Editor's Note: The following story by Los Angeles Times writers Joe Mozingo, Sam Quinones and Molly Hennessy-Fiske, illustrates how gangs dominate and suck the very life-blood out of a community. Residents who live among the notorious Drew Street clique of the Avenues gang, admit to the terror, fear and criminal acts by which the gang controls them. A key shot-caller for this population of thugs is a gang-mother whose own children are loyal soldiers. One was fatally gunned down, earlier this spring, in a battle with Los Angeles Police officers after he shot and killed, in cold blood, a man who was out walking his two-year old granddaughter. So deadly is this gang, and such was the avalanche of wire-tapped racketeering evidence against them, that 500 federal agents participated in the assault on the gang, netting 28 arrests.
The 10-month investigation leading to these arrests was conducted by a Los Angeles task force of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Questions that might spring to mind as you read this article are: Is a virtual declaration of war and military-like assault by law enforcement a neighborhood's only protection from the growth and paralyzing power of its gangs? Why did some of the residents feel more terrified by the police raid rather than by the permanent threat the gang posed to them? What protections and other tangible benefits do residents need to help rout out the gangs living among them? What kinds of inducements can law enforcement provide residents to motivate them to come forward and testify against gang members in court? How can the encrusted psychology of fear and submission be broken so that residents can realize the collective power they themselves have to determine the welfare, safety and future of their neighborhoods? What kinds of law enforcement messages (e.g., billboard public service announcements, radio bulletins, television flash releases) need to be devised and delivered consistently to break through and overcome the gang criminal mindset of deliberate, nonstop, premeditated and spontaneous law-breaking?
With a sweeping federal racketeering indictment, more than 500 agents, including 10 SWAT teams, arrested 28 people in an attempt to root out the Avenues gang members who have ruled the area with violence and near impunity. The indictment, which grew out of a 10-month investigation lead by a Los Angeles task force of the Drug Enforcement Administration, names 70 defendants -- mostly connected to the Drew Street clique of the larger Avenues gang. The gang dates to the zoot suit era in Northeast Los Angeles and is closely connected to the Mexican Mafia prison gang. Twenty-six defendants were already in custody and 16 are at large.
Prosecutors allege that the gang committed three murders, shot at police, extorted businesses, conducted home invasion robberies, taxed drug dealers for the Mexican Mafia and threatened potential witnesses -- all as part of an enterprise to distribute methamphetamine and rock cocaine in the area. Authorities say undercover agents conducted scores of drug purchases from the gang during the investigation.
U.S. Atty. Thomas P. O'Brien called the sweep "the largest gang take-down in recent L.A. history."
He said he was confident that by targeting so many defendants with heavy federal charges, the effort would accomplish what previous crackdowns, convictions, injunctions and evictions have so far been unable to do: break the gang's grip on the low-income neighborhood, which is heavily Latino.
Half of the defendants could face life in prison without parole if convicted, said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office.
Francisco "Pancho" Real, 26, who was identified as the leader of the Drew Street clique, brought in $1,200 a day in drug money alone, according to a wiretap recording described in the indictment. He was arrested at his home in Glendale.
The gang stirred a storm of media coverage and police attention after a wild, rolling shootout in February.
The indictment suggests that the shooting stemmed from a brewing turf battle between the Avenues, backed by the Mexican Mafia, and the Cypress Park gang.
On Feb. 21, in order to prevent Cypress Park from dealing drugs in their territory, the indictment alleges, Real's cohorts shot to death one of its members, Marcos Salas, as he held his 2-year-old granddaughter's hand in front of her elementary school. Minutes later police pulled over the three suspected gunmen, who then opened fire with an assault rifle. Police fatally shot one of them, Real's half brother Daniel Leon.
Authorities had wiretaps on Real's phones at the time. The day after the shooting, Real shrugged off Leon's death, using a profanity to say "[stuff] happens," according to the indictment.
The gang didn't skip a beat after the shootout, the summaries of the wiretaps suggest.
In March, Real ordered the owner of a local tire shop to pay him $30,000 within 24 hours, prosecutors allege, or he would kill him and burn down his shop. When the owner of an adjoining tire shop told Real that he did not understand why they had to pay him, Real said they were operating in his territory, the indictment alleges.
Real is one of 13 children of Maria Leon, the matriarch of the gang and a defendant in the case, according to law enforcement. She has a criminal record with three drug arrests and was in custody Wednesday morning for reentering the country after a deportation.
The family hails from a sweltering, lawless part of the Mexican state of Guerrero, as does much of the neighborhood. Based on their shared roots, many residents maintain a fierce solidarity and loathing for the police.
On Wednesday, an 81-year-old woman on Isabel Street, Olga Martinez, called the police "gestapos" after they broke down her door looking for her son. Numerous other residents declined to talk.
"We don't know anything, we didn't hear anything, we didn't see anything," said a woman who lives on Drew Street and declined to give her name.
My Blog List
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Evaluating Your Expert Witnesses and Witnessing Their Value
Three friends of mine, all working expert witnesses, called me to recount their experiences with private investigators who interviewed them for prospective cases. One complained that the private investigator “asked me if I could stand up to a Daubert Hearing”; another seemed insulted that she was asked what her answer would be if the prosecutor “questioned my high expert fees”; and the third groused about being asked by the interviewing P.I. “why I prostituted myself in ‘criminal defense alley’ ”—the throng of law offices that occupied a corridor in and around the county courthouse. They accounted for more than 50% of his revenues the preceding year.
All of these colleagues demanded to know (from me) what was up! Why were they being grilled like this? Were they viewed as expert witnesses or as suspects? Could P.I.’s even ask such questions? They all claimed this was a “first”; but they suspected it wouldn’t be the last time they’d be so queried. I told them that they had the right to remain silent, if they chose, though by taking that tact their value in the P.I.’s eyes might cascade like Niagara Falls. What shocked them, however, was my telling them that P.I.’s could ask such questions—and that more P.I.’s should ask those kinds of questions and many more like them!
Questioning Prospective Witnesses…a Necessity
Questioning your prospective expert witness is vital. If you’re running defense for your hiring attorney by only scanning a pile of expert witness resumes, you should probably add a vital component to your examination efforts: Call the experts into your office or at least interview them over the telephone. You and the attorney for whom you work cannot afford to have them “drilled and killed” on the witness stand by a salivating prosecutor or other opposing counsel. Expert witnesses should expect questions about Daubert whether or not they are doctors, scientists, engineers, or economists. Daubert is the “gatekeeper” standard for testing in court not whether there is evidence, but whether that evidence was gathered properly.
So, your expert witnesses can bet their next breaths that their testimony about the method for gathering evidence will now and forever be deemed light-years more important than whether there is evidence. This “method-over-matter” point of view held by courts must be understood by all expert witnesses—regardless of their discipline and expertise—as a signal to include the intellectual method they utilize to arrive at their expert opinion. And it is their responsibility to be ready to address that. Daubert, inside courts, has evolved away from being merely THE Supreme Court threshold decision about the scientifics of fingerprinting (Daubert v. Merrell Dow) to its present-day “gatekeeper” evidence-controlling purpose: A Daubert Hearing alerts the expert witness that his or her thinking and reasoning about the evidence is critical to analyzing the method used for bringing that evidence into court and the light of day in the first place.
What, Who…Daubert and Me?
Don’t let your prospective expert witnesses cop out by telling you, “Daubert doesn’t apply to me. I’m not a medical doctor/engineer/scientist/economist.” Daubert, if nothing else, scrutinizes for due diligence in the evidentiary thinking processes of non-scientific pre-testimony expert witnesses. Daubert can either seat expert witnesses or strike them and send them packing. You can even advise prospective experts on some of the Daubert-type questions opposing counsel might ask them, to try to disqualify them: The theory or technique you’ve described, has it been tested and validated? This kind of question goes to the issue of how established, experienced, and even respected your expert witness is. Your attorney is paying him or her for their expert opinion; opposing counsel is not paying them a dime. Therefore, the big, imaginary “zero” opposing counsel sees on the expert’s forehead represents a target at which to aim and fire the toughest questions.
The responses your expert gives should be precise, non-argumentative, and without any arrogance or aggrandizement. He or she should sound as though they are well-experienced and, as appropriate, cite other sources in their profession who validate their opinion. What about peer review? Has your theory or technique been peer-reviewed and published? This question goes to whether and how your expert is perceived and regarded by his or her peers in their field of expertise: Is he or she known or unknown? Highly-regarded or an “also-ran”? Credible or discredited? Peer reviews are considered the litmus test.
Your expert should frankly—without boasting—define and describe those of his or her theories that have been peer-reviewed and published. What is the potential or previously documented rate of error of the method used? This question goes to the reliability of your expert’s theory. It is important to remember that a high error rate does not always mean the theory is unreliable; it merely means that the rate of error is something to factor in, not disregard. A significant error rate does not render invalid your expert’s theory. By the same token, if your expert’s theories or techniques are controversial, that is not necessarily a negative against your expert. Controversy is active and ongoing debate; it doesn’t mean your expert’s work and reputation are tarnished. Since opposing counsels often look for opportunities to do a verbal “Assault-and-Daubert,” you can tailor-make your own questions to acquaint your expert with and prepare him or her for Daubert issues.
Questions Are Critical—They Aren’t Criticism
Expert witnesses should not be put off or feel insulted about any questions the P.I. asks them. P.I.’s can make their interviewees feel more comfortable about answering their “twenty questions” by advising them that “I have to ask you several questions along the way. Better I do it before the prosecutor does; that way you and the attorney I work for can look good in court.” Or, “I hope you won’t be insulted, but the more questions you answer for me, the more qualified my attorney can make you look in court.” Or, “Prosecutors regularly dispute the qualifications of the expert witness. The Daubert Hearing gives them an additional tool to not only dispute but also to try to disqualify you. And we wouldn’t want that to happen, would we?” With this in mind, expert witnesses should also expect to be asked questions about their “high” hourly fees.
A private investigator friend of mine recalls a prosecutor grandstanding before the jury by haranguing the expert witness about his fees. He ended by telling the expert that his boss, the district attorney, “pays me only a fraction of what you make per hour.” To which the expert witness replied: “Well, the district attorney certainly knows your worth far better than I do.” The courtroom, including the judge and jury, erupted in laughter; the prosecutor, though, seemed not to be amused.
Human nature is often unpredictable, and just because an expert’s good-natured humor may incite laughter from a judge and jury, does not mean that the expert is favorably regarded at all. An embarrassed and insulted opposing counsel can often very skillfully turn a moment of levity against the expert. Indeed, the judge, while laughing and seeking to mollify opposing counsel’s bruised ego, might even discredit and dismiss the expert as off-base and impolite. That well-aimed response might—in jury deliberations—even be regarded as impertinent and rude. The jury might be ashamed of its spontaneous outburst of laughter and, with stony faces, try to rectify their “sin” by regarding the expert with mistrust…as somebody given to self-aggrandizing and discourteous responses.
It is better that opposing counsel expose his or her own feelings of annoyance about your expert’s so-called “high fees” and be the spectacle in their own circus of critical questions. Your expert need not be caught up in this game. You might wish to repeatedly and diplomatically advise the expert to tell the truth, to act naturally, not to exhibit arrogance or ridicule, not to joke, and certainly not to argue with opposing counsel. In this context, “Sharp tongues sometimes cut their own throats” is a maxim that describes what could happen to either an expert witness or the opposing counsel. A backlash could hurt the expert more than it hurts opposing counsel.
It’s Preparation…Not Ping-Ponging With the Prosecution
Rather than risk your expert’s trying to match wits, in the foregoing manner, with the prosecutor, I recommend that the expert be prepared to reveal to you why their hourly fees are the way they are. There are at least nine reasons your expert witnesses might find valuable support for questioned fees: (1) years of experience in the field; (2) court certification your expert has; (3) membership on any court’s Panel of Experts; (4) rank and tenure in your expert’s professional discipline, such as college and university teaching; (5) books, papers, or journal articles your expert has published; (6) the number of cases in which your expert has provided expert testimony; (7) your expert’s membership and rank (such as president) in professional associations; (8) your expert’s participation and presentation at professional conferences, particularly those where continuing education credits (e.g., CLE) are awarded to their audiences of licensed professionals; and (9) your expert’s media profile: how often he or she has appeared on television or radio providing their opinions on national topics. Juries can often follow a logical trail and understand why a judge allows expert witnesses into the court to opine about cases.
In other words, juries are not usually put off by carefully-explained and well-reasoned justifications the expert makes for his or her fees. The expert witness should never be gulled by the prosecutor’s comparison of his or her own salary with that of the expert. Tell your experts to treat their fees as a kind of evidence and to speak about them openly and frankly. Rather than be or feel vilified by the prosecutor, your experts can show themselves as vital to the case because of their fees.
Frank and Direct Answers Are Best
It is highly doubtful that a prosecutor would insinuate that an expert witness “prostitutes” himself or herself in certain financially-lucrative environs around the court. Most fish find their water in the ocean. Too, any number of expert witnesses might find prospective cases among a virtual “sea” of law offices around the courthouse. It’s only practical and makes good business sense to market themselves in and among such a constellation or cluster of law firms. What the P.I. means by the “prostitute” question (if he or she even chooses to use that word at all—however, one P.I. did when querying me!) is whether the expert witness shows a dominant bias—for either prosecution or defense—in the kinds of cases taken in, say, the past year. Again, it’s better that your prospective expert answer the question head-on and directly.
By stating the obvious—that most private law firms house only defense counsels—your expert can show he or she is merely answering legally-constituted calls for defense expert testimony support and not turning away prosecutors’ requests to provide expertise on cases. To be sure, prosecutors use expert witnesses. However, the number of cases for which they bring an expert into court is but a fraction of the frequency with which defense attorneys need and use experts. Even in those cases where the defendant has been pronounced by the court as “indigent” (impoverished and unable to pay) he or she is still the client of a defense attorney who thus may need an expert witness. There’s also the fact that prosecutors select their expert witnesses from the court’s approved Panel of Experts. If your expert witness is not on the panel, that may not be his or her fault. Thus, their answer to an inquiring prosecutor, regarding the percentage of prosecution and defense cases on which they’ve worked, can reasonably be: “I would probably work more prosecution cases if I were on the court’s Panel of Experts, but I am not; and thus far I’ve not been chosen by the district attorney to participate on a case.”
If your expert has completed the application process to be on the panel, he or she should certainly state that; that fact is good public relations. The prosecutor knows that an expert’s not being on the court’s Panel of Experts may have little or nothing to do with the expertise and qualifications of the expert. Often, the court’s panel is full and there simply is no room for another expert. Frequently, not all of the judges, or any single one of them, who comprise the team that chooses expert witnesses for the Panel of Experts, hears cases for which a given expert’s rare experience and expertise are needed. The court’s “problem” here is, of course, known by the prosecutor, and is not something to be held against the expert. Your expert is not responsible for any past or present circumstances inherent in the court. Again, if your expert witness has made application to the court, to be on its Panel of Experts, he or she should so state. That revelation can clear the air and deflect any “end run” the prosecutor might try to make in the effort to disqualify your expert.
