The case for the plaintiff largely consisted of police officers testifying, at times secondhand, about long ago forgotten cases which required frequent referrals to official reports and excepted hearsay statements made by suspects, defendants, and alleged gang members. More on this point shortly.
The defense is now in the process of presenting their case and their goal is to go block-by-block to show Judge Kathleen White that the average resident does not believe there is a public nuisance presented by the alleged Broderick Boys Gang. Key words, average resident, meaning non-expert. And they believe, meaning that in their experience, they have not firsthand experienced a nuisance from the gang.
The plaintiff’s tactic in cross-examination, I think, really misses the point. What they have attempted to do is, in part, present a large amount of evidence to each witness and attempt to get the witness to change his or her mind about whether or not there is a gang.
For instance, on Monday Deputy DA Jay Linden showed Linda Darfour a series of pictures, and she testified that she had not seen the depicted gang tattoos or graffiti in or around her neighborhood.
Following that line of questioning it would be safe to conclude that the witness, who has lived all her life in West Sacramento, had no idea idea what a gang member is, what one looks like, what one wears, how one lives, and what to look for. She lived and still lives in the safety zone, when the preliminary injunction was put in place. Her testimony would clearly contradict plaintiff’s contentions that there represents “recurring” gang activity and an ongoing nuisance in the community, because she lives in that community and has never seen it.
Just as the Judge allowed the plaintiff broad discretion to put together a big puzzle picture, the defense should also have the opportunity to put together a broad snapshot of the community.
However, Mr. Linden did not stop there. He also went on through the entire list of the named defendants in the trial. The witness said that said she knows of none.
The only criminal case she had heard of was the AMTRAK case. She also heard of the conviction in that case. This still, however, has not impacted her opinion about there being no gang.
Finally, gaining little to no traction, Mr. Linden attempted to test what the witness knew of the gang injunction. The defense ultimately objected and this time the objection was upheld by Judge White.
She ruled that Mr. Linden was trying too hard to change the witness’ opinion, to the point that it became badgering the witness. He was basically “slapping the witness around” to get an explanation and Judge White would not allow it. She stated that the witness’ opinion was that there was no gang and there was no point in inquiring too much into it.
On Tuesday, Christina Velez was cross-examined. She has lived in West Sacramento all of her life and has worked for the Washington Unified School District as a bus driver. She explained her bus routes, throughout her many years as a bus driver. She is also highly involved in the Broderick and Bryte communities. She coached the girls’ softball league and was also involved in the city’s little league. She coached soccer in the past, was involved with her local church, takes plenty of walks and bike rides, and has not seen nor witnessed any violent crimes or violence in her community.
Deputy DA Ryan Couzens attempted to treat the witness as an expert witness. According to the case law he provided, this witness can be considered an expert witness based on her constant involvement in the community.
After voir dire, he sought to exclude her testimony, saying her expertise did not establish proper grounds for a criminal street gang and that therefore she is not a credible witness/expert.
Once again Judge White denied the plaintiff’s motion, ruling that this was not a criminal case and she is not an expert defining a criminal street gang or criminal street gang activity. “She is a witness in a civil case in which you are requesting an injunction where she is a member of the community and is able to say of the continuing ‘nuisance,’ if any, that she has been able to observe driving constantly in the safety zone. Request denied.”
Ms. Velez testified that she believes that they do not need the injunction at all. She has concerns regarding the validation process because her grandsons have been harassed by police and school officials.
Mr. Couzens then took over the cross-examination and learned that she knows a large number of the named defendants, from busing them to school and from the community.
When asked a number of them by name, she testified that she did not believe they are gang members.
Mr. Couzens then told her they have admitted to being Broderick Boy gang members.
Ms. Velez testified that some say they are because they do not know what they are doing and just want to fit in. In other circumstances, they say it for a plea bargain on their convictions.
Cesar Morales stood out from all the ones she was asked about. Mr. Couzens asked her if she knew him, and Mrs. Velez said he was like a son to her and then began crying.
He was very close to her family and played soccer for many years. She knows about the crime he was convicted of, and also knows the victim of that crime.
