden C. Silva
In Department 13, a 402 hearing (Evidence Code section 402 on admissibility of evidence) for the jury trial of Marco Antonio Medina brought up arguments on the testimony of the gang expert.
In court today, an officer testified who had encountered the defendant in a prior instance. The officer had pulled over a vehicle with an expired license plate to perform a legal traffic stop. He asked the occupants of the vehicle, a driver and the defendant, if they were on parole, to which Mr. Medina answered truthfully. Mr. Medina then stepped out of the car and sat on the curb as the officer questioned the driver, who had lied about her identity.
Mr. Medina, the officer testified, had been cooperative and had not been arrested or detained. He had openly admitted being a “Northerner” (referring to the street gang Norteños and affiliates) but did not reveal what subset. The officer was not sure if the 
defendant had been handcuffed but he was certain he had not been read his Miranda rights. The defendant had been allowed to walk while the driver had been arrested.
The defendant had had visible gang tattoos on the date in question. Several pictures were taken of Mr. Medina without his shirt to document his tattoos, including the Boston “B” and “VBN” (Vario Bosque Norte).
The officer shared he had review the field interview card of the interaction, the arrest report of the driver, and the ticket he had written prior to testifying during this hearing.
The officer was dismissed. The People began their argument by stating there was no reason to arrest the defendant and therefore no Miranda rights or handcuffs were needed. The defense submitted. The court decided the interaction had not been a custodial interview and the defendant was free to go as he chose. Not giving the Miranda rights or handcuffing was the appropriate course of action.
The defense shared they had several additional 402 hearings set up to schedule but they wanted to concentrate on the testimony of the gang expert.
The use of the gang expert to identify Mr. Medina’s associates as gang members contained foundational issues, mostly in the lack of evidence presented by the prosecution. The defense stated that the conclusions the gang expert would come to would stem from circumstantial evidence which the defense would not be able to further delve into. They argued that leaving the defense without a cross-examination would be unfair.
The prosecution, on the other hand, argued they did have a right to allow the gang expert to state an opinion and the jury would decide whether or not it was relevant. The prosecuting attorney drew off of People v. Sanchez (a California Supreme Court decision from 2016, holding that experts’ opinions can no longer be admitted strictly on the basis of their expertise), claiming that it would be unwise to have each and every officer testify to the gang status of each associate.
The court disagreed with the prosecution’s interpretation of People v. Sanchez (2016), claiming evidence still needs to be given, that allowed the opinion to be formed.
After clarifying this, the defense asked that the gang expert be heard at a hearing prior to appearing in front of the jury.
Evidentiary Hearing Precedes Medina Trial
By Teja Dusanapudi
In a rapid hearing before the jury trial beginning the very next day, the defense for Marco Antonio Medina requested a suppression of evidence obtained in a prior encounter between Mr. Medina and an officer – an encounter that was alleged by the defense to be an unjustified detention.
The hearing began with that officer, Randall Krantz of the Woodland Police Department, testifying as to the whereabouts and nature of his encounter with Mr Medina.
Officer Krantz testified that the encounter was on January 31 of 2015, at approximately 3:40 in the afternoon. At this time in Woodland, Mr. Krantz spotted a vehicle associated with one Clifford McAnally, who at that point had a warrant.
After leaving his patrol vehicle and moving toward Mr. McAnally’s vehicle, Officer Krantz encountered Mr. McAnally outside the vehicle with Mr. Medina, with whom Mr. Krantz had some previous familiarity. When asked of Mr. Medina’s location relative to the vehicle, Officer Krantz stated that he could not recall.
Upon encountering the pair, Officer Krantz called for backup, and when another officer arrived, they arrested Mr. McAnally.
Officer Krantz then asked Mr. Medina a series of questions from his field interview card to document the encounter, along with taking photos of him before releasing him.
During the questioning, Mr. Medina stated to the officer that he was a part of the Norteño gang.
Upon the People’s inquiry as to whether Krantz knew that Medina was on probation at that time, Krantz said that he could not recall, but he did assert that he later marked that point on his field interview card.
The defense began by asking multiple questions regarding the nature of Officer Krantz’s encounter with Mr. Medina, to which Krantz replied that he could not recall exactly how the encounter began, but that Mr. Medina acted cooperatively.
Upon questioning by the defense as to the presence of handcuffs in this encounter, Mr. Krantz stated that Mr. McAnally had been handcuffed but could not recall whether Mr. Medina had been, with the photos taken at the time not displaying any handcuffs on Mr. Medina’s person.
The defense then inquired as to the circumstances that would require the use of handcuffs, specifically in regard to a situation wherein one officer encountered two persons, with one having a warrant, in reference to the scenario presented by Officer Krantz.
Mr. Krantz responded that it would depend on the situation itself, and while he might use handcuffs if threatened, that threshold would have to be met first.
The defense asked Officer Krantz if he had given Mr. Medina a Miranda warning, to which Officer Krantz replied that he could not recall.
When directly questioned by the judge as to whether or not he knew Mr. Medina was on probation when he interviewed him, Officer Krantz stated again that he could not recall. When further asked if there was anything within the encounter that would count as a violation of probation, Officer Krantz stated that Mr. Medina was wearing gang colors, but that would not be counted as a serious offense.
The defense ended by asserting that Mr. Medina was held under warrantless detention without reasonable suspicion, and that officers could not justify detention retroactively with later probation information. For those reasons, the defense requested a suppression of Mr. Medina’s statements during the encounter, including his statement of being part of the Norteño gang.
The People responded by refuting the nature of the encounter as a detention, citing the cooperative communication between Officer Krantz and Mr. Medina and the non-existence of handcuffs in the situation.
Ultimately, the court refused the request to suppress the evidence, circling back to the question of the encounter being a detention, a quality that was found to be lacking – as the main focus of the officer at the time was Mr. McAnally.
Before ending the session, the court announced that the jury trial would begin the next day.