Who Can Pre-qualify Your Experts Better Than You?
Both P.I.’s and expert witnesses provide a huge and valuable service to the attorneys who employ them. And every P.I. and attorney I’ve worked for has been highly appreciative. Expert witnesses should regard questions from P.I.’s as appropriate and necessary safeguards to protect the legal rights and interests of the client and fulfill the case objectives of the hiring attorney. As a Private Investigator, you know which way the winds inside the court blow (or are likely to) better than any roomful of expert witnesses. Take time to ask your prospective expert witness the hard questions, and to pose the tough issues. If possible, meet and confer with him or her personally. Go over their resume and interview them about the information it contains. Ask them to tell you about their four cases (“your top four”) that are unique and unlike any others on which they’ve worked; then ask them to define what makes these four cases stand apart from the rest. Show them a calendar, and ask them about their availability for trial as you highlight the anticipated trial dates. Determine whether they might have schedule conflicts.
Taking Time to Talk Now Increases Value Later
By taking the time to have at least a one-hour “sit down” discussion with any prospective expert, you can pre-qualify him or her for your attorney. Your prospective expert’s opinion is the purpose for which he or she might be hired, and it ought to be the rock-solid foundation upon which their role and reputation are established and respected by the court. Therefore, your reviewing and clarifying the opinions to which they will be testifying to, is key critical. It will do you both good to hear, in their own words, what opinions they hold about the case and what they will likely say in court. Equally important, their going over with you the facts and assumptions that frame the bases of their opinions is a practical step; it is the productive equivalent of a baseball player’s doing warm-up calisthenics and taking batting practice. One can never review one’s facts and assumptions too much or too often; such review prevents one from being caught off guard on in “the blind” by opposing counsel’s peppering questions.
You will need to hear and your prospective expert needs to say how, that is, in what way they derived their opinion: What methodology did they employ? This tracking the trail from beginning to end sets up a logical step-wise chronology that can be as impressive as it can be instructive. In my own experience, prosecutors have sometimes been left astonished and speechless before admitting, “No further questions, your honor,” to the judge, after I have carefully laid out the methodology that framed and informed my professional opinion. You will certainly want to ask your expert when his or her opinion was formed. You can stress the importance of their addressing the timing of the formulation of their opinion, as the opposing counsel will seek to find some kind of fault with the timing—holding it up to be premature or incomplete, and the resultant opinion as inaccurate.
Your thorough and intensive interviews and evaluations of expert witnesses can result in your attorney’s being able to witness their value in court.
All of these colleagues demanded to know (from me) what was up! Why were they being grilled like this? Were they viewed as expert witnesses or as suspects? Could P.I.’s even ask such questions? They all claimed this was a “first”; but they suspected it wouldn’t be the last time they’d be so queried. I told them that they had the right to remain silent, if they chose, though by taking that tact their value in the P.I.’s eyes might cascade like Niagara Falls. What shocked them, however, was my telling them that P.I.’s could ask such questions—and that more P.I.’s should ask those kinds of questions and many more like them!
Questioning Prospective Witnesses…a Necessity
Questioning your prospective expert witness is vital. If you’re running defense for your hiring attorney by only scanning a pile of expert witness resumes, you should probably add a vital component to your examination efforts: Call the experts into your office or at least interview them over the telephone. You and the attorney for whom you work cannot afford to have them “drilled and killed” on the witness stand by a salivating prosecutor or other opposing counsel. Expert witnesses should expect questions about Daubert whether or not they are doctors, scientists, engineers, or economists. Daubert is the “gatekeeper” standard for testing in court not whether there is evidence, but whether that evidence was gathered properly.
So, your expert witnesses can bet their next breaths that their testimony about the method for gathering evidence will now and forever be deemed light-years more important than whether there is evidence. This “method-over-matter” point of view held by courts must be understood by all expert witnesses—regardless of their discipline and expertise—as a signal to include the intellectual method they utilize to arrive at their expert opinion. And it is their responsibility to be ready to address that. Daubert, inside courts, has evolved away from being merely THE Supreme Court threshold decision about the scientifics of fingerprinting (Daubert v. Merrell Dow) to its present-day “gatekeeper” evidence-controlling purpose: A Daubert Hearing alerts the expert witness that his or her thinking and reasoning about the evidence is critical to analyzing the method used for bringing that evidence into court and the light of day in the first place.
What, Who…Daubert and Me?
Don’t let your prospective expert witnesses cop out by telling you, “Daubert doesn’t apply to me. I’m not a medical doctor/engineer/scientist/economist.” Daubert, if nothing else, scrutinizes for due diligence in the evidentiary thinking processes of non-scientific pre-testimony expert witnesses. Daubert can either seat expert witnesses or strike them and send them packing. You can even advise prospective experts on some of the Daubert-type questions opposing counsel might ask them, to try to disqualify them: The theory or technique you’ve described, has it been tested and validated? This kind of question goes to the issue of how established, experienced, and even respected your expert witness is. Your attorney is paying him or her for their expert opinion; opposing counsel is not paying them a dime. Therefore, the big, imaginary “zero” opposing counsel sees on the expert’s forehead represents a target at which to aim and fire the toughest questions.
The responses your expert gives should be precise, non-argumentative, and without any arrogance or aggrandizement. He or she should sound as though they are well-experienced and, as appropriate, cite other sources in their profession who validate their opinion. What about peer review? Has your theory or technique been peer-reviewed and published? This question goes to whether and how your expert is perceived and regarded by his or her peers in their field of expertise: Is he or she known or unknown? Highly-regarded or an “also-ran”? Credible or discredited? Peer reviews are considered the litmus test.
Your expert should frankly—without boasting—define and describe those of his or her theories that have been peer-reviewed and published. What is the potential or previously documented rate of error of the method used? This question goes to the reliability of your expert’s theory. It is important to remember that a high error rate does not always mean the theory is unreliable; it merely means that the rate of error is something to factor in, not disregard. A significant error rate does not render invalid your expert’s theory. By the same token, if your expert’s theories or techniques are controversial, that is not necessarily a negative against your expert. Controversy is active and ongoing debate; it doesn’t mean your expert’s work and reputation are tarnished. Since opposing counsels often look for opportunities to do a verbal “Assault-and-Daubert,” you can tailor-make your own questions to acquaint your expert with and prepare him or her for Daubert issues.
Questions Are Critical—They Aren’t Criticism
Expert witnesses should not be put off or feel insulted about any questions the P.I. asks them. P.I.’s can make their interviewees feel more comfortable about answering their “twenty questions” by advising them that “I have to ask you several questions along the way. Better I do it before the prosecutor does; that way you and the attorney I work for can look good in court.” Or, “I hope you won’t be insulted, but the more questions you answer for me, the more qualified my attorney can make you look in court.” Or, “Prosecutors regularly dispute the qualifications of the expert witness. The Daubert Hearing gives them an additional tool to not only dispute but also to try to disqualify you. And we wouldn’t want that to happen, would we?” With this in mind, expert witnesses should also expect to be asked questions about their “high” hourly fees.
A private investigator friend of mine recalls a prosecutor grandstanding before the jury by haranguing the expert witness about his fees. He ended by telling the expert that his boss, the district attorney, “pays me only a fraction of what you make per hour.” To which the expert witness replied: “Well, the district attorney certainly knows your worth far better than I do.” The courtroom, including the judge and jury, erupted in laughter; the prosecutor, though, seemed not to be amused.
Human nature is often unpredictable, and just because an expert’s good-natured humor may incite laughter from a judge and jury, does not mean that the expert is favorably regarded at all. An embarrassed and insulted opposing counsel can often very skillfully turn a moment of levity against the expert. Indeed, the judge, while laughing and seeking to mollify opposing counsel’s bruised ego, might even discredit and dismiss the expert as off-base and impolite. That well-aimed response might—in jury deliberations—even be regarded as impertinent and rude. The jury might be ashamed of its spontaneous outburst of laughter and, with stony faces, try to rectify their “sin” by regarding the expert with mistrust…as somebody given to self-aggrandizing and discourteous responses.
It is better that opposing counsel expose his or her own feelings of annoyance about your expert’s so-called “high fees” and be the spectacle in their own circus of critical questions. Your expert need not be caught up in this game. You might wish to repeatedly and diplomatically advise the expert to tell the truth, to act naturally, not to exhibit arrogance or ridicule, not to joke, and certainly not to argue with opposing counsel. In this context, “Sharp tongues sometimes cut their own throats” is a maxim that describes what could happen to either an expert witness or the opposing counsel. A backlash could hurt the expert more than it hurts opposing counsel.
It’s Preparation…Not Ping-Ponging With the Prosecution
Rather than risk your expert’s trying to match wits, in the foregoing manner, with the prosecutor, I recommend that the expert be prepared to reveal to you why their hourly fees are the way they are. There are at least nine reasons your expert witnesses might find valuable support for questioned fees: (1) years of experience in the field; (2) court certification your expert has; (3) membership on any court’s Panel of Experts; (4) rank and tenure in your expert’s professional discipline, such as college and university teaching; (5) books, papers, or journal articles your expert has published; (6) the number of cases in which your expert has provided expert testimony; (7) your expert’s membership and rank (such as president) in professional associations; (8) your expert’s participation and presentation at professional conferences, particularly those where continuing education credits (e.g., CLE) are awarded to their audiences of licensed professionals; and (9) your expert’s media profile: how often he or she has appeared on television or radio providing their opinions on national topics. Juries can often follow a logical trail and understand why a judge allows expert witnesses into the court to opine about cases.
In other words, juries are not usually put off by carefully-explained and well-reasoned justifications the expert makes for his or her fees. The expert witness should never be gulled by the prosecutor’s comparison of his or her own salary with that of the expert. Tell your experts to treat their fees as a kind of evidence and to speak about them openly and frankly. Rather than be or feel vilified by the prosecutor, your experts can show themselves as vital to the case because of their fees.
Frank and Direct Answers Are Best
It is highly doubtful that a prosecutor would insinuate that an expert witness “prostitutes” himself or herself in certain financially-lucrative environs around the court. Most fish find their water in the ocean. Too, any number of expert witnesses might find prospective cases among a virtual “sea” of law offices around the courthouse. It’s only practical and makes good business sense to market themselves in and among such a constellation or cluster of law firms. What the P.I. means by the “prostitute” question (if he or she even chooses to use that word at all—however, one P.I. did when querying me!) is whether the expert witness shows a dominant bias—for either prosecution or defense—in the kinds of cases taken in, say, the past year. Again, it’s better that your prospective expert answer the question head-on and directly.
By stating the obvious—that most private law firms house only defense counsels—your expert can show he or she is merely answering legally-constituted calls for defense expert testimony support and not turning away prosecutors’ requests to provide expertise on cases. To be sure, prosecutors use expert witnesses. However, the number of cases for which they bring an expert into court is but a fraction of the frequency with which defense attorneys need and use experts. Even in those cases where the defendant has been pronounced by the court as “indigent” (impoverished and unable to pay) he or she is still the client of a defense attorney who thus may need an expert witness. There’s also the fact that prosecutors select their expert witnesses from the court’s approved Panel of Experts. If your expert witness is not on the panel, that may not be his or her fault. Thus, their answer to an inquiring prosecutor, regarding the percentage of prosecution and defense cases on which they’ve worked, can reasonably be: “I would probably work more prosecution cases if I were on the court’s Panel of Experts, but I am not; and thus far I’ve not been chosen by the district attorney to participate on a case.”
If your expert has completed the application process to be on the panel, he or she should certainly state that; that fact is good public relations. The prosecutor knows that an expert’s not being on the court’s Panel of Experts may have little or nothing to do with the expertise and qualifications of the expert. Often, the court’s panel is full and there simply is no room for another expert. Frequently, not all of the judges, or any single one of them, who comprise the team that chooses expert witnesses for the Panel of Experts, hears cases for which a given expert’s rare experience and expertise are needed. The court’s “problem” here is, of course, known by the prosecutor, and is not something to be held against the expert. Your expert is not responsible for any past or present circumstances inherent in the court. Again, if your expert witness has made application to the court, to be on its Panel of Experts, he or she should so state. That revelation can clear the air and deflect any “end run” the prosecutor might try to make in the effort to disqualify your expert.
Who Can Pre-qualify Your Experts Better Than You?
Both P.I.’s and expert witnesses provide a huge and valuable service to the attorneys who employ them. And every P.I. and attorney I’ve worked for has been highly appreciative. Expert witnesses should regard questions from P.I.’s as appropriate and necessary safeguards to protect the legal rights and interests of the client and fulfill the case objectives of the hiring attorney. As a Private Investigator, you know which way the winds inside the court blow (or are likely to) better than any roomful of expert witnesses. Take time to ask your prospective expert witness the hard questions, and to pose the tough issues. If possible, meet and confer with him or her personally. Go over their resume and interview them about the information it contains. Ask them to tell you about their four cases (“your top four”) that are unique and unlike any others on which they’ve worked; then ask them to define what makes these four cases stand apart from the rest. Show them a calendar, and ask them about their availability for trial as you highlight the anticipated trial dates. Determine whether they might have schedule conflicts.
Taking Time to Talk Now Increases Value Later
By taking the time to have at least a one-hour “sit down” discussion with any prospective expert, you can pre-qualify him or her for your attorney. Your prospective expert’s opinion is the purpose for which he or she might be hired, and it ought to be the rock-solid foundation upon which their role and reputation are established and respected by the court. Therefore, your reviewing and clarifying the opinions to which they will be testifying to, is key critical. It will do you both good to hear, in their own words, what opinions they hold about the case and what they will likely say in court. Equally important, their going over with you the facts and assumptions that frame the bases of their opinions is a practical step; it is the productive equivalent of a baseball player’s doing warm-up calisthenics and taking batting practice. One can never review one’s facts and assumptions too much or too often; such review prevents one from being caught off guard on in “the blind” by opposing counsel’s peppering questions.
You will need to hear and your prospective expert needs to say how, that is, in what way they derived their opinion: What methodology did they employ? This tracking the trail from beginning to end sets up a logical step-wise chronology that can be as impressive as it can be instructive. In my own experience, prosecutors have sometimes been left astonished and speechless before admitting, “No further questions, your honor,” to the judge, after I have carefully laid out the methodology that framed and informed my professional opinion. You will certainly want to ask your expert when his or her opinion was formed. You can stress the importance of their addressing the timing of the formulation of their opinion, as the opposing counsel will seek to find some kind of fault with the timing—holding it up to be premature or incomplete, and the resultant opinion as inaccurate.
Your thorough and intensive interviews and evaluations of expert witnesses can result in your attorney’s being able to witness their value in court.
Prosecutor Turned Persecutor: Can An Expert Save Justice?