She strongly believes that he was drunk and did not intentionally pull the trigger. She also believes that he was not a gang member.
Community perception is very important in establishing a nuisance. If a large number of residents have never been the victims of the gang’s activity, it goes a long way toward rebutting the plaintiff’s view that there is an ongoing nuisance and threat to the public safety of the community.
It also highlights the chief weakness of the plaintiff’s case, that they failed to put on everyday residents who would testify that they feel unsafe and threatened in the safety zone.
The DA’s Office argues that this is due to the fact that the witnesses are intimidated by the gang. But they have to prove that, and they cannot merely assert or stipulate to that as a reason.
I have been to the safety zone, sometimes at night. I do not feel particularly unsafe there and certainly I have been to many areas where I was far more fearful of my own safety. I think this is a tough case to prove but we shall see what Judge White believes.
Named Defendants’ Testimony
The plaintiff was largely able to produce a case based on the testimony of police officers, the use of arrest reports, and judicial notice of the findings of a court of law, whether the adjudication occurred by trial or by plea agreement.
The problem, as we quickly discovered, is that produces a very lopsided record. Evidence that indicts the defendants is introduced, and mitigating evidence that would come up at trial, with the ability to refute that evidence, is very limited when there are no material witnesses and the defendants cannot come forward.
To that end, the defense presented a motion to bring in defendants named in the trial who are in prison at the moment. Judge White heard the basis for this yesterday, but concluded that she does not see a relevance to their testimony because these members are no longer in the community and at the time are not presenting a nuisance.
Also, she feels that it will take too long for the DOJ to get back to her and present the witnesses in time for the trial, resulting in a possible mistrial.
Defense Attorney Mark Merin begged for her to consider submitting the request because it will not hurt the trial, if they are able to present them in good time. If not, it is still okay because they have their expert witnesses coming in soon.
Mr. Merin strongly feels that their testimony is crucial to understanding their roles, if any, in the gang, their roles in the community, why they joined the gang, why they committed crimes. Who better to hear it from than the “gang members” themselves?
He argued, we have only heard from police witnesses who have alleged their gang membership, resulting in heresay testimony.
Judge White denied the request based on relevance, but told the defense that if they are able to provide relevance to their testimony she will consider allowing them to testify.
For me, the relevance is that none of the incidents described are black and white. Some of these individuals admitted to gang membership as part of plea agreements. Others committed crimes that were not gang related and were not charged with the gang crimes.
Allowing their testimony would put incidents into context and allow the Judge to see the full color of the incident, not the simple black and white report from the police, which is generally subject to bias. There is a reason we do not try individuals with police reports and police testimony only. We put on a range of witnesses and the defendant is allowed to testify on his own behalf.
Here that is not the case. Yes it is a civil trial, but if we are considering these as justifications for an injunction, why not get the full story and then decide?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Regarding the use of police testimony and reports, being used to support the DA’s contention that a nuisance exists, but not allowing the defendants to tell their side of the story; It was Barry Melton, Yolo County’s recently retired Public Defender, who told me that the only people who lie on the witness stand more than criminal defendants, are police officers.
If so called gang members used an admission of gang affiliation as a bargaining chip to reduce their sentence, they should be allowed to testify to that fact. To me, this method of plea bargaining borders on coercion. The evidence that would be presented by these individuals is very relevant to the validity of the DA’s claims.
As this case moves forward, it’s looking more and more like Mr. Reseig is labeling anybody he can as a gang member in order to bump up his budget. Just follow the money.
dmg: “Ms. Velez testified that she believes that they do not need the injunction at all. She has concerns regarding the validation process because her grandsons have been harassed by police and school officials.”
I believe this (“her grandsons have been harassed by police and school officials”) may hurt this witness’s credibility.
dmg: “Here that is not the case. Yes it is a civil trial, but if we are considering these as justifications for an injunction, why not get the full story and then decide?”
Bc 1) they are no longer members of the community – the police/injunction got them off the streets; 2) their credibility would be highly questionable. I’m not really seeing the relevancy of this testimony either. The better argument might be that these gang members are now in jail, so whose left to bother anyone?
