by Antoinnette Borbon
After nearly three days of deliberation in the multi-defendant case, jurors told Judge David Rosenberg they could not reach a decision. The jury foreman was asked by Rosenberg whether, if they had more time to deliberate, they could reach a decision, but only one of twelve said yes.
But what we would learn from what they struggled with signaled a pause. Defense Attorney Jeff Raven explained to the family of one of the defendants, Jose Jimenez, that the jurors felt intimidated by the groups of family present during trial.
I sat through this trial from start to finish, and the only thing I witnessed was a large amount of Hispanic people bonding together to support their loved ones.
Being Hispanic myself, I know how the culture works. When one of your family members is sick, suffering or going through any type of tribulation such as this, you band together and are there for each other.
It is the way we were all raised within the Hispanic world. This is the true respect.
But is this what intimidated the jurors? No! It could have been the way Detective Perez had pointed out a suspected gang member to jurors during trial. It was his own words that, if a kid is in red and Hispanic, he may get stopped or suspected of being affiliated with a gang.
There was also false information given in regard to the arrest of the suspect in the shooting of defendant Gonzalez, which the Vanguard learned was a lie. No arrest has ever been made to date, per the District Attorney’s office itself.
It was clear today just what fear was put in the jurors’ minds, as they waited inside the courtroom to come out and leave once the family members were consoled.
This case screams of not only racial profiling but of purposeful dishonesty on the part of Det. Perez from the gang task force.
If a defendant is held accountable for his/her crimes, then so should an authority figure be held to answer for perjury!
But the families are hopeful – mostly hopeful for someone to step up and help change the injustices done in this county.
I found it interesting how the jurors told Judge Rosenberg they just didn’t have enough to convict – yet they could not acquit.
As Defense Attorney Raven argued in his closing argument, “The evidence is absolutely lacking on all these defendants.”
He stated we were all sympathetic to the victim Nichols being beaten up eight times, and that he too wants to see the people responsible caught.
“But we shouldn’t de-humanize these defendants. But let me go through it more methodically,” Mr. Raven argued, “The picture of Nichols shows virtually no injury.”
Keith Staten, attorney for Justin Gonzalez, began his closing argument first. He began with, “When you fish with a net, you catch things you didn’t mean to catch.” He said “I told you to use your common sense, but it means you have to follow the law.”
Mr. Staten said Mr. Gonzalez is not guilty. He said no credible identification or description was given of the young males. He said if you check the video, and check the receipts, no Cheetos were sold. He stated that Cheetos is a key part of this case.
Mr. Staten said there were no recorded statements. He stated law officers could have pushed “record,” but never did. He stated Nichols knew his attacker, who had several tattoos on the head and neck and wore a white shirt. Justin wore a black shirt.
Ava Landers began her closing statement with a thank you to the jurors. She stated, “I want to talk about another dolphin in the net. Ms. Landers said, “There is no evidence of DNA, no evidence of items, no Pepsi bottle? Right, there you have doubt.” She said, “You heard Beatty say Nichols was jealous, aggressive with a bad temper.” She stated, “Ozuna and Gonzalez were found walking leisurely down a community lane. Officer Wright stopped them because they were young and Hispanic.”
Landers went on to say, “Lets talk about identifying.” She said Beatty assumed they were the guys who assaulted Nichols because that is what the cops told her that night. She said Officer Lara asked only a couple questions, and then took the two to do an identification through a lineup where they may not have even been able to see. She stated, “Nichols and Beatty both were told they couldn’t identify them because they were caught up in the fight.” Landers pointed out, “Even the clerk told the officer he was too far away to see.” She said no officer took a statement that night from either the clerk or the blonde woman in the 7-Eleven.
The bottom line is that the jury could not find proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict – so why didn’t they just acquit?
On November 26, there will be an OR (own recognizance) hearing for the defendants, for release from custody.
“But just who put this fear in the minds of jurors is the million dollar question.”
Indeed, lol! Here’s a case where money really does buy influence. All that available grant money for fighting gangs is too tempting for local prosecutors and cops to pass up.
Biddlin ;>)/
“On November 26, there will be an OR (own recognizance) hearing for the defendants, for release from custody.”
Interesting that they have to stay in jail 2 for more days. County gets paid for every day they are in there.
Wonder if the jury would have been as afraid of a group of white family members in the courtroom.
Wonder if they were even afraid, or just not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The bottom line is that the jury could not find proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict – so why didn’t they just acquit?”
Because “the jury” DID find proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict. That’s pretty much a requirement for a hung jury.
While reporting trials for a daily paper, I covered a number of cases where post-trial interviews revealed strongly held, yet opposing, opinions about evidence of guilt. And, of course, there are instances where “the jury” (at least, 11 of them) found plenty of proof to convict–only to find itself hung by a single juror who held strong to a reasonable doubt finding.
JustSaying
Nine found them guilty. Two couldn’t. One remained unsure. It’s a perfect example of a hung jury. Ms Borbon needs to read up on the process before making such unenlightened statements.
didn’t sound like this was an 11-1.
a lot of defense attorneys question why a split decision itself isn’t enough evidence that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty. i know a lot of my colleagues when i used to be a defense attorney believed that anything short of a 12-0 should be an acquittal. since then, in my years as a prosecutor before becoming a desk jockey, i have a different view.
DP
Given your experience on both sides, what is your view of what the minimum should be for a conviction, and why ?
As a desk jockey, and one of the reasons i post under a psuedonym is that my comments can’t get linked to my boss, i think the whole system is a bit out of whack. this is a weak case, it’s not clear reading this what happened or whether people were identified properly, but i would say five to ten if the individual actually robbed and assaulted the victim.
I would like to post this article to Facebook. There should be a share article button 🙂
Many thanks to Borbon and the Vanguard for this great article.
530belinda
I think that a “share article” button is a great idea.
Perhaps that would be a thought for the new web site ?
Antionette: RE: “But is this what intimidated the jurors? No! It could have been the way Detective Perez had pointed out a suspected gang member to jurors during trial. It was his own words that, if a kid is in red and Hispanic, he may get stopped or suspected of being affiliated with a gang.
There was also false information given in regard to the arrest of the suspect in the shooting of defendant Gonzalez, which the Vanguard learned was a lie. No arrest has ever been made to date, per the District Attorney’s office itself.
It was clear today just what fear was put in the jurors’ minds, as they waited inside the courtroom to come out and leave once the family members were consoled.
This case screams of not only racial profiling but of purposeful dishonesty on the part of Det. Perez from the gang task force.
If a defendant is held accountable for his/her crimes, then so should an authority figure be held to answer for perjury!
Antionnette–I’m a bit puzzled by these statements you made. I wasn’t at the trial and don’t know much about it; but you are making some serious allegations–when making such serious allegations; would be good to provide some evidence backing up the allegations (or qualify your statements that these are just your impressions and ‘read’ on the situation).
If official gang task force members tried to intimidate me as a juror; I would regard them with contempt but would not feel intimidated. Do such officers have a reputation for going after jurors who have not rendered a verdict to their liking? Otherwise, what is there to fear? How about gang members, do they ever attempt to intimidate witnesses, lawyers, jurors and sometimes perform violent acts on people in such roles?
I don’t know whether the suspects are guilty or not; I’m just puzzled at your statements and would like to know their basis.
Respectfully,
jimt
“I would like to post this article to Facebook. There should be a share article button :-)”
There used to be. The new site is coming online January 2.
Dear 530belinda,
When I see a wonderful piece of journalism on this website, I copy & paste the website URL into the comments section of Facebook.
David, I look forward to the new site on January 2nd.