Late one night, my telephone rang, and on the other end was a high-profile criminal defense attorney with whom I have worked on gang cases and other kinds of juvenile justice proceedings. He said he had to meet me for lunch the following day. He explained he had an “urgent need” to pick my brain about controversial ex-district attorney for Durham County, North Carolina, Michael Byron “Mike” Nifong. A one-man perfect storm, Mr. Nifong is best known for his own thirty-four high crimes and misdemeanors in his 2006 prosecution (on rape allegations) of players on the Duke University lacrosse team. For months he garnered national headlines, culminating, in the end, in his fall from grace and the revocation of his license and disbarment, on June 16, 2007, by the state bar association.
Apart from the plethora of state bar allegations and the criminal charges against him, press accounts of Nifong’s very public behavior include placing persecution before investigation; jumping to false conclusions; improper self insertion into lineup procedures; conduct unbecoming a District Attorney by temper tantrum and foot stomping; menacing by verbal assault; inciting racial and social division in the community; electioneering; misappropriation of public trust; indecent exposure of Durham County to civil lawsuits; hijacking the District Attorney‘s office for his own personal fiefdom; and incompetence.
The attorney on the phone and I agreed on a time and place to meet for lunch, the following day. When we ended our conversation, I returned to watching “Shark,” the hit television show starring actor James Woods as a prosecutor who, in his obsessive desire to win at nearly all costs, frequently bends the law with his brand of Cirque du Soleil- like hijinks. During a commercial break, I pondered what “urgent need” the attorney wanted addressed. What I kept replaying, in my mind’s ear, was his last statement: “I know I said I want to pick your brain about former D.A. Mike Nifong. But what I really want to talk about are the roles and responsibilities of expert witnesses when hired by a prosecutor—especially a fire-breathing dragon like Nifong.”
It has been documented by the press that Mr. Nifong’s extraordinary actions—he is said to have committed over 50 various violations of law but charged with 34—even gave birth to a new term in the legal lexicon: “Nifonged.” The Washington Post Writers Group columnist Kathleen Parker, who coined this neologism, says, "Now we can 'Nifong' someone when we want to trump up criminal charges based on flimsy evidence allegedly for political purposes. In short, when we want to screw up someone's life." Said another way, the other side of the prosecution’s double-edged sword is burn-’em-at-stake PERSECUTION come alive and unbound—rampant, relentless, reckless, Draconian, unlawful, and uncontrollable.
The Expert’s Ethics
The anxious attorney and I met for lunch the next day and had a long talk. In the Duke University Lacrosse rape case, the designated expert witness had presented his report and opinion that the DNA evidence showed what he defined as “several other men” sexually involved with the purported victim of rape, none being any of the Duke University lacrosse defendants being tried by Prosecutor Nifong. The DNA from the Duke defendants on trial did not match the DNA “evidence” said to have littered the alleged rape victim. “Aren’t expert witnesses, like lawyers, regulated by a state board or commission?” the attorney asked me. “No, not exactly,” I replied, thinking he already knew the answer to that. He frowned, paused and then continued. “What, then, ought to compel an expert witness to blow the whistle on a prosecutor suppressing and concealing exculpatory evidence, like Nifong did?” I told him that an expert witness is not obligated to report a suppression-of-evidence crime he feels a prosecutor has committed and thus protect the right to a fair trial of the defendants. “Shouldn’t the expert have confronted Mr. Nifong and insisted he publicly disclose the exculpatory evidence the expert had discovered?” No, I said. It has yet to be established that the expert witness even knew District Attorney Nifong had suppressed the exculpatory evidence. It was the press corps that sounded the alarm about Nifong’s crime, when reporting his parade of other illegal acts. Prior to the blaring press headlines, what and where was the expert’s proof of Nifong’s evidence tampering, assuming he even had reasonable doubt about Nifong’s lawful handling of the exculpatory DNA evidence?
What Did the Expert Know and When Did He Know It?
Ex-District Attorney Nifong, in addition to having already been disbarred, will be tried in court for, ironically, a boatload of more felonies than those for which he wrongly prosecuted the innocent Duke Lacrosse defendants. As we lunched, the attorney allowed as to how it could well be that Nifong’s expert witness may be subpoenaed to testify about what he might have known about Nifong’s suppression of the exculpatory evidence the expert handed over to him, how he felt about it, and why he never came forward to report Nifong’s actions. I reminded the attorney that such examination, of course, would improperly put the expert on trial. The expert would be between a rock and a hard place and even assaulted with the question, “Why didn’t you know, and in what ways were you ignorant, about the prosecutor’s suppression and concealment of the exculpatory evidence that you gave him?” Nifong’s expert witness, like most expert witnesses, probably presented his report and opinion and, having thus discharged his designated and limited duty—he apparently was not asked (allowed?) by Nifong to testify in court—took a hike, knowing absolutely nothing of Nifong’s intent to suppress and conceal the exculpatory evidence in the report that would have freed the Duke defendants.
For Whom the Bell Tolls: When to Blow the Whistle
We spent the remainder of our lunch meeting discussing whether Mr. Nifong’s expert witness ought to have confronted Mr. Nifong and demanded that he publicly disclose the contents of the suppressed evidence. Consider this: wouldn’t such a strategy (a) suggest the expert knew and could prove that Nifong suppressed the evidence? and (b) place Nifong in a position of admitting both failure to exercise due diligence and belatedly (not to mention embarrassingly) disclosing his possession of exculpatory evidence? As a hypothetical, let’s say the expert knew that Mr. Nifong hid the exculpatory evidence under lock and key, which in fact Nifong did. Should the expert have confronted Mr. Nifong about the district attorney’s legal obligation to disclose the evidence? What if Nifong denied concealing and locking up the evidence? What if, angered, afraid and feeling intimidated, he threatened the expert, physically, called the Bailiff to arrest the expert, or vowed to destroy his career?
As a whistle-blower, what further recourse would the expert have had—the Judge? The Grand Jury? The State’s Attorney? What power does an expert witness have against an omnipotent district attorney whose use, mis-use and non-use of experts he can manipulate for his own ends? With a stroke of his pen, a prosecuting district attorney can delete—for any reason or simply no reason—any expert from his Witness List. In baseball, a feared hitter is thrown “balls” by the pitcher and given a free pass to first base. In the prosecutor’s office, a feared or unfavorable report written by the designated expert can send the expert home on a free pass and bury his report in the bottom drawer in the back of the prosecutor’s remote file cabinet or in the bowels of the basement archives.
These are complicated issues that immediately, if hypothetically, pit the expert and the prosecutor against each other, as dueling adversaries. Equally important, in the day-to-day, court-by-court trial testimony framing an expert witness’ work, there is infinitely more that an expert does not know about a case. This “case fog” (general or specific case ignorance, privileged closed-door discussions, negotiated deal-making) simply dwarfs the expert’s knowledge about his or her limited designation and opinion. Recently, I was an expert for the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit against a school district. During my deposition, the defendant-school district’s lawyer (Jeffrey Carlson, senior partner at Carlson, Messer, and Turner Law Group, Los Angeles), by way of countering and refuting an objection made by the attorney who hired me, turned to me and said, “Jim, you are not an attorney. There is so much about the case that you don’t know, case dynamics and the like, conversations in the law office, decisions, matters of discovery, and so forth to which you were not privy.”
Impact on the Expert’s Career
The attorney then asked me what professional or selfish concerns might impede or dissuade an expert from coming forward and blowing the whistle on a prosecutor he knows has concealed exculpatory evidence. Who, in the legal community, might resent an expert’s “brass balls” and Boy Scout zeal, and could therefore hurt the expert? I replied that the presiding question that ex-district attorney Nifong’s illegalities compel us to address is, who does an expert witness really work for? The judge of the court? The hiring attorney? The people of the state? The defendants on trial? The victims seeking redress? Or the plaintiff? Expert witnesses do not get paid for snooping around to verify whether and how their reports and opinions are being used. Who can say that Nifong’s expert should have followed up and investigated whether his unwanted evidence and exculpatory opinion would actually be used to free the innocent Duke Lacrosse defendants? In Los Angeles, California, music mogul Phil Spector is on trial for murder. His defense lawyer claims that the prosecution’s expert witness removed the murdered victim’s artificial, press-on fingernail from the carpet, evidence the defense claims would show that the victim handled the very gun that killed her. The defense’s expert witness, Dr. Henry Lee, a renowned national figure, in a spirit of revolt, said he would not return to court to be grilled by the district attorney. Expert witness flare-ups are rare. And defendant Phil Spector’s expert witness’s fury made headlines. We cannot afford to disregard the potential grief the Durham, County North Carolina expert would have spared the Duke Lacrosse defendants on trial and, equally important, how much money the state would have been saved if the expert had been able to come forward and blow the whistle on ex-district attorney Mike Nifong.
Justice at Last…or Just Delayed?
Ex-district attorney Mike Nifong went after the Duke Lacrosse players with unbridled vengeance, uncommon glee, and an unwholesome and rabid prejudice that knew no bounds. Regardless of the psychological framing of his actions (fortification of his political and personal agendas), he was a runaway train whose nearly forty counts, for illegal acts, now pending against him showed him to be more a persecutor who deliberately stacked his case and trampled the rights of the accused, and less a prosecutor discharging his legal obligation to uphold the law in the prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse defendants and their the right to a fair and decent trial. Despite his acts, it’s doubtful he will get a taste of his own medicine (“Nifonged”) in court. Indeed, he will receive a more fair and humane and decent trial in a court of law than he accorded the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Arguably, in some minds there is a fundamental unfairness about that, akin to suffering in luxury.
An expert witness can often be controlled and corralled—especially by a prosecuting district attorney who is drunk with his own hubris and driven mad by his premeditated goals for using a particular court case and its outcome to launch or solidify his personal and political career objectives. In such a prosecutor’s mind, “damn the evidence” becomes his mantra. To Nifong, the exculpatory DNA evidence in his hand seductively meant “Do Not Announce.” Unfortunately for the defendants on trial, he regarded his own expert witness as just another easily-dispensable player on his field of dreams.
Apart from the plethora of state bar allegations and the criminal charges against him, press accounts of Nifong’s very public behavior include placing persecution before investigation; jumping to false conclusions; improper self insertion into lineup procedures; conduct unbecoming a District Attorney by temper tantrum and foot stomping; menacing by verbal assault; inciting racial and social division in the community; electioneering; misappropriation of public trust; indecent exposure of Durham County to civil lawsuits; hijacking the District Attorney‘s office for his own personal fiefdom; and incompetence.
The attorney on the phone and I agreed on a time and place to meet for lunch, the following day. When we ended our conversation, I returned to watching “Shark,” the hit television show starring actor James Woods as a prosecutor who, in his obsessive desire to win at nearly all costs, frequently bends the law with his brand of Cirque du Soleil- like hijinks. During a commercial break, I pondered what “urgent need” the attorney wanted addressed. What I kept replaying, in my mind’s ear, was his last statement: “I know I said I want to pick your brain about former D.A. Mike Nifong. But what I really want to talk about are the roles and responsibilities of expert witnesses when hired by a prosecutor—especially a fire-breathing dragon like Nifong.”
It has been documented by the press that Mr. Nifong’s extraordinary actions—he is said to have committed over 50 various violations of law but charged with 34—even gave birth to a new term in the legal lexicon: “Nifonged.” The Washington Post Writers Group columnist Kathleen Parker, who coined this neologism, says, "Now we can 'Nifong' someone when we want to trump up criminal charges based on flimsy evidence allegedly for political purposes. In short, when we want to screw up someone's life." Said another way, the other side of the prosecution’s double-edged sword is burn-’em-at-stake PERSECUTION come alive and unbound—rampant, relentless, reckless, Draconian, unlawful, and uncontrollable.
The Expert’s Ethics
The anxious attorney and I met for lunch the next day and had a long talk. In the Duke University Lacrosse rape case, the designated expert witness had presented his report and opinion that the DNA evidence showed what he defined as “several other men” sexually involved with the purported victim of rape, none being any of the Duke University lacrosse defendants being tried by Prosecutor Nifong. The DNA from the Duke defendants on trial did not match the DNA “evidence” said to have littered the alleged rape victim. “Aren’t expert witnesses, like lawyers, regulated by a state board or commission?” the attorney asked me. “No, not exactly,” I replied, thinking he already knew the answer to that. He frowned, paused and then continued. “What, then, ought to compel an expert witness to blow the whistle on a prosecutor suppressing and concealing exculpatory evidence, like Nifong did?” I told him that an expert witness is not obligated to report a suppression-of-evidence crime he feels a prosecutor has committed and thus protect the right to a fair trial of the defendants. “Shouldn’t the expert have confronted Mr. Nifong and insisted he publicly disclose the exculpatory evidence the expert had discovered?” No, I said. It has yet to be established that the expert witness even knew District Attorney Nifong had suppressed the exculpatory evidence. It was the press corps that sounded the alarm about Nifong’s crime, when reporting his parade of other illegal acts. Prior to the blaring press headlines, what and where was the expert’s proof of Nifong’s evidence tampering, assuming he even had reasonable doubt about Nifong’s lawful handling of the exculpatory DNA evidence?
What Did the Expert Know and When Did He Know It?
Ex-District Attorney Nifong, in addition to having already been disbarred, will be tried in court for, ironically, a boatload of more felonies than those for which he wrongly prosecuted the innocent Duke Lacrosse defendants. As we lunched, the attorney allowed as to how it could well be that Nifong’s expert witness may be subpoenaed to testify about what he might have known about Nifong’s suppression of the exculpatory evidence the expert handed over to him, how he felt about it, and why he never came forward to report Nifong’s actions. I reminded the attorney that such examination, of course, would improperly put the expert on trial. The expert would be between a rock and a hard place and even assaulted with the question, “Why didn’t you know, and in what ways were you ignorant, about the prosecutor’s suppression and concealment of the exculpatory evidence that you gave him?” Nifong’s expert witness, like most expert witnesses, probably presented his report and opinion and, having thus discharged his designated and limited duty—he apparently was not asked (allowed?) by Nifong to testify in court—took a hike, knowing absolutely nothing of Nifong’s intent to suppress and conceal the exculpatory evidence in the report that would have freed the Duke defendants.
For Whom the Bell Tolls: When to Blow the Whistle
We spent the remainder of our lunch meeting discussing whether Mr. Nifong’s expert witness ought to have confronted Mr. Nifong and demanded that he publicly disclose the contents of the suppressed evidence. Consider this: wouldn’t such a strategy (a) suggest the expert knew and could prove that Nifong suppressed the evidence? and (b) place Nifong in a position of admitting both failure to exercise due diligence and belatedly (not to mention embarrassingly) disclosing his possession of exculpatory evidence? As a hypothetical, let’s say the expert knew that Mr. Nifong hid the exculpatory evidence under lock and key, which in fact Nifong did. Should the expert have confronted Mr. Nifong about the district attorney’s legal obligation to disclose the evidence? What if Nifong denied concealing and locking up the evidence? What if, angered, afraid and feeling intimidated, he threatened the expert, physically, called the Bailiff to arrest the expert, or vowed to destroy his career?