Assuming the convicts show up and claim that they were coerced into falsely confessing they’re gang members, how would you decide whether they were lying to the court then…or now? The only sure thing it would prove is that they lied. Sometime.
Ummm, cops lying? I would think this would have a lot to do with who is running things. Cops are not at the top of the food chain, the Dep DA’s are higher up. Any Dep DA worth his salt will not allow or put up with a cop lying or giving false testimony. They are the checks and balances. However, if the top DA, Jeff Reisig, sets the standard as tolerating “white lies” or tolerating “selective forgetting” or “selective memory” or as long as the lie, mis-truth or confusions of the facts, helps the DA get his wins and helps the DA get his big prison terms, then that changes everything. I still believe most cops are honest and would not do this, but with the right pressure from the right people, some people do what it takes to keep their job and not have DA Reisig after you.
Corruption starts and stops at the top and right now in Yolo, Mr. Reisig will never go after a cop for helping his case, but would not hesitate to go after a cop it that cop spoke out against him or was not a “Reisig team player”. So like a lot of things, Mr. Reisig is a position to manipulate the facts so he always looks like he is the victim when someone speaks out against him and he is always the “anointed one” when he gets to put out his propaganda “false and misleading” press releases. When DA Jeff Reisig gets caught lying it is a misunderstanding of the facts or taking something the wrong way or he had no recollection of that, when other people do it, it is called lying and perjury.
It continues to amaze me how many people can be fooled by Mr. Reisig’s “forked tongue”. I hope the Judge and others see the light.
“Corruption starts and stops at the top and right now in Yolo, Mr. Reisig will never go after a cop for helping his case, but would not hesitate to go after a cop it that cop spoke out against him or was not a “Reisig team player”
With many contenders for the distinction, this has to be the most outrageous remark ever uttered on this forum. Author, please identify instances where any DA has gone after any police officer for not being a “team member?’ Since a DA has county-wide authority in the discharge of his duties, can you really say that every Yolo police department and the Sheriff’s Department allows this man to bully their entire membership as described here?
For that matter, if a Public Defender knows of so many instances of police officers committing perjury, how many times did he take this matter up with the State Attorney’s Office and request prosecution? One realizes that this outrageous remark was hearsay twice removed, but the source was named and can’t go unchallenged.
ERM: dmg: “Here that is not the case. Yes it is a civil trial, but if we are considering these as justifications for an injunction, why not get the full story and then decide?”
Bc 1) they are no longer members of the community – the police/injunction got them off the streets; 2) their credibility would be highly questionable. I’m not really seeing the relevancy of this testimony either. The better argument might be that these gang members are now in jail, so whose left to bother anyone?
Their credibility would be highly questionable because? You are not seeing the relevancy of this kind of testimony because? The police/injunction got them off the streets because the DA and his so called gang experts say they are gang members, and have allegedly confessed to being a gang member.Correct? Because credibility from a gang expert is truthful and a gang members is not?
To valerie:
Inre credibility: A prisoner is in jail bc s/he committed a crime. That means at some point s/he decided not to obey the law. It is not a stretch to believe s/he may not be a truthful person, especially if s/he pled innocent and was found guilty. Nor is s/he likely to admit gang affiliation, bc it could get him/her into legal trouble if his/her case is on appeal.
Relevancy: Prisoners are off the streets, no longer in the neighborhood. So what would their testimony have to do with what is happening on the streets now? The only thing they could possibly testify to is that they were somehow coerced into admission of gang affiliation to get a reduced sentence. But the problem there is one of credibility. And who do you think the judge is going to believe, the prisoner or the police officer, if the prisoner claimed coercion? After all, the prisoner signed a document claiming they were not coerced. So which are we to believe, the lie that they were not coerced originally, or the lie that they were coerced they tell now? It is a no win situation for the prisoner – his credibility will be attacked, and he will not come off looking good at all. The judge knows this…
My sense is that to invite prisoners into the courtroom to testify they were somehow “coerced” into a plea bargain in which they confessed to being a gang member to obtain a lighter sentence is going to sidetrack the trial and make it a 3 ring circus. The defence can more easily argue all the bad gang members have been locked up in jail, the gang injunction if it was ever necessary must have done its job bc community members don’t see any gang activity that would require an injunction. The more important testimony is what non-gang member citizens see on the ground NOW.
