Commentary: Jurors Tainted With Fear And Intimidation By DDA And Gang Task Force, Mistrial Declared

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.

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.