As a whistle-blower, what further recourse would the expert have had—the Judge? The Grand Jury? The State’s Attorney? What power does an expert witness have against an omnipotent district attorney whose use, mis-use and non-use of experts he can manipulate for his own ends? With a stroke of his pen, a prosecuting district attorney can delete—for any reason or simply no reason—any expert from his Witness List. In baseball, a feared hitter is thrown “balls” by the pitcher and given a free pass to first base. In the prosecutor’s office, a feared or unfavorable report written by the designated expert can send the expert home on a free pass and bury his report in the bottom drawer in the back of the prosecutor’s remote file cabinet or in the bowels of the basement archives.
These are complicated issues that immediately, if hypothetically, pit the expert and the prosecutor against each other, as dueling adversaries. Equally important, in the day-to-day, court-by-court trial testimony framing an expert witness’ work, there is infinitely more that an expert does not know about a case. This “case fog” (general or specific case ignorance, privileged closed-door discussions, negotiated deal-making) simply dwarfs the expert’s knowledge about his or her limited designation and opinion. Recently, I was an expert for the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit against a school district. During my deposition, the defendant-school district’s lawyer (Jeffrey Carlson, senior partner at Carlson, Messer, and Turner Law Group, Los Angeles), by way of countering and refuting an objection made by the attorney who hired me, turned to me and said, “Jim, you are not an attorney. There is so much about the case that you don’t know, case dynamics and the like, conversations in the law office, decisions, matters of discovery, and so forth to which you were not privy.”
Impact on the Expert’s Career
The attorney then asked me what professional or selfish concerns might impede or dissuade an expert from coming forward and blowing the whistle on a prosecutor he knows has concealed exculpatory evidence. Who, in the legal community, might resent an expert’s “brass balls” and Boy Scout zeal, and could therefore hurt the expert? I replied that the presiding question that ex-district attorney Nifong’s illegalities compel us to address is, who does an expert witness really work for? The judge of the court? The hiring attorney? The people of the state? The defendants on trial? The victims seeking redress? Or the plaintiff? Expert witnesses do not get paid for snooping around to verify whether and how their reports and opinions are being used. Who can say that Nifong’s expert should have followed up and investigated whether his unwanted evidence and exculpatory opinion would actually be used to free the innocent Duke Lacrosse defendants? In Los Angeles, California, music mogul Phil Spector is on trial for murder. His defense lawyer claims that the prosecution’s expert witness removed the murdered victim’s artificial, press-on fingernail from the carpet, evidence the defense claims would show that the victim handled the very gun that killed her. The defense’s expert witness, Dr. Henry Lee, a renowned national figure, in a spirit of revolt, said he would not return to court to be grilled by the district attorney. Expert witness flare-ups are rare. And defendant Phil Spector’s expert witness’s fury made headlines. We cannot afford to disregard the potential grief the Durham, County North Carolina expert would have spared the Duke Lacrosse defendants on trial and, equally important, how much money the state would have been saved if the expert had been able to come forward and blow the whistle on ex-district attorney Mike Nifong.
Justice at Last…or Just Delayed?
Ex-district attorney Mike Nifong went after the Duke Lacrosse players with unbridled vengeance, uncommon glee, and an unwholesome and rabid prejudice that knew no bounds. Regardless of the psychological framing of his actions (fortification of his political and personal agendas), he was a runaway train whose nearly forty counts, for illegal acts, now pending against him showed him to be more a persecutor who deliberately stacked his case and trampled the rights of the accused, and less a prosecutor discharging his legal obligation to uphold the law in the prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse defendants and their the right to a fair and decent trial. Despite his acts, it’s doubtful he will get a taste of his own medicine (“Nifonged”) in court. Indeed, he will receive a more fair and humane and decent trial in a court of law than he accorded the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Arguably, in some minds there is a fundamental unfairness about that, akin to suffering in luxury.
An expert witness can often be controlled and corralled—especially by a prosecuting district attorney who is drunk with his own hubris and driven mad by his premeditated goals for using a particular court case and its outcome to launch or solidify his personal and political career objectives. In such a prosecutor’s mind, “damn the evidence” becomes his mantra. To Nifong, the exculpatory DNA evidence in his hand seductively meant “Do Not Announce.” Unfortunately for the defendants on trial, he regarded his own expert witness as just another easily-dispensable player on his field of dreams.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Putting in Work: A Gang Obsession That Includes Hate Crimes
Editor's Note: The gang obsessive-compulsion passion of "putting in work" is not restricted to crimes against persons who were either: (a) "slipping", that is, high, drunk, or otherwise vulnerable; (b) weak and easy prey; (c) rival gangsters; or (d) wrongdoers who had to be "DP'D" or "dee-peed"--disciplined. Putting in work is a non-negotiable requirement to commit criminal acts to maintain gang membership and strength, as well as maintain and increase respect, fear, prestige, and reputation. "Big Homies" who run gangs are rigidly conservative in their orientation toward life and generally untrusting in their suspicion-driven world view. They are "equal opportunity employers" who require all their underlings to put in work daily. They judge the quality and character of their "soldiers" (big homies favor military-type terms) by whether and how they put in work.
Putting in work includes the hate crime of assaulting, attacking, harassing or shooting somebody based on their race and ethnicity. Thus, the People's gang enhancement allegations might well be reinforced and argued in a clear and convincing manner if there is a hate crime component to the gangbanger's actions. Many gangbangers are totally unaware of the implications of gang activities, in general, and those gang acts fueled and driven by racial hatred. Big Homie simply does not take time to educate his underlings about how state prison sentencing is factored when one of his "little homies" is being tried in court on gang enhancement AND hate crime charges.
The barbaric and primal assaulting of persons who are of the same race and ethnicity as their attackers, is so customary among gangs as to be virtually a crime-cliche to the public at large. Whenever there were gang-against-gang conflicts, one could very nearly always presume the combatants to have been of the same race. That is why law enforcement and districts attorney are taking a hard look at gang assaults on persons whose race and ethnicity are markedly different than their attackers. Latino gang assaults on blacks figure prominently, in terms of frequency. Black gang assaults on latinos, although they do occur, do not happen with the same frequency.
A presiding question that may come to your mind is, since Big Homie is not tutoring his slave-flock of young gangbangers about the punitive and sentencing phases of court trials and the power of juries, who in the community is alerting these adolescents-wanting-to-be-men to the bigger-than-life danger of having their manhood aborted and abruptly curtailed by torturous terms spent in youth probation camps, state youth prison, and adult state prison (commonly called the "big house")? Who is really telling them what gang acts really mean, from a prosecutor's point of view? Who is telling them the truth about how the prosecutor, in the name of "The People," can argue convincingly and persuasively that a young defendant on trial is so hard-core that every act he does is in the name of the trinity known as My Gang, My Big Homie, My Hood. Once that argument is made, delivered, and buttressed with sundry pieces of evidence, a hate crime, in addition to being exploited and magnified by the prosecutor, for the jury, becomes the high-octane fuel that ignites, inflames, and confirms the gang-enhancement charge: acts done at the direction of, or for the benefit of, the gang, to enhance its reputation, inspire fear, and exercise control.
The defense never rests. And despite gangbangers' virtual nonstop activity, they deserve to have their right to a fair trial preserved, protected and honored by those of us who aid and abet said defense in a court of law.
The County Human Relations Commission reports a 28% increase last year, with assaults and vandalism the leading categories.
By Teresa Watanabe
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
12:32 PM PDT, July 24, 2008
Hate crimes in Los Angeles rose to their highest level in five years last year, led by attacks between Latinos and blacks, county officials reported today. The annual report by the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission showed hate crimes rose by 28% overall for a total of 763, with assault and vandalism leading the way.
The largest number involved Latino suspects against black victims; the second largest involved black suspects against Latino victims.
Despite the intense national debate over illegal immigration, hate crimes against immigrants decreased slightly. Incidents against Muslims, which increased after the 2001 terrorist attacks, also decreased slightly. The largest number of religion-based hate crimes were directed against Jews.
The rise in hate crimes contrasted with the decline in the general crime rate in Los Angeles.
teresa.watanabe@latimes.com
Putting in work includes the hate crime of assaulting, attacking, harassing or shooting somebody based on their race and ethnicity. Thus, the People's gang enhancement allegations might well be reinforced and argued in a clear and convincing manner if there is a hate crime component to the gangbanger's actions. Many gangbangers are totally unaware of the implications of gang activities, in general, and those gang acts fueled and driven by racial hatred. Big Homie simply does not take time to educate his underlings about how state prison sentencing is factored when one of his "little homies" is being tried in court on gang enhancement AND hate crime charges.
The barbaric and primal assaulting of persons who are of the same race and ethnicity as their attackers, is so customary among gangs as to be virtually a crime-cliche to the public at large. Whenever there were gang-against-gang conflicts, one could very nearly always presume the combatants to have been of the same race. That is why law enforcement and districts attorney are taking a hard look at gang assaults on persons whose race and ethnicity are markedly different than their attackers. Latino gang assaults on blacks figure prominently, in terms of frequency. Black gang assaults on latinos, although they do occur, do not happen with the same frequency.
A presiding question that may come to your mind is, since Big Homie is not tutoring his slave-flock of young gangbangers about the punitive and sentencing phases of court trials and the power of juries, who in the community is alerting these adolescents-wanting-to-be-men to the bigger-than-life danger of having their manhood aborted and abruptly curtailed by torturous terms spent in youth probation camps, state youth prison, and adult state prison (commonly called the "big house")? Who is really telling them what gang acts really mean, from a prosecutor's point of view? Who is telling them the truth about how the prosecutor, in the name of "The People," can argue convincingly and persuasively that a young defendant on trial is so hard-core that every act he does is in the name of the trinity known as My Gang, My Big Homie, My Hood. Once that argument is made, delivered, and buttressed with sundry pieces of evidence, a hate crime, in addition to being exploited and magnified by the prosecutor, for the jury, becomes the high-octane fuel that ignites, inflames, and confirms the gang-enhancement charge: acts done at the direction of, or for the benefit of, the gang, to enhance its reputation, inspire fear, and exercise control.
The defense never rests. And despite gangbangers' virtual nonstop activity, they deserve to have their right to a fair trial preserved, protected and honored by those of us who aid and abet said defense in a court of law.
The County Human Relations Commission reports a 28% increase last year, with assaults and vandalism the leading categories.
By Teresa Watanabe
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
12:32 PM PDT, July 24, 2008
Hate crimes in Los Angeles rose to their highest level in five years last year, led by attacks between Latinos and blacks, county officials reported today. The annual report by the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission showed hate crimes rose by 28% overall for a total of 763, with assault and vandalism leading the way.
The largest number involved Latino suspects against black victims; the second largest involved black suspects against Latino victims.
Despite the intense national debate over illegal immigration, hate crimes against immigrants decreased slightly. Incidents against Muslims, which increased after the 2001 terrorist attacks, also decreased slightly. The largest number of religion-based hate crimes were directed against Jews.
The rise in hate crimes contrasted with the decline in the general crime rate in Los Angeles.
teresa.watanabe@latimes.com
Friday, July 18, 2008
Testilying in Los Angeles
Editor's Note: Testilying is a word, coined by internationally-renowned criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, to define fraudulent court testimony by sworn law enforcement officers. Professor (he's served on the faculty of Harvard Law School) Dershowitz chose a word that both instantly and accurately spells what sometimes happens under oath when police are on the witness stand. In spite of his research about and experience with this form of truth decay, Mr. Dershowitz was unjustifiably criticized by insulted prosecutors and law enforcement officers alike; moreover, he was attacked in the press. Truth is often accepted or acknowledged in small quantities, at unpredictable or inconvenient times. Despite this, the supply of truth seems to always exceed its demand. The demand for it must be created and sustained and nurtured for growth. Without question, Professor Dershowitz has performed an invaluable public service.
The following article sheds both light and heat on what Mr. Dershowitz recognized and publicly reported (he even wrote a book on testilying) when police distort justice and deform the constitutional process of according defendants a fair trial. Before Alan Dershowitz sounded the alarm, many of the nation's defendants on trial, particularly ethnic minorities, have for decades known about and experienced law enforcement's sabotaging and corrupting of their rights to a fair trial.
Charges of Police Lying Haunt Cases Whether officers' false testimony is deliberate or an innocent mistake is often difficult to prove. Officials contend such problems are rare.
By FREDRIC N. TULSKY, TED ROHRLICH, JOHN JOHNSON, Times Staff Writers. From: mnovick@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us (michael novick)
The 11 p.m. news was on when gasoline-filled bottles came crashing through the window of an apartment in the Pueblo del Rio housing project. A woman and her 11-month-old daughter were engulfed in flames. Within hours, the police announced to an anxious community that the homicides were solved: An 18-year-old gang member had confessed.
But the case was not that simple. After Robert Vanke had spent four years in jail awaiting trial, an FBI expert determined that his taped confession had been altered. His attorney contended that police intentionally erased two crucial minutes of tape, making an innocent man appear guilty.
Detectives said the erasures were inadvertent and innocuous. But the prosecutor, voicing serious doubts about Vanke's guilt, dismissed the charges. The Vanke case and a series of other cases haunted by allegations of police misconduct were examined as part of a broader study of homicide in Los Angeles County.
The review was undertaken amid allegations that police had framed O.J. Simpson. These allegations fueled mistrust of police, particularly in minority communities. The examination focused on a dozen instances in which evidence established that Los Angeles Police Department officers had falsely testified or withheld crucial evidence. In four other cases, prosecutors dismissed murder charges after questions were raised about the conduct or veracity of police. How often police testify falsely or withhold evidence is impossible to know. Every day in court, witnesses and police accuse each other of lying about what police were told during their investigations. But seldom is there independent evidence to disprove the police version. In each case that was reviewed, there were lingering questions about whether the alleged police misconduct resulted from an intentional act or an innocent mistake.
For example:
* A detective testified about how he smooth-talked a murder suspect into voluntarily coming to the station for questioning. It never happened. The officer was on vacation. The error, he later said, arose out of confusion.
* A detective failed to disclose that he paid $100 to an eyewitness who identified a murder suspect. The payment was not disclosed, the officer said, because its disclosure could have endangered the informant.
* A detective swore that he had confirmed where a murder suspect lived before police raided the house. But the suspect had been dead for months, dead even before the murder occurred. The detective later insisted that he had checked the house and was given erroneous information by the suspect's mother.
To some, an officer's intent is irrelevant. For people who are victims of such conduct, "it doesn't matter that the officers say it was an innocent mistake," said Georgetown University law professor Abbe Smith. "It is a terrible thing to come into court and watch an officer testify falsely, and watch everyone else believe the testimony."
Smith said her years as a public defender and as deputy director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute convinced her that such instances happen most often to poor people and minorities. "Experiences like this make impoverished people convinced that the system is not for them," she said.
The magnitude of that mistrust was illustrated by Los Angeles Times polls in 1994 and 1995, which found that most people of color do not trust the police and most white people do. More than two-thirds of African American residents of Los Angeles County believe that police commonly testify falsely, the polls found. About half of the Latinos agreed, versus only a quarter of whites. The polls were conducted before and after the Simpson murder trial, in which allegations of police lying became a major focus.