ERM: I never got an answer from you as to this question. Because credibility from a gang expert is truthful and a gang members is not?
ERM: Prisoners are off the streets, no longer in the neighborhood. So what would their testimony have to do with what is happening on the streets now?
If your name is being used in court on behalf of this injunction, do you think it is fair to say you have no right to defend yourself? Just because someone is in prison means they have no right to defend themselves, even when their names are being used in the injunction.? So, hearsay from a so called gang expert should be more truthful than that from a prisoner because why? Do you think that these gang experts have been truthful under oath?
ERM: I guess what I am really trying to say is, what if a gang expert got on the stand and said that one of the defendants in the injunction case admitted to being a gang member. We are supposed to believe the gang expert vs. the prisoner or defendant whose name is being used in a civil lawsuit. Right?
[quote]please identify instances where any DA has gone after any police officer for not being a “team member?’[/quote]
I believe Lt. Randy Skaggs, long term senior DA Investigator, corroborated charges that DA Reisig was trying to hide evidence in a gang/murder trial and suddenly a press release was let out that he was being criminally investigated was published by the Dem. Funny thing is no charges were ever filed and Lt. Skaggs was paid a settlement to drop a law suit against Mr. Reisig, he was not fired and was paid a large settlement. No one wants to remember or accept this as proof that Mr. Reisig will stop at nothing to go after people that try and stop his unethical behavior.
If you want to be so offended, why not do your own research? Why wasn’t Lt. Skaggs charged? Why wasn’t the other senior investigator that blew the whistle on Mr. Reisig charged? Why did they both get settlements from the county? Why were both not charged with slander? Perhaps because what they said was true!
I also believe that during this trial Lt. Bruce Naliboff was accused of not being truthful during the trial, now Mr. Naliboff is the New Chief for Mr. Reisig.
So lets look at some facts Mr. Offended. Two life long cops go on the record and call out Mr. Reisig for hiding evidence and they are both paid hush money by the county, neither were fired or loss their jobs, both retired and the other cop that supposedly was not fully truthful during the trial, that helped Mr. Reisig get his conviction, is now promoted to the Chief Investigator position.
If you want to cry foul and outrageous, why not focus on the corrupt Mr. Reisig and my post.
I sat in on the second day of hearings with community testimony and the D.A. was adamant that one of the concerns the residents about this injunction (that this injunction affects all residents), did not because there was a “process” in which an individaul would have to go through in order for the injunction to affect them….but this is WRONG!
While I have plenty of stories that have been told to me about how the injunction is enforced in my community I have learned to let go and not get all in a ruffle over them, because they are just too many, but when it actually happens to one of my own, I must speak out. The D.A. says there is a process: than why is it that my daughter’s 19 y.o. boyfriend, who lives in South Sacramento, was stopped at 12:15 a.m. today (as he was leaving my home) and was not cited for the alleged California stop at at the corner of my street, but only asked his name and D.O.B.? Why was it when the officer ran his name came back to ask, “why he was in his system”, to which my daughter’s boyfriend replied, “because I have traffic violations in the past probably.” At that point, the officer told him, “if he knew there was a 10:00 p.m. curfew for gang members and that he would need to return back to my home because he was not to be out past this curfew.” Because my daughter’s boyrfriend did not want to appear disrespectful by arguing his NOT being a gang member, just proceeded back to my home as directed. My daughter woke me, and I escorted him to the freeway.
Really Mr. D.A., this injunction doesn’t impact my community? You claim us community members, if we knew the process, wouldn’t be so against the injunction because it only “affects individuals who meet the process in which you are stating as facts in your case, but that is soooooo not the reality on the street!!!!!
valerie: “ERM: I guess what I am really trying to say is, what if a gang expert got on the stand and said that one of the defendants in the injunction case admitted to being a gang member. We are supposed to believe the gang expert vs. the prisoner or defendant whose name is being used in a civil lawsuit. Right?”