--snip--
Police are authorized to lie during investigations in pursuit of the truth. Police can lie during undercover operations. They can use ruses to find out where people live so they can get search warrants. At homicide school, a reporter watched as officers were taught to bluff suspects into confessing by pretending to have evidence when they did not. They were taught to use falsely labeled notebooks, supposedly containing reams of evidence. Detectives put this kind of advice into practice. In one case, detectives went into an interview armed with the statement of Ivan Benad, a resident of Wish Avenue. Court records show that Benad existed only in the minds of the homicide detectives. His name was a play on words: "I've been had." As other detectives interviewed suspect Chico William Donnell, they told him they had plenty of evidence: A witness put him at the scene; his fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. He could trust them, the detectives said, because the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that they could not lie to suspects. But that assurance was only one more lie. As Deputy Dist. Atty. Brenda Burns told the judge in defending the technique: "The state of the law is very clear about what detectives can and can't do. They can lie, they can make up evidence, and they can say a lot of leading and suggestive things to defendants."
New York University law professor Jerome Skolnick says society has condoned such lies "ostensibly because the good end of criminal capture and conviction justifies the bad means of lying." But he questions whether a culture that encourages such ruses out of court is able to leave them at the courtroom door. "One could take the view that this [the courtroom] is a totally different context, so suffused with dignity and the sacred that police would inevitably find it abhorrent to lie in such a revered setting," Skolnick said. "Regrettably, the evidence suggests otherwise."
Former New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton said: "A lot of police chiefs would not admit there is a problem with 'testilying.' It is a problem--for the profession. You have to face up to it. What's the scope of it? The impact of it? That's debatable." In May 1995, LAPD Det. Andrew Teague took the witness stand and testified that two men on trial for murder had signed statements claiming that the chief witness against them, Racjon Floyd, was the real killer. Actually, the documents were phony, prepared as a ruse by Teague himself. Teague had taken the suspects' signatures and pasted them onto witness forms. He wrote in their supposed statements and copied them before he went to interrogate Floyd. The ruse was designed to convince Floyd that it was in his interest to cooperate with Teague and implicate the two suspects.
But asked in court about the documents, Teague testified that they were authentic. The defense had a handwriting expert appointed. When that expert asked Teague's partner for the original documents, Teague said there were no originals. He told the prosecutor he had forgotten about the forgery. Teague's admission caused the prosecution to dismiss the case. The case could not have come at a worse time. Det. Mark Fuhrman had been accused of lying in the Simpson case when he denied using the word "nigger"--an accusation that later led to his perjury conviction.
LAPD Chief Willie L. Williams--already faced with a public furor over police lying--publicly condemned Teague and suspended him. But a police review board later concluded that an overworked Teague had simply made a mistake because he had failed to review his investigative file before testifying. "It was not a mistake of the heart," said a civilian board member. "It was only a mistake of the mind." The finding seemed implausible to the defense attorney, Armando Wood, who wondered how Teague could have gone to so much trouble to create a ruse and then forgotten about it. "If my clients gave an excuse like that," said Wood, a deputy alternate public defender, "nobody would believe them." Teague has sued Chief Williams, claiming he was slandered by Williams' comments. That lawsuit is pending.
--snip--
Paying a Witness The case of Michael Carr shows how the actions of an officer can be viewed in dramatically different ways. Carr was accused of being one of two gunmen who burst into a hotel room before dawn and opened fire in 1991. A man and a woman were killed; a third occupant was badly wounded. Deputy Dist. Atty. Karen Thorp, like many prosecutors, was used to having terrified witnesses back away from identifications. But witness Terence Rose contended that he had only made the identification because LAPD Det. Rudy Lemos had paid him $100. Most shocking to the prosecutor was that Lemos acknowledged the payment. The detective said the payment was to secure the witness' help in finding another witness. "Why would you ever give an I.D. witness, or any witness, money?" Thorp recalled asking. After the prosecutor detailed the incident in a memo, the judge stopped the trial and held a hearing. Records showed that Lemos paid Rose the $100 on the same day, and at the same time, that Rose made the identification. The detective said the money and the identification were not connected. Just after Rose made the identification, he asked for money to buy Christmas presents for his children, Lemos said. Lemos got authorization for the $100 from a superior. But he did not disclose the payment to trial attorneys. He explained he had not wanted Rose labeled a "snitch." After hearing from Rose and Lemos, the judge said he found portions of both versions "incredible." Superiors at the LAPD investigated what they termed Rose's "preposterous" allegation. They concluded that Lemos was a veteran policeman with a reputation for integrity and that he had done nothing improper or unusual: Police often pay people who help them and do not list the payments in their investigative reports. The investigation concluded that Rose had backed away from his identification because Carr had intimidated him. The payment so contaminated the trial that the prosecutor decided against using Rose. That left only one witness against Carr--Kenneth Cole, who survived the motel room attack. The defense alleged that Cole too benefited from cooperating in the murder investigation; his bail in an unrelated attempted murder case kept being reduced, until finally he was released without bail. Lemos testified that he had nothing to do with Cole's bail reductions. He said that, to the best of his knowledge, neither he nor his partner had even talked about Cole's case with the judge or attorneys. However, Deputy Public Defender Douglas Goldstein testified that he had several conversations with Lemos or his partner and that they agreed not to oppose Cole's release on bail. In reducing bail, the judge had noted that the prosecution had no objection "if defendant continues to cooperate" with Lemos and his partner. After hearing Goldstein contradict Lemos, Judge Robert Perry had heard enough. "I have a significant doubt . . . to whether or not Mr. Carr committed these offenses," Perry said in taking the case away from the jury and finding Carr not guilty. The jury convicted the other alleged gunman, Eric Buford, and he was sentenced to two life terms.
Costly Search Warrant When two youths were killed for videotaping gang members cruising along Crenshaw Boulevard, the police planned a massive raid of 18 houses in 1993 to catch the suspects. Det. Mark Arneson was assigned to confirm that suspect Gregory Davis lived in a house in Inglewood. Arneson said that Davis' mother confirmed his residency. Based on that assurance, police obtained a search warrant and conducted a nighttime raid. But Davis was not home. He had died in a traffic accident months earlier, even before the killings. His mother, who still lived in the house, sued the police in federal court. Gloria Tave contended that they had "terrorized" her. Arneson testified in the plaintiff's suit that he had gone to the house and confirmed that Davis lived there--testimony that was backed up by his partner. U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie said before trial that he believed that verification was "completely whole cloth . . . invented as a matter of convenience to satisfy the requirements of the judge" who had been asked to sign the search warrant. Rafeedie urged the city to settle the suit. The city went to trial anyway. The jury awarded Tave $68,850 and--in a rare display of displeasure--ordered Arneson to personally pay $1,000 of the judgment. In an interview, Arneson insisted that he really had gone to the house. "She told me her boy was there," he said. "She didn't tell me he was dead. . . . I'm not going to fictionalize." Arneson speculated that the jury had been racially biased in favor of Tave and against him because she is black and he is white. Arneson, a 19-year LAPD veteran and gang expert, transferred out of homicide after his credibility became an issue in several other cases as well. Now a patrol sergeant in Watts, Arneson said he was fed up with "completely outlandish" attacks from defense attorneys who dislike him because of his success in catching killers.
Copyright Los Angeles Times
The following article sheds both light and heat on what Mr. Dershowitz recognized and publicly reported (he even wrote a book on testilying) when police distort justice and deform the constitutional process of according defendants a fair trial. Before Alan Dershowitz sounded the alarm, many of the nation's defendants on trial, particularly ethnic minorities, have for decades known about and experienced law enforcement's sabotaging and corrupting of their rights to a fair trial.
Charges of Police Lying Haunt Cases Whether officers' false testimony is deliberate or an innocent mistake is often difficult to prove. Officials contend such problems are rare.
By FREDRIC N. TULSKY, TED ROHRLICH, JOHN JOHNSON, Times Staff Writers. From: mnovick@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us (michael novick)
The 11 p.m. news was on when gasoline-filled bottles came crashing through the window of an apartment in the Pueblo del Rio housing project. A woman and her 11-month-old daughter were engulfed in flames. Within hours, the police announced to an anxious community that the homicides were solved: An 18-year-old gang member had confessed.
But the case was not that simple. After Robert Vanke had spent four years in jail awaiting trial, an FBI expert determined that his taped confession had been altered. His attorney contended that police intentionally erased two crucial minutes of tape, making an innocent man appear guilty.
Detectives said the erasures were inadvertent and innocuous. But the prosecutor, voicing serious doubts about Vanke's guilt, dismissed the charges. The Vanke case and a series of other cases haunted by allegations of police misconduct were examined as part of a broader study of homicide in Los Angeles County.
The review was undertaken amid allegations that police had framed O.J. Simpson. These allegations fueled mistrust of police, particularly in minority communities. The examination focused on a dozen instances in which evidence established that Los Angeles Police Department officers had falsely testified or withheld crucial evidence. In four other cases, prosecutors dismissed murder charges after questions were raised about the conduct or veracity of police. How often police testify falsely or withhold evidence is impossible to know. Every day in court, witnesses and police accuse each other of lying about what police were told during their investigations. But seldom is there independent evidence to disprove the police version. In each case that was reviewed, there were lingering questions about whether the alleged police misconduct resulted from an intentional act or an innocent mistake.
For example:
* A detective testified about how he smooth-talked a murder suspect into voluntarily coming to the station for questioning. It never happened. The officer was on vacation. The error, he later said, arose out of confusion.
* A detective failed to disclose that he paid $100 to an eyewitness who identified a murder suspect. The payment was not disclosed, the officer said, because its disclosure could have endangered the informant.
* A detective swore that he had confirmed where a murder suspect lived before police raided the house. But the suspect had been dead for months, dead even before the murder occurred. The detective later insisted that he had checked the house and was given erroneous information by the suspect's mother.
To some, an officer's intent is irrelevant. For people who are victims of such conduct, "it doesn't matter that the officers say it was an innocent mistake," said Georgetown University law professor Abbe Smith. "It is a terrible thing to come into court and watch an officer testify falsely, and watch everyone else believe the testimony."
Smith said her years as a public defender and as deputy director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute convinced her that such instances happen most often to poor people and minorities. "Experiences like this make impoverished people convinced that the system is not for them," she said.
The magnitude of that mistrust was illustrated by Los Angeles Times polls in 1994 and 1995, which found that most people of color do not trust the police and most white people do. More than two-thirds of African American residents of Los Angeles County believe that police commonly testify falsely, the polls found. About half of the Latinos agreed, versus only a quarter of whites. The polls were conducted before and after the Simpson murder trial, in which allegations of police lying became a major focus.
--snip--
Police are authorized to lie during investigations in pursuit of the truth. Police can lie during undercover operations. They can use ruses to find out where people live so they can get search warrants. At homicide school, a reporter watched as officers were taught to bluff suspects into confessing by pretending to have evidence when they did not. They were taught to use falsely labeled notebooks, supposedly containing reams of evidence. Detectives put this kind of advice into practice. In one case, detectives went into an interview armed with the statement of Ivan Benad, a resident of Wish Avenue. Court records show that Benad existed only in the minds of the homicide detectives. His name was a play on words: "I've been had." As other detectives interviewed suspect Chico William Donnell, they told him they had plenty of evidence: A witness put him at the scene; his fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. He could trust them, the detectives said, because the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that they could not lie to suspects. But that assurance was only one more lie. As Deputy Dist. Atty. Brenda Burns told the judge in defending the technique: "The state of the law is very clear about what detectives can and can't do. They can lie, they can make up evidence, and they can say a lot of leading and suggestive things to defendants."
New York University law professor Jerome Skolnick says society has condoned such lies "ostensibly because the good end of criminal capture and conviction justifies the bad means of lying." But he questions whether a culture that encourages such ruses out of court is able to leave them at the courtroom door. "One could take the view that this [the courtroom] is a totally different context, so suffused with dignity and the sacred that police would inevitably find it abhorrent to lie in such a revered setting," Skolnick said. "Regrettably, the evidence suggests otherwise."
Former New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton said: "A lot of police chiefs would not admit there is a problem with 'testilying.' It is a problem--for the profession. You have to face up to it. What's the scope of it? The impact of it? That's debatable." In May 1995, LAPD Det. Andrew Teague took the witness stand and testified that two men on trial for murder had signed statements claiming that the chief witness against them, Racjon Floyd, was the real killer. Actually, the documents were phony, prepared as a ruse by Teague himself. Teague had taken the suspects' signatures and pasted them onto witness forms. He wrote in their supposed statements and copied them before he went to interrogate Floyd. The ruse was designed to convince Floyd that it was in his interest to cooperate with Teague and implicate the two suspects.
But asked in court about the documents, Teague testified that they were authentic. The defense had a handwriting expert appointed. When that expert asked Teague's partner for the original documents, Teague said there were no originals. He told the prosecutor he had forgotten about the forgery. Teague's admission caused the prosecution to dismiss the case. The case could not have come at a worse time. Det. Mark Fuhrman had been accused of lying in the Simpson case when he denied using the word "nigger"--an accusation that later led to his perjury conviction.
LAPD Chief Willie L. Williams--already faced with a public furor over police lying--publicly condemned Teague and suspended him. But a police review board later concluded that an overworked Teague had simply made a mistake because he had failed to review his investigative file before testifying. "It was not a mistake of the heart," said a civilian board member. "It was only a mistake of the mind." The finding seemed implausible to the defense attorney, Armando Wood, who wondered how Teague could have gone to so much trouble to create a ruse and then forgotten about it. "If my clients gave an excuse like that," said Wood, a deputy alternate public defender, "nobody would believe them." Teague has sued Chief Williams, claiming he was slandered by Williams' comments. That lawsuit is pending.