A gang expert is going to have more credibility than a prisoner. Why? Because the prisoner has been convicted of a crime to which he probably initially pled innocent and then was found guilty (either by plea deal or in court). That represents lie #1. If the prisoner takes a plea deal, by agreeing that he is a gang member, then later recants that testimony on the stand by claiming he was not a gang member, then either he lied when he made the plea deal or lied on the stand later. That represents lie #2. As you can see, the prisoner is put in a no win situation, where he is set up as a liar. There is no way his credibility is not going to suffer by being placed on the stand and questioned about his gang affiliation.
It is an exercise in futility, and will become a side show and detract from the main issue. The main issue is do citizens who live in the Bryte and Broderick area see/fear gang activity in their neighborhood? The judge made it clear to the prosecution that she wanted to hear from citizens in the neighborhood, that hearsay police testimony alone was probably not enough. It is not clear to me from this blog’s reporting to what extent there has been sufficient citizen testimony of the sort that claims there is a current gang problem.
ERM: A gang expert is going to have more credibility than a prisoner. Why? Because the prisoner has been convicted of a crime to which he probably initially pled innocent and then was found guilty (either by plea deal or in court). That represents lie #1. If the prisoner takes a plea deal, by agreeing that he is a gang member, then later recants that testimony on the stand by claiming he was not a gang member, then either he lied when he made the plea deal or lied on the stand later. That represents lie #2. As you can see, the prisoner is put in a no win situation, where he is set up as a liar. There is no way his credibility is not going to suffer by being placed on the stand and questioned about his gang affiliation.
The funny thing here is you are gonna believe that the gang expert(Villanueva) got on the stand and told the truth, because an alleged, not an ADMITTED gang member’s credibility is less truthful. And the real truth is I have paperwork stating that certain dates that Villanueva used on a person in the case, he lied about. Yes LIED. Under oath. You are welcomed to look at them if you would like. In your eyes just because someone is in prison and the DA’s and gang experts call them a gang member, even if for non gang crimes you assume they are gang members and because they are in prison their credibility is no good. You are wrong this time. If the prosecution get’s to use photos and paperwork, why can’t the defendants? My paperwork comes straight from Yolo County with their symbol on it. I have never had a criminal record, is my credibility and paperwork good? Yes ERM, UNDER OATH LIED…
lol, People want to say cops and DA’s would never lie and only people in jail should not be believed? Really? With that theory, no one in Congress or any other elected official could ever be believed, since they have all lied to get into office, so we should not ever believe them either?
So once you tell a lie if you go to prison, then you can never be believed, but if you lie to the people while in public office, you get re-elected. You have love and laugh at this theory.
valerie: “The funny thing here is you are gonna believe that the gang expert(Villanueva) got on the stand and told the truth, because an alleged, not an ADMITTED gang member’s credibility is less truthful. And the real truth is I have paperwork stating that certain dates that Villanueva used on a person in the case, he lied about. Yes LIED. Under oath. You are welcomed to look at them if you would like. In your eyes just because someone is in prison and the DA’s and gang experts call them a gang member, even if for non gang crimes you assume they are gang members and because they are in prison their credibility is no good. You are wrong this time. If the prosecution get’s to use photos and paperwork, why can’t the defendants? My paperwork comes straight from Yolo County with their symbol on it. I have never had a criminal record, is my credibility and paperwork good? Yes ERM, UNDER OATH LIED…”
Notice I did not say whether the prosecution’s witness was credible or not. I have no idea – I was not there at the trial. That is beside the point. Try and put aside your outrage in regard to the prosecution for a minute, and just look at the defense’s side.
Any prisoner will have a credibility problem bc of the untenable situation they will be placed in. They will have to have lied either when they were arrested and agreed to a plea bargain (said they were a gang member when perhaps they were not in order to obtain a more favorable sentence), or admit the lie later when they testify in court they lied at the time of arrest(they were not a gang member at all when they plea bargained) – in order to be able to give testimony. This will almost certainly damage the prisoners’ credibility, rightly or wrongly, but nevertheless will do damage.