--snip--
Paying a Witness The case of Michael Carr shows how the actions of an officer can be viewed in dramatically different ways. Carr was accused of being one of two gunmen who burst into a hotel room before dawn and opened fire in 1991. A man and a woman were killed; a third occupant was badly wounded. Deputy Dist. Atty. Karen Thorp, like many prosecutors, was used to having terrified witnesses back away from identifications. But witness Terence Rose contended that he had only made the identification because LAPD Det. Rudy Lemos had paid him $100. Most shocking to the prosecutor was that Lemos acknowledged the payment. The detective said the payment was to secure the witness' help in finding another witness. "Why would you ever give an I.D. witness, or any witness, money?" Thorp recalled asking. After the prosecutor detailed the incident in a memo, the judge stopped the trial and held a hearing. Records showed that Lemos paid Rose the $100 on the same day, and at the same time, that Rose made the identification. The detective said the money and the identification were not connected. Just after Rose made the identification, he asked for money to buy Christmas presents for his children, Lemos said. Lemos got authorization for the $100 from a superior. But he did not disclose the payment to trial attorneys. He explained he had not wanted Rose labeled a "snitch." After hearing from Rose and Lemos, the judge said he found portions of both versions "incredible." Superiors at the LAPD investigated what they termed Rose's "preposterous" allegation. They concluded that Lemos was a veteran policeman with a reputation for integrity and that he had done nothing improper or unusual: Police often pay people who help them and do not list the payments in their investigative reports. The investigation concluded that Rose had backed away from his identification because Carr had intimidated him. The payment so contaminated the trial that the prosecutor decided against using Rose. That left only one witness against Carr--Kenneth Cole, who survived the motel room attack. The defense alleged that Cole too benefited from cooperating in the murder investigation; his bail in an unrelated attempted murder case kept being reduced, until finally he was released without bail. Lemos testified that he had nothing to do with Cole's bail reductions. He said that, to the best of his knowledge, neither he nor his partner had even talked about Cole's case with the judge or attorneys. However, Deputy Public Defender Douglas Goldstein testified that he had several conversations with Lemos or his partner and that they agreed not to oppose Cole's release on bail. In reducing bail, the judge had noted that the prosecution had no objection "if defendant continues to cooperate" with Lemos and his partner. After hearing Goldstein contradict Lemos, Judge Robert Perry had heard enough. "I have a significant doubt . . . to whether or not Mr. Carr committed these offenses," Perry said in taking the case away from the jury and finding Carr not guilty. The jury convicted the other alleged gunman, Eric Buford, and he was sentenced to two life terms.
Costly Search Warrant When two youths were killed for videotaping gang members cruising along Crenshaw Boulevard, the police planned a massive raid of 18 houses in 1993 to catch the suspects. Det. Mark Arneson was assigned to confirm that suspect Gregory Davis lived in a house in Inglewood. Arneson said that Davis' mother confirmed his residency. Based on that assurance, police obtained a search warrant and conducted a nighttime raid. But Davis was not home. He had died in a traffic accident months earlier, even before the killings. His mother, who still lived in the house, sued the police in federal court. Gloria Tave contended that they had "terrorized" her. Arneson testified in the plaintiff's suit that he had gone to the house and confirmed that Davis lived there--testimony that was backed up by his partner. U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie said before trial that he believed that verification was "completely whole cloth . . . invented as a matter of convenience to satisfy the requirements of the judge" who had been asked to sign the search warrant. Rafeedie urged the city to settle the suit. The city went to trial anyway. The jury awarded Tave $68,850 and--in a rare display of displeasure--ordered Arneson to personally pay $1,000 of the judgment. In an interview, Arneson insisted that he really had gone to the house. "She told me her boy was there," he said. "She didn't tell me he was dead. . . . I'm not going to fictionalize." Arneson speculated that the jury had been racially biased in favor of Tave and against him because she is black and he is white. Arneson, a 19-year LAPD veteran and gang expert, transferred out of homicide after his credibility became an issue in several other cases as well. Now a patrol sergeant in Watts, Arneson said he was fed up with "completely outlandish" attacks from defense attorneys who dislike him because of his success in catching killers.
Copyright Los Angeles Times
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Compton Gang Does the Humpty Dumpty Under Attorney General Attack
Editor's Note: The following press release describes an unprecedented (in terms of prime, concentrated attention from the Attorney General) heavy-duty broadside on a Compton gang whose prominence among the press corps coincided with the rise of gangster rap, in the 1990's. Questions that might spring to mind as you read this are: Despite some of the arrestees having good jobs requiring some intelligence and training, is it possible they were so possessed by the gangster criminal mindset, that they were simply "gone" and beyond rehabilitation? Is there a direct link between criminal street gangs and gangster rap music? Does this major crackdown, approved by the Attorney General, suggest millions of dollars allocated for this, and unprecedented time and labor (person-hours) expended? Was this gang crackdown a priority for the entire state, that is, was the target representative of the most heinous and dangerous activity and community threat above and beyond other concurrent gang acts in the state? Will its unarguable success inspire more such crackdowns in Oakland, San Francisco, Long Beach, Riverside, San Diego, Pasadena, San Bernardino, East Los Angeles, Highland Park, Glassell Park, Ventura and Contra Costa counties, and elsewhere?
But before you read the Attorney General's press release, below, please read and reflect on some thoughts I have. And here they are:
For Expert Witnesses who work primarily for the Defense Bar, a State Attorney's public and pre-arraignment comments describing the social or employment status of arrested suspects may create a prejudicial profile in the minds of jurors against alleged gangbangers facing imminent trial. Heretofore, experts like myself have included in our defense arguments and opinions, "exceptional status" facts to show the Court that the defendant is atypical of and differentiated from the "jobless-marauder/criminal public menace" (my emphasis) profile traditionally framed in the District Attorney's arguments and allegations against members of gangs. Indeed, many districts attorney argue, often not so subtly, that a gangbanger-defendant's proper job should be as an inmate inside the state penitentiary. Jury verdicts, often driven by feelings buried within their unconscious mind, may show their pre-decision concurrence with this argument; because of that, such pre-trial comments that a State Attorney might make about a suspect's employment status ought to be deemed unconstitutional.
Expert Witnesses will need to look inside their quivers and use any arrows that, combined and compounded, may show the defendant in a contrastingly favorable light, and a far remove from any prejudice-toward-guilt/jury tampering public comments any elected official might make, while reeling under spontaneity and surprise about the social and employment status of arrested suspects. The California Attorney General's comments were, in effect, a self-admission that he subscribed to the mindset that having a "good job" automatically confers upon one a good-and-wholesome character profile, the social ideal. Said another way, the meta-talk by the California Attorney General seems to have really meant: "Jurors, beware of gangbanger defendants holding good jobs--they're as good as guilty."
Brown Announces Major Compton Gang Crackdown, Arrest of Killer Mail Carrier
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday July 8, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. Contact: Gareth Lacy, California Department of Justice, (916) 324-5500 or Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Bill Braudberger, (323) 267-4813
Further escalating the state’s crackdown on violent gang activity, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department today announced that 24 Mob Piru gang members were arrested this morning in the City of Compton. The arrests mark the conclusion of a major gang investigation, Operation Killen Court, launched by the California Attorney General and the Los Angeles County Sheriff after Kyutza Herrera, an innocent bystander, was shot and killed during a drive-by shooting involving rival gang members. Kyutza’s suspected killers and associates, Maruice Bennett, 19, Alex Graves, 23, Robert Maxwell, 19, and a fourth suspect who is a juvenile, were arrested during the course of the investigation into the Bloods-affiliated Mob Piru gang.
“The California Department of Justice launched an investigation into the Mob Pirus after four gang members gunned down an innocent woman,” Attorney General Brown told a news conference at the Compton Youth Athletic League. “State agents joined with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to crack down on this dangerous street gang that has terrorized Compton with constant violence and gang rivalry. We are proud to announce that sheriff’s deputies apprehended the killers and the state’s investigation led to dozens of additional gang arrests.” The attorney general’s office launched its investigation after suspected Mob Piru gang members shot and killed Kyutza Herrera who was a parked in front of Ace Liquor at 12211 Long Beach Boulevard in Lynwood. Herrera, who was not affiliated in any way with either gang, was shot in her car when the suspects opened fire on rival gang members.
The attorney general’s Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement special agents joined the case to investigate Mob Piru gang members suspected to be connected to this shooting and other violent activity. During the investigation, state agents stopped an attempted murder outside of a nightclub and derailed a plan to rob a local post office by a gang member who was also a mail carrier. The gang was recently preparing to import at least 20 firearms from Georgia to sell to other gang members. One of the gang members, Alex Graves, 23, a United States Post Office mail carrier, was arrested in connection with the drive-by shooting of Kyutza Herrera. Warren Phillipus, 28, also a mail carrier, was wanted in connection with the robbery of the Rancho Park Post Office and was caught by state agents as he was preparing to rob the Rimpau Post Office, both located in South Los Angeles. Phillipus has been charged with robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, conspiracy to commit assault with a deadly weapon, and conspiracy to traffic marijuana.
“These gang members had regular day jobs but their gang affiliation was so strong that they continued to roam the streets, terrorizing the community,” Attorney General Brown said. “It is shocking that gang identity is so powerful that even good paying jobs are not enough to turn these suspects from their criminal activity,” Brown added. Today’s gang crackdown, Operation Killen Court, is the culmination of a six-month investigation into the Mob Piru gang, an organization that killed, robbed and assaulted people in the City of Compton. Piru gangs first established themselves in Compton in the early 1970s to fight rival Crip gangs. The gang members named themselves after Piru Street, in Compton and called themselves “Bloods.” The Mob Piru gang, which gained national recognition in the 1990s along with the rise of gangster rap, has approximately 200 members and has connections to Oregon and New York.
During today’s crackdown, special agents identified 49 targets and made 24 arrests for offenses including murder, conspiracy to commit assault with a deadly weapon, robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, marijuana trafficking, parole violations, and weapons violations. The Multi-Agency Response Team for Drug Endangered Children participated in today’s operation and were responsible for rescuing three children from felony child endangerment at two residences, one of which had a shotgun accessible to a child. Two of the children are 4-years-old, one is 10-months-old, and one is 1 and ½ years-old. At approximately 6 a.m. today nearly 450 state, local and federal law enforcement personnel executed 33 search and arrest warrants and conducted 20 probation and parole searches in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Although agents seized small quantities of marijuana and “rock” cocaine, the gang’s foothold involved rival gang violence and subsequently, law enforcement seized 7 handguns, 4 rifles, and 1 sawed-off shotgun.
The California Department of Justice Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement led today’s operation in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force, known as LAIMPACT, which includes Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Los Angeles County Probation, California Highway Patrol, DEA, US Customs, Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and Police Departments in Alhambra, Baldwin Park, Culver City, Downey, El Segundo, Gardena, Glendora, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, La Verne, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, Monrovia, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Pomona, Redondo Beach, San Gabriel, Santa Monica, Torrance, Vernon, West Covina and Whitter, also participated in today’s operation. According to the most recent statistics, there are more than 1,000 gangs operating in Los Angeles County.
Between 2003 and 2007, there were 7,482 gang-related crimes in Compton including murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, arson and motor vehicles thefts. In 2007, the city had 37 homicides of which 18, nearly 49 percent, were gang-related. Approximately 20 percent of all homicides in California are gang-related. Between January and April of this year, Compton has had a total of 13 homicides, 14 forcible rapes, 175 robberies and 326 assaults. The California Department of Justice assists local law enforcement when gang problems have become so severe that the crime is bleeding into neighboring jurisdictions. State agents recently shut down a Norteño street gang and a violent Cambodian street gang in Stockton, a Sureño gang in Atwater and the Varrio Central Poros, a brutal criminal street gang that had terrorized the City of Porterville. State special agents have also participated in recent crime crackdowns in Oakland and East Palo Alto. For an information wanted bulletin detailing the facts of the Kyutza Herrera shooting and photos of guns seized during the operation, please contact the Attorney General’s Press Office at (916) 324-5500 or the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department at (323) 267-4813.
# # #
But before you read the Attorney General's press release, below, please read and reflect on some thoughts I have. And here they are:
For Expert Witnesses who work primarily for the Defense Bar, a State Attorney's public and pre-arraignment comments describing the social or employment status of arrested suspects may create a prejudicial profile in the minds of jurors against alleged gangbangers facing imminent trial. Heretofore, experts like myself have included in our defense arguments and opinions, "exceptional status" facts to show the Court that the defendant is atypical of and differentiated from the "jobless-marauder/criminal public menace" (my emphasis) profile traditionally framed in the District Attorney's arguments and allegations against members of gangs. Indeed, many districts attorney argue, often not so subtly, that a gangbanger-defendant's proper job should be as an inmate inside the state penitentiary. Jury verdicts, often driven by feelings buried within their unconscious mind, may show their pre-decision concurrence with this argument; because of that, such pre-trial comments that a State Attorney might make about a suspect's employment status ought to be deemed unconstitutional.
Expert Witnesses will need to look inside their quivers and use any arrows that, combined and compounded, may show the defendant in a contrastingly favorable light, and a far remove from any prejudice-toward-guilt/jury tampering public comments any elected official might make, while reeling under spontaneity and surprise about the social and employment status of arrested suspects. The California Attorney General's comments were, in effect, a self-admission that he subscribed to the mindset that having a "good job" automatically confers upon one a good-and-wholesome character profile, the social ideal. Said another way, the meta-talk by the California Attorney General seems to have really meant: "Jurors, beware of gangbanger defendants holding good jobs--they're as good as guilty."
Brown Announces Major Compton Gang Crackdown, Arrest of Killer Mail Carrier
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday July 8, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. Contact: Gareth Lacy, California Department of Justice, (916) 324-5500 or Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Bill Braudberger, (323) 267-4813
Further escalating the state’s crackdown on violent gang activity, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department today announced that 24 Mob Piru gang members were arrested this morning in the City of Compton. The arrests mark the conclusion of a major gang investigation, Operation Killen Court, launched by the California Attorney General and the Los Angeles County Sheriff after Kyutza Herrera, an innocent bystander, was shot and killed during a drive-by shooting involving rival gang members. Kyutza’s suspected killers and associates, Maruice Bennett, 19, Alex Graves, 23, Robert Maxwell, 19, and a fourth suspect who is a juvenile, were arrested during the course of the investigation into the Bloods-affiliated Mob Piru gang.
“The California Department of Justice launched an investigation into the Mob Pirus after four gang members gunned down an innocent woman,” Attorney General Brown told a news conference at the Compton Youth Athletic League. “State agents joined with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to crack down on this dangerous street gang that has terrorized Compton with constant violence and gang rivalry. We are proud to announce that sheriff’s deputies apprehended the killers and the state’s investigation led to dozens of additional gang arrests.” The attorney general’s office launched its investigation after suspected Mob Piru gang members shot and killed Kyutza Herrera who was a parked in front of Ace Liquor at 12211 Long Beach Boulevard in Lynwood. Herrera, who was not affiliated in any way with either gang, was shot in her car when the suspects opened fire on rival gang members.
The attorney general’s Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement special agents joined the case to investigate Mob Piru gang members suspected to be connected to this shooting and other violent activity. During the investigation, state agents stopped an attempted murder outside of a nightclub and derailed a plan to rob a local post office by a gang member who was also a mail carrier. The gang was recently preparing to import at least 20 firearms from Georgia to sell to other gang members. One of the gang members, Alex Graves, 23, a United States Post Office mail carrier, was arrested in connection with the drive-by shooting of Kyutza Herrera. Warren Phillipus, 28, also a mail carrier, was wanted in connection with the robbery of the Rancho Park Post Office and was caught by state agents as he was preparing to rob the Rimpau Post Office, both located in South Los Angeles. Phillipus has been charged with robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, conspiracy to commit assault with a deadly weapon, and conspiracy to traffic marijuana.
“These gang members had regular day jobs but their gang affiliation was so strong that they continued to roam the streets, terrorizing the community,” Attorney General Brown said. “It is shocking that gang identity is so powerful that even good paying jobs are not enough to turn these suspects from their criminal activity,” Brown added. Today’s gang crackdown, Operation Killen Court, is the culmination of a six-month investigation into the Mob Piru gang, an organization that killed, robbed and assaulted people in the City of Compton. Piru gangs first established themselves in Compton in the early 1970s to fight rival Crip gangs. The gang members named themselves after Piru Street, in Compton and called themselves “Bloods.” The Mob Piru gang, which gained national recognition in the 1990s along with the rise of gangster rap, has approximately 200 members and has connections to Oregon and New York.
During today’s crackdown, special agents identified 49 targets and made 24 arrests for offenses including murder, conspiracy to commit assault with a deadly weapon, robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, marijuana trafficking, parole violations, and weapons violations. The Multi-Agency Response Team for Drug Endangered Children participated in today’s operation and were responsible for rescuing three children from felony child endangerment at two residences, one of which had a shotgun accessible to a child. Two of the children are 4-years-old, one is 10-months-old, and one is 1 and ½ years-old. At approximately 6 a.m. today nearly 450 state, local and federal law enforcement personnel executed 33 search and arrest warrants and conducted 20 probation and parole searches in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Although agents seized small quantities of marijuana and “rock” cocaine, the gang’s foothold involved rival gang violence and subsequently, law enforcement seized 7 handguns, 4 rifles, and 1 sawed-off shotgun.
The California Department of Justice Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement led today’s operation in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force, known as LAIMPACT, which includes Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Los Angeles County Probation, California Highway Patrol, DEA, US Customs, Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and Police Departments in Alhambra, Baldwin Park, Culver City, Downey, El Segundo, Gardena, Glendora, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, La Verne, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, Monrovia, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Pomona, Redondo Beach, San Gabriel, Santa Monica, Torrance, Vernon, West Covina and Whitter, also participated in today’s operation. According to the most recent statistics, there are more than 1,000 gangs operating in Los Angeles County.
Between 2003 and 2007, there were 7,482 gang-related crimes in Compton including murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, arson and motor vehicles thefts. In 2007, the city had 37 homicides of which 18, nearly 49 percent, were gang-related. Approximately 20 percent of all homicides in California are gang-related. Between January and April of this year, Compton has had a total of 13 homicides, 14 forcible rapes, 175 robberies and 326 assaults. The California Department of Justice assists local law enforcement when gang problems have become so severe that the crime is bleeding into neighboring jurisdictions. State agents recently shut down a Norteño street gang and a violent Cambodian street gang in Stockton, a Sureño gang in Atwater and the Varrio Central Poros, a brutal criminal street gang that had terrorized the City of Porterville. State special agents have also participated in recent crime crackdowns in Oakland and East Palo Alto. For an information wanted bulletin detailing the facts of the Kyutza Herrera shooting and photos of guns seized during the operation, please contact the Attorney General’s Press Office at (916) 324-5500 or the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department at (323) 267-4813.
# # #
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
NFL Steps Up Monitoring of Players for Gang Signs
Editor's Note: The following article reports that the National Football League (NFL), concerned about the flashing of gang signs among angry players, is ratcheting up its monitoring of such signs. Questions that might leap to mind as you read this are: Why has it taken so long for the NFL to recognize that a significant number of its players consider themselves gangsters? What does "stepping up its monitoring of...flashing...hand signals" mean, that the NFL will take disciplinary measures against players who are witnessed by others and caught on video flashing? What kinds of disciplinary measures will the NFL take? Will the NFL have enough courage to take a firm stand against gang hand-sign flashing or will it elect to tip-toe a waltz around the player's representative and draft vague, muddled language that nobody can understand and, as a result, confuse folks about what it is that's supposed to be against NFL rules and deserving of sanctions?
Is the NFL prepared to ask player-aspirants or draftees, before showering them with contracts, if they are now, or ever have been, affiliated with any criminal street gang? Is the NFL itself prepared to undergo thorough and complete training on gangs, gang culture, and telltale signs of gang membership, including the wearing of certain kinds of tattoos? Is the NFL prepared to usher in a new wave of acceptable-looking players--clean-cut and minus tattoos and gang hand signs--publicize this and then practice what it preaches (this could lead to some NFL hopefuls NOT getting signed, despite families' and agents' expectations)? Does the NFL ever run criminal background checks on players before signing them? If you think about the numbers of NFL players who have been arrested, or have been victims of homicide, you would have to agree that such backgrounds checks might have revealed past gang activity, histories of abuse of spouses or significant others, cruelty to animals, and other crimes, including weapons violations.
NEW YORK (AP)—The NFL is stepping up its monitoring of on-field player activities to ensure that no one is flashing the hand signals of street gangs.
The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that the league had hired experts to look at game tapes and identify players or team officials who might be using suspected gang signals. Violators would be warned and disciplined if the episodes recurred.
League officials said Tuesday that avoiding gang-related activities has long been stressed.
They said the scrutiny was intensified after the shooting death of Denver cornerback Darrent Williams in 2007 after Williams was involved in a dispute with known gang members. Anti-gang information is included in orientation literature and stressed in the annual mandatory league meeting for rookies.
The NFL took further notice after Paul Pierce of the NBA’s Boston Celtics was fined $25,000 in April for what the league said was a “menacing gesture” toward the Atlanta Hawks’ bench. “I 100 percent do not in any way promote gang violence or anything close to it.” Pierce said in a statement. “I am sorry if it was misinterpreted that way at Saturday’s game.”
The Times said that was the precipitating incident for the NFL.
“We were always suspicious that might be happening,” it quoted Mike Pereira, the NFL’s vice president of officiating, as saying of gang-related signals. “But the Paul Pierce thing is what brought it to light. When he was fined … that’s when we said we need to take a look at it and see if we need to be aware of it.”
Most senior NFL officials were at a league outing Tuesday and could not immediately be reached for comment.
Is the NFL prepared to ask player-aspirants or draftees, before showering them with contracts, if they are now, or ever have been, affiliated with any criminal street gang? Is the NFL itself prepared to undergo thorough and complete training on gangs, gang culture, and telltale signs of gang membership, including the wearing of certain kinds of tattoos? Is the NFL prepared to usher in a new wave of acceptable-looking players--clean-cut and minus tattoos and gang hand signs--publicize this and then practice what it preaches (this could lead to some NFL hopefuls NOT getting signed, despite families' and agents' expectations)? Does the NFL ever run criminal background checks on players before signing them? If you think about the numbers of NFL players who have been arrested, or have been victims of homicide, you would have to agree that such backgrounds checks might have revealed past gang activity, histories of abuse of spouses or significant others, cruelty to animals, and other crimes, including weapons violations.
NEW YORK (AP)—The NFL is stepping up its monitoring of on-field player activities to ensure that no one is flashing the hand signals of street gangs.
The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that the league had hired experts to look at game tapes and identify players or team officials who might be using suspected gang signals. Violators would be warned and disciplined if the episodes recurred.
League officials said Tuesday that avoiding gang-related activities has long been stressed.
They said the scrutiny was intensified after the shooting death of Denver cornerback Darrent Williams in 2007 after Williams was involved in a dispute with known gang members. Anti-gang information is included in orientation literature and stressed in the annual mandatory league meeting for rookies.
The NFL took further notice after Paul Pierce of the NBA’s Boston Celtics was fined $25,000 in April for what the league said was a “menacing gesture” toward the Atlanta Hawks’ bench. “I 100 percent do not in any way promote gang violence or anything close to it.” Pierce said in a statement. “I am sorry if it was misinterpreted that way at Saturday’s game.”
The Times said that was the precipitating incident for the NFL.
“We were always suspicious that might be happening,” it quoted Mike Pereira, the NFL’s vice president of officiating, as saying of gang-related signals. “But the Paul Pierce thing is what brought it to light. When he was fined … that’s when we said we need to take a look at it and see if we need to be aware of it.”
Most senior NFL officials were at a league outing Tuesday and could not immediately be reached for comment.
Would You Rather be Free or Have Your Miranda Rights Read?
Society's view is that gangbangers perceive themselves to be icons of intelligence, current models of brilliance as they move at their speed of life. "Both" views are correct: society's perceptions about how the gangbanger sees himself, and the gangbanger's attributing of great powers to himself. Much of this self-idolatry has been forged through acts of violence.
In response to their endless testosterone-saturated braying and bragging, I occasionally told the hard-core gangbangers in my classroom at the Los Padrinos Juvenile Court School (Downey, CA): "All I hear you guys talk about is how smart, strong, fast, and sexy you are. But tell me, why did you get caught? Yeah, I heard laughter at somebody bragging about how the cop fell on the street, skinned his knee, and tried to run, half-crippled, before he quit and gave up the chase. But, somehow, despite that overweight, out-of-shape cop, you still got caught and now you're here." Needless to say, they had no answer. So, I continued with: "In poker, they say if, in the first 30 seconds of playing, you can't tell who the sucker is, then the sucker is you." More than a few squirmed uncomfortably and some even gave out with a hard, bitter, knowing and humorless laugh.
Truth, although there all along, is often "discovered" by gangbangers too late. Like when they're locked up, as was the situation with my hard-bitten, cynical, street-wise-but-life-stupid gangsters.
I am no longer at the Los Padrinos Juvenile Court School teaching hard-core gangbangers. I work full time for defense lawyers as an expert witness in gang cases being tried in court. Usually, the clause "in the company with" is what gets several of my gangbanger clients busted. Why? Being "in the company with" other known gangbangers is a proven threat to the community: Like savaging wolf packs, this "company" of gangbangers often marauds through neighborhoods, robbing, fighting, shooting, intimidating, and threatening ordinary, law-abiding persons. "In the company with" is a major plank in the platform of the City Attorney's Gang Injunction. Most of my clients argue that they were not doing anything with that other person, they were merely just being with him. Well, obviously, they are so stupid they don't realize that's exactly what they are specifically NOT supposed to be doing. D-u-u-u-h! The Gang Injunction does not say that it's okay to be with another known gangbanger so long as you are not engaged in a criminal act. Hello! The criminal act is being "in the company with" that other gangbanger. These gangbangers apparently are too stupid to obey the law, and yet they try to "re-write" (rationalize) the law by explaining they weren't doing a crime (yet).
Occasionally, I am told by clients that they didn't understand their Miranda Rights, even though the arresting officer advised them of these fundamental rights and read the Miranda script to them. Perhaps, in the excitement of getting arrested, they simply forgot the caveat: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," and so forth. My suggestion to law enforcement would be to say the following, after reading an arrestee his/her Miranda Rights: "Did you understand what I just read to you? Now, tell me, in your own words, what the rights, that I have just read to you, mean." Listen to his own wording of and utterance about his Miranda Rights. Then, make the following minor change to the official form on which the arrestee is supposed to attest that he has had his Miranda Rights read to him: Add this language: "I acknowledge by my signature that I have repeated, in my own words, the rights that I have and therefore communicated my understanding about those rights." Thus, the gangbanger arrestee has killed two birds with one stone--or rather, fed two birds with one hand (we don't want to suggest violence, do we?): He has confirmed that the Miranda Rights were read to him by the arresting officer and, equally important, that he understood them. If and when he is arrested again (often the case), he will probably be read his Miranda Rights.
My advice to him would be to stop doing the crazy, illegal and barbaric acts that result in his getting arrested. Losing his Miranda Rights is a lot more tolerable, if he's free, legal and law-abiding, than if he's arrested and incarcerated. Miranda Rights do not hold a candle to being free. (Do you hear that, my classroomful of young gangbangers who argue over whether or not the arresting officer "read me my Miranda Rights"?) You ought to be debating over a multi-dimensional strategy you can execute to get a job, keep yourself gainfully employed, go to school and finish your G.E.D. requirements, help your family, and give back to the community. Decide to stop being a prisoner of your own achievements.
In response to their endless testosterone-saturated braying and bragging, I occasionally told the hard-core gangbangers in my classroom at the Los Padrinos Juvenile Court School (Downey, CA): "All I hear you guys talk about is how smart, strong, fast, and sexy you are. But tell me, why did you get caught? Yeah, I heard laughter at somebody bragging about how the cop fell on the street, skinned his knee, and tried to run, half-crippled, before he quit and gave up the chase. But, somehow, despite that overweight, out-of-shape cop, you still got caught and now you're here." Needless to say, they had no answer. So, I continued with: "In poker, they say if, in the first 30 seconds of playing, you can't tell who the sucker is, then the sucker is you." More than a few squirmed uncomfortably and some even gave out with a hard, bitter, knowing and humorless laugh.
Truth, although there all along, is often "discovered" by gangbangers too late. Like when they're locked up, as was the situation with my hard-bitten, cynical, street-wise-but-life-stupid gangsters.
I am no longer at the Los Padrinos Juvenile Court School teaching hard-core gangbangers. I work full time for defense lawyers as an expert witness in gang cases being tried in court. Usually, the clause "in the company with" is what gets several of my gangbanger clients busted. Why? Being "in the company with" other known gangbangers is a proven threat to the community: Like savaging wolf packs, this "company" of gangbangers often marauds through neighborhoods, robbing, fighting, shooting, intimidating, and threatening ordinary, law-abiding persons. "In the company with" is a major plank in the platform of the City Attorney's Gang Injunction. Most of my clients argue that they were not doing anything with that other person, they were merely just being with him. Well, obviously, they are so stupid they don't realize that's exactly what they are specifically NOT supposed to be doing. D-u-u-u-h! The Gang Injunction does not say that it's okay to be with another known gangbanger so long as you are not engaged in a criminal act. Hello! The criminal act is being "in the company with" that other gangbanger. These gangbangers apparently are too stupid to obey the law, and yet they try to "re-write" (rationalize) the law by explaining they weren't doing a crime (yet).
Occasionally, I am told by clients that they didn't understand their Miranda Rights, even though the arresting officer advised them of these fundamental rights and read the Miranda script to them. Perhaps, in the excitement of getting arrested, they simply forgot the caveat: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," and so forth. My suggestion to law enforcement would be to say the following, after reading an arrestee his/her Miranda Rights: "Did you understand what I just read to you? Now, tell me, in your own words, what the rights, that I have just read to you, mean." Listen to his own wording of and utterance about his Miranda Rights. Then, make the following minor change to the official form on which the arrestee is supposed to attest that he has had his Miranda Rights read to him: Add this language: "I acknowledge by my signature that I have repeated, in my own words, the rights that I have and therefore communicated my understanding about those rights." Thus, the gangbanger arrestee has killed two birds with one stone--or rather, fed two birds with one hand (we don't want to suggest violence, do we?): He has confirmed that the Miranda Rights were read to him by the arresting officer and, equally important, that he understood them. If and when he is arrested again (often the case), he will probably be read his Miranda Rights.