Additionally, if they initially pled innocent, and were then found guilty, they will have appeared to have lied. Now they will have been “caught out” in two ostensible lies. And you better believe the prosecution will hammer away at this credibility problem each prisoner will have.
That places a prisoner in a no win situation, which will not help the defense’s case, but cause a distraction away from the main issue. If you are arguing against a gang injunction, having prisoner testimony is only going to bog down the trial in a side show, and hurt the prisoner’s even more than they have already been damaged.
I’m not sure how else to get this point across to you. I think the defense is making a tactical mistake here (in trying to have prisoners testify), and the judge wisely seems to agree. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree and see how things play out 🙂
Roger Rabbit: “lol, People want to say cops and DA’s would never lie and only people in jail should not be believed? Really?”
I don’t think people are saying that at all here. What is being said is that the prisoners will have a credibility problem.
As JustSaying nicely put it: “Assuming the convicts show up and claim that they were coerced into falsely confessing they’re gang members, how would you decide whether they were lying to the court then…or now? The only sure thing it would prove is that they lied. Sometime.”
If the prisoners are allowed to testify, too much time will be taken up on irrelevant issues – the prosecution would have a field day attacking the credibility of the prisoners as witnesses. That would distract from the main issue, which is “DO CITIZENS WHO LIVE IN THE BRYTE AND BRODERICK AREA FEEL SAFE IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR DO THEY SEE A LOT OF GANG ACTIVITY THAT MAKES THEM FEARFUL?”
Remember, the judge directed the prosecution that police testimony was not going to be enough. She wanted to hear from citizens who live in these neighborhoods who are supposedly frightened…
[quote]Remember, the judge directed the prosecution that police testimony was not going to be enough. She wanted to hear from citizens who live in these neighborhoods who are supposedly frightened.[/quote]
Agree, but who is saying they are live in fear? The DA who wants this political cookie in his jar. If the people were protesting, saying no justice from the Gov and the DA is not protecting us, then maybe I could see this process being needed. This is absolutely not the case.
This action was started, hid from the community, the public and city leaders, it did not have the support or endorsement from the police and DA Jeff Reisig tried to sneak it pass a judge in the darkness of night. Reisig got caught and the courts slapped him by overturning it.
Then DA Reisig started playing his bully intimidation and politics game. He went around and demanded support for this, probably threatened to do “false and misleading” press releases and smear any city leader or law enforcement that did not support this. I am sure it would have been subtle like comments, insinuations and arrogant displays of power, but I bet the message was clear. Yea I know some will be saying, how can you say this with no proof. Because I have a brain and I know how conniving, dirty and sneaky DA Jeff Reisig is.
How can you go from hiding the injunction, not telling the city leaders or local law enforcement, trying to sneak in a default judgment from a judge, claiming that no one is contesting this,(since no one knew) so come on Judge just grant it (very low and unethical), and suddenly 3, 4, or 5 years later, you have the Police and the city leaders now supporting this. Yet I have not seen any public protest demanding this protection or any out cry that this needs to be done, except from DA Reisig who needs this WIN to feed his ego and career.
This is a pure political feather for Mr. Reisig and it is costing the tax payers millions. Legal time, court time, officers testifying, over time, investigations, prep work, two full time attorneys at county expense for what? So Reisig can he won an injunction that was over-turned once, has been fighting for several years, an injunction that is not being enforced, and where the “gang experts” have testified that crime has gone down and the temp injunction worked. Talk about the tail wagging the dog?
If people can’t see this for what it is, please buy my bridge in the bay area.
To Roger Rabbit: It is what it is, and the case is here to deal with, like it or not. So to some extent citizens will have to trust the judge to do what is in the best interests of the public. Parading prisoners to the stand will be a side show that will detract from the real issue, which is WHETHER THE CITIZENS OF WEST SACRAMENTO NEED A GANG INJUNCTION TO PROTECT THEM. To go off on some rant about how crooked Reisig may be is beside the point.
ERM: Any prisoner will have a credibility problem bc of the untenable situation they will be placed in. They will have to have lied either when they were arrested and agreed to a plea bargain (said they were a gang member when perhaps they were not in order to obtain a more favorable sentence), or admit the lie later when they testify in court they lied at the time of arrest(they were not a gang member at all when they plea bargained) – in order to be able to give testimony. This will almost certainly damage the prisoners’ credibility, rightly or wrongly, but nevertheless will do damage.
You keep bringing up an issue about a plea bargain, when did I ever once write that a plea bargain was taken? Lets start all over (1) the defendant was named a gang member by the DA’s. (2) the defendant NEVER admitted to being a gang member on the dates that were told under oath by the gang expert. (3) it states on Yolo County’s paperwork that the dates the gang expert said that the defendant admitted to being a gang member is false. (4) So, are you still gonna believe their is no need for the defendant to gat on the stand on his behalf? Maybe, just maybe, the judge can put two and two together and realize that if the prosecutions people lied once, i am sure they lied twice… Am I getting my point across to you? Outrage, who has outrage? Maybe if you really read what I wrote and stop talking about a plea deal, we can have more of an understanding. The defendant took no plea deal and did not go into prison with a gang enhancement.
To Valerie: In so far as I was aware, we were talking about the tactical issue of putting A NUMBER OF prisoners on the stand. To which I responded it would become a side show that was not relevant to the issue of whether CITIZENS LIVING IN BRYTE AND BRODERICK BELIEVE THEY NEED THE PROTECTION OF A GANG INJUNCTION. The judge is more interested in hearing from citizens who live in the area. Prisoners no longer live in the area.
To do what you are suggesting, which is to drag in a single prisoner onto the witness stand, and go through a lengthy process for the sole purpose to prove the DA lied in one particular case, doesn’t seem especially relevant to the issue of whether CITIZENS LIVING IN BRYTE AND BRODERICK BELIEVE THEY NEED THE PROTECTION OF A GANG INJUNCTION. The DA is not on trial here. You want to make this a case about the integrity of the DA – but the case is about whether to continue imposing a gang injunction on the neighborhood.
Personally, I believe even if you could prove the DA lied in the case of one prisoner, it would not be particularly persuasive. The DA could trot out a dozen prisoners before the judge in which the DA could show he had been truthful. This begins a slippery slope of irrelevancy, where the trial goes off on a tangent that is not relevant to the issue at hand – which is whether CITIZENS FEEL THEY NEED THE PROTECTION OF THE CONTINUANCE OF A GANG INJUNCTION.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the judge seems to feel trotting prisoners out to show the DA lied is not relevant. I believe the judge is right in this case. At this point, I think you have to put your faith in the judge, who seems to have a fairly good grasp of the situation. Remember, she has instructed the prosecution that police testimony alone will not be enough. She wanted to hear from citizens who live in the area – that was what she was more interested in. Whether the prosection met its burden is not clear from the coverage in the blog.
Are you saying that based on what you have read/seen about the judge, you do not trust her judgment in this case? Despite her having clearly said to the prosection police testimony in and of itself is not going to be enough to convince her to continue the gang injunction?
[quote]Whether the prosection met its burden is not clear from the coverage in the blog.[/quote]
It is not clear to me whether they met their burden in the eyes of the judge and really with most of the defense case still remaining, it’s probably not the best thing to speculate.
As for trusting the judge – I think she has made good calls and bad calls under difficult circumstances. To me one of the biggest weaknesses in the case is that they rely so heavily on second hand and dated police accounts.
It is possible that Judge White believes she does not need to hear the testimony of the defendants to reach that determination and thus does not wish to undertake the logistical nightmare that would ensue. From the defense’s standpoint, I think they want to cross all of their T’s and connect their dots in making the countercase, and I can see their frustration at this.
Do I think the Judge has tried to be fair? Yes. Do I trust her? No, I don’t because I don’t know where she is coming from or the basis of her ruling.