My advice to him would be to stop doing the crazy, illegal and barbaric acts that result in his getting arrested. Losing his Miranda Rights is a lot more tolerable, if he's free, legal and law-abiding, than if he's arrested and incarcerated. Miranda Rights do not hold a candle to being free. (Do you hear that, my classroomful of young gangbangers who argue over whether or not the arresting officer "read me my Miranda Rights"?) You ought to be debating over a multi-dimensional strategy you can execute to get a job, keep yourself gainfully employed, go to school and finish your G.E.D. requirements, help your family, and give back to the community. Decide to stop being a prisoner of your own achievements.
Are Gangbangers Too Smart to Get Arrested?
Prosecutors are probably wondering who intelligent gangbangers really are. Criminal acts definitely enslave one to his own misdeeds. He becomes a prisoner of his own achievements and, through drug and alcohol use, gives up his brain to be sacrificed. The following story may prompt prosectors to ask, "How shrewd is this Drew Street crew?" (As an expert witness for the Defense Bar, I am primarily interested in whether the gang enhancement allegations made against my gangbanger-clients are grounded in credible evidence and true witness statements.)
On Tuesday, June 24, 2008, more than 500 federal agents participated in a raid that netted 70 defendants of the Drew Street clique of the Avenues gang on charges of racketeering. Apparently, like turkeys who welcome a downpour of rain by craning their necks, opening their mouths and drowning, these Drew Street non-wonders didn't see 100, 200, 300, 400, or even 500 dressed-for-battle agents coming to nab them. What were these leaky brains smoking?
Heavily armed police and federal agents stormed into a Glassell Park neighborhood Wednesday morning to wrest control away from a street gang -- and loyalists with deep family ties to its members -- that has in effect turned the sequestered swath of run-down apartments into rogue territory.
With a sweeping federal racketeering indictment, more than 500 agents, including 10 SWAT teams, arrested 28 people in an attempt to root out the Avenues gang members who have ruled the area with violence and near impunity.
The indictment, which grew out of a 10-month investigation, names 70 defendants -- mostly connected to the Drew Street clique of the larger Avenues gang. The gang dates to the zoot suit era in Northeast Los Angeles and is closely connected to the Mexican Mafia prison gang. Twenty-six defendants were already in custody and 16 are at large.
Prosecutors allege that the gang committed three murders, shot at police, extorted businesses, conducted home invasion robberies, taxed drug dealers for the Mexican Mafia and threatened potential witnesses -- all as part of an enterprise to distribute methamphetamine and rock cocaine in the area. Authorities say undercover agents conducted scores of drug purchases from the gang during the investigation.
U.S. Atty. Thomas P. O'Brien called the sweep "the largest gang take-down in recent L.A. history."
He said he was confident that by targeting so many defendants with heavy federal charges, the effort would accomplish what previous crackdowns, convictions, injunctions and evictions have so far been unable to do: break the gang's grip on the low-income neighborhood, which is heavily Latino.
Half of the defendants could face life in prison without parole if convicted, said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office.
Francisco "Pancho" Real, 26, who was identified as the leader of the Drew Street clique, brought in $1,200 a day in drug money alone, according to a wiretap recording described in the indictment. He was arrested at his home in Glendale.
The gang stirred a storm of media coverage and police attention after a wild, rolling shootout in February.
The indictment suggests that the shooting stemmed from a brewing turf battle between the Avenues, backed by the Mexican Mafia, and the Cypress Park gang.
On Feb. 21, in order to prevent Cypress Park from dealing drugs in their territory, the indictment alleges, Real's cohorts shot to death one of its members, Marcos Salas, as he held his 2-year-old granddaughter's hand in front of her elementary school. Minutes later police pulled over the three suspected gunmen, who then opened fire with an assault rifle. Police fatally shot one of them, Real's half brother Daniel Leon.
Authorities had wiretaps on Real's phones at the time. The day after the shooting, Real shrugged off Leon's death, using a profanity to say "[stuff] happens," according to the indictment.
The gang didn't skip a beat after the shootout, the summaries of the wiretaps suggest.
In March, Real ordered the owner of a local tire shop to pay him $30,000 within 24 hours, prosecutors allege, or he would kill him and burn down his shop. When the owner of an adjoining tire shop told Real that he did not understand why they had to pay him, Real said they were operating in his territory, the indictment alleges.
Real is one of 13 children of Maria Leon, the matriarch of the gang and a defendant in the case, according to law enforcement. She has a criminal record with three drug arrests and was in custody Wednesday morning for reentering the country after a deportation.
The family hails from a sweltering, lawless part of the Mexican state of Guerrero, as does much of the neighborhood. Based on their shared roots, many residents maintain a fierce solidarity and loathing for the police.
On Wednesday, an 81-year-old woman on Isabel Street, Olga Martinez, called the police "gestapos" after they broke down her door looking for her son. Numerous other residents declined to talk.
"We don't know anything, we didn't hear anything, we didn't see anything," said a woman who lives on Drew Street and declined to give her name.
The layout of the small neighborhood -- cut off by San Fernando Road, backed up against Forest Lawn Memorial-Park -- helps this separation from mainstream society persist just four miles from downtown Los Angeles. With few entrances, spotters easily monitor who comes and goes. Gang interventionists, common in other tough neighborhood, don't even go there.
"The Drew Street gang ordinarily is vigilant to the presence of 'outsiders,' " the indictment says. "Gang members are likely to identify and physically threaten to kill them."
The Avenues, which police estimate has about 400 members, had a bout of infamy in 1995 when members shot and killed 3-year-old Stephanie Kuhen, whose family made a wrong turn into a dead-end street in Cypress Park.
The dense configuration of apartments on Drew Street allows gangbangers to disappear when police roll in.
"This is a claustrophobic neighborhood, and the gang members use it to their advantage," City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo said.
Delgadillo's office shut down Maria Leon's house on Drew Street last year with a nuisance abatement lawsuit. More than 40 arrests had been made there in 2006. During a raid in 2002, police found cocaine, marijuana, a Tec-9 assault weapon, ammunition, a small explosive and a cellphone that was ringing with customers' drug orders, according to court records. Six children under 10 were inside, including Leon's youngest child, a 3-month-old boy.
Leon and her family moved to Victorville, where the Internal Revenue Service recently seized their home as part of this investigation.
Eighteen agencies were involved in the probe, including the LAPD; federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FBI, IRS, Glendale police and the Los Angeles city attorney.
On Wednesday, Delgadillo announced 10 more nuisance abatement lawsuits to clean out properties in the area. The suits aim to force property owners to provide armed security guards, security cameras, strict tenant screening and the eviction of anyone involved in drug sales or use.
"The people who live in this neighborhood are prisoners in their own homes," he said.
Authorities said the gang routinely threatened witnesses to their crimes, creating a climate of fear that allowed members to operate freely.
In one allegation detailed in the indictment, three members robbed a residence on Marmion Way, using a 9-millimeter handgun and an M-11 assault rifle.
When Real got word that the victims were to appear at a police lineup, he directed a subordinate to "instruct the victims . . . that they were to 'keep their mouths shut' and not identify any of the Avenues or Drew Street gang members at the lineup that day or [he] would retaliate against them," the indictment said.
Two of the victims did what he said, but one did not, the indictment said. Real allegedly drove to that person's house that night and threatened to retaliate against them or their family if they went to court again.
U.S. Atty. O'Brien said his office was investigating allegations that an attorney for one of the gang members tipped Real off when witnesses showed up at police lineups.
Police and state prosecutors often complain that the gang cannot be brought to trial because witnesses are intimidated. Because much of the 157-page indictment is based on federal wiretap evidence and drug buys by undercover agents, prosecutors hope to circumvent that obstacle.
This story was written by Joe Mozingo, Sam Quinones and Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers, June 26, 2008. (My comments are editorial only.)
joe.mozingo@latimes.com
sam.quinones@latimes.com
molly.hennessyfiske @latimes.com
On Tuesday, June 24, 2008, more than 500 federal agents participated in a raid that netted 70 defendants of the Drew Street clique of the Avenues gang on charges of racketeering. Apparently, like turkeys who welcome a downpour of rain by craning their necks, opening their mouths and drowning, these Drew Street non-wonders didn't see 100, 200, 300, 400, or even 500 dressed-for-battle agents coming to nab them. What were these leaky brains smoking?
Heavily armed police and federal agents stormed into a Glassell Park neighborhood Wednesday morning to wrest control away from a street gang -- and loyalists with deep family ties to its members -- that has in effect turned the sequestered swath of run-down apartments into rogue territory.
With a sweeping federal racketeering indictment, more than 500 agents, including 10 SWAT teams, arrested 28 people in an attempt to root out the Avenues gang members who have ruled the area with violence and near impunity.
The indictment, which grew out of a 10-month investigation, names 70 defendants -- mostly connected to the Drew Street clique of the larger Avenues gang. The gang dates to the zoot suit era in Northeast Los Angeles and is closely connected to the Mexican Mafia prison gang. Twenty-six defendants were already in custody and 16 are at large.
Prosecutors allege that the gang committed three murders, shot at police, extorted businesses, conducted home invasion robberies, taxed drug dealers for the Mexican Mafia and threatened potential witnesses -- all as part of an enterprise to distribute methamphetamine and rock cocaine in the area. Authorities say undercover agents conducted scores of drug purchases from the gang during the investigation.
U.S. Atty. Thomas P. O'Brien called the sweep "the largest gang take-down in recent L.A. history."
He said he was confident that by targeting so many defendants with heavy federal charges, the effort would accomplish what previous crackdowns, convictions, injunctions and evictions have so far been unable to do: break the gang's grip on the low-income neighborhood, which is heavily Latino.
Half of the defendants could face life in prison without parole if convicted, said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office.
Francisco "Pancho" Real, 26, who was identified as the leader of the Drew Street clique, brought in $1,200 a day in drug money alone, according to a wiretap recording described in the indictment. He was arrested at his home in Glendale.
The gang stirred a storm of media coverage and police attention after a wild, rolling shootout in February.
The indictment suggests that the shooting stemmed from a brewing turf battle between the Avenues, backed by the Mexican Mafia, and the Cypress Park gang.
On Feb. 21, in order to prevent Cypress Park from dealing drugs in their territory, the indictment alleges, Real's cohorts shot to death one of its members, Marcos Salas, as he held his 2-year-old granddaughter's hand in front of her elementary school. Minutes later police pulled over the three suspected gunmen, who then opened fire with an assault rifle. Police fatally shot one of them, Real's half brother Daniel Leon.
Authorities had wiretaps on Real's phones at the time. The day after the shooting, Real shrugged off Leon's death, using a profanity to say "[stuff] happens," according to the indictment.
The gang didn't skip a beat after the shootout, the summaries of the wiretaps suggest.
In March, Real ordered the owner of a local tire shop to pay him $30,000 within 24 hours, prosecutors allege, or he would kill him and burn down his shop. When the owner of an adjoining tire shop told Real that he did not understand why they had to pay him, Real said they were operating in his territory, the indictment alleges.
Real is one of 13 children of Maria Leon, the matriarch of the gang and a defendant in the case, according to law enforcement. She has a criminal record with three drug arrests and was in custody Wednesday morning for reentering the country after a deportation.
The family hails from a sweltering, lawless part of the Mexican state of Guerrero, as does much of the neighborhood. Based on their shared roots, many residents maintain a fierce solidarity and loathing for the police.
On Wednesday, an 81-year-old woman on Isabel Street, Olga Martinez, called the police "gestapos" after they broke down her door looking for her son. Numerous other residents declined to talk.
"We don't know anything, we didn't hear anything, we didn't see anything," said a woman who lives on Drew Street and declined to give her name.
The layout of the small neighborhood -- cut off by San Fernando Road, backed up against Forest Lawn Memorial-Park -- helps this separation from mainstream society persist just four miles from downtown Los Angeles. With few entrances, spotters easily monitor who comes and goes. Gang interventionists, common in other tough neighborhood, don't even go there.
"The Drew Street gang ordinarily is vigilant to the presence of 'outsiders,' " the indictment says. "Gang members are likely to identify and physically threaten to kill them."
The Avenues, which police estimate has about 400 members, had a bout of infamy in 1995 when members shot and killed 3-year-old Stephanie Kuhen, whose family made a wrong turn into a dead-end street in Cypress Park.
The dense configuration of apartments on Drew Street allows gangbangers to disappear when police roll in.
"This is a claustrophobic neighborhood, and the gang members use it to their advantage," City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo said.
Delgadillo's office shut down Maria Leon's house on Drew Street last year with a nuisance abatement lawsuit. More than 40 arrests had been made there in 2006. During a raid in 2002, police found cocaine, marijuana, a Tec-9 assault weapon, ammunition, a small explosive and a cellphone that was ringing with customers' drug orders, according to court records. Six children under 10 were inside, including Leon's youngest child, a 3-month-old boy.
Leon and her family moved to Victorville, where the Internal Revenue Service recently seized their home as part of this investigation.
Eighteen agencies were involved in the probe, including the LAPD; federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FBI, IRS, Glendale police and the Los Angeles city attorney.
On Wednesday, Delgadillo announced 10 more nuisance abatement lawsuits to clean out properties in the area. The suits aim to force property owners to provide armed security guards, security cameras, strict tenant screening and the eviction of anyone involved in drug sales or use.
"The people who live in this neighborhood are prisoners in their own homes," he said.
Authorities said the gang routinely threatened witnesses to their crimes, creating a climate of fear that allowed members to operate freely.
In one allegation detailed in the indictment, three members robbed a residence on Marmion Way, using a 9-millimeter handgun and an M-11 assault rifle.
When Real got word that the victims were to appear at a police lineup, he directed a subordinate to "instruct the victims . . . that they were to 'keep their mouths shut' and not identify any of the Avenues or Drew Street gang members at the lineup that day or [he] would retaliate against them," the indictment said.
Two of the victims did what he said, but one did not, the indictment said. Real allegedly drove to that person's house that night and threatened to retaliate against them or their family if they went to court again.
U.S. Atty. O'Brien said his office was investigating allegations that an attorney for one of the gang members tipped Real off when witnesses showed up at police lineups.
Police and state prosecutors often complain that the gang cannot be brought to trial because witnesses are intimidated. Because much of the 157-page indictment is based on federal wiretap evidence and drug buys by undercover agents, prosecutors hope to circumvent that obstacle.
This story was written by Joe Mozingo, Sam Quinones and Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers, June 26, 2008. (My comments are editorial only.)
joe.mozingo@latimes.com
sam.quinones@latimes.com
molly.hennessyfiske @latimes.com
Being Smart About Life Better Than Being Street Smart
Society's view is that gangbangers perceive themselves to be icons of intelligence, current models of brilliance as they move at their speed of life.
In response to their endless testosterone-saturated braying and bragging, I occasionally told the hard-core gangbangers in my classroom at the Los Padrinos Juvenile Court School (Downey, CA): "All I hear you guys talk about is how smart, strong, fast, and sexy you are. But tell me, why did you get caught? Yeah, I heard laughter at somebody bragging about how the cop fell on the street, skinned his knee, and tried to run, half-crippled, before he quit and gave up the chase. But, somehow, despite that overweight, out-of-shape cop, you still got caught and now you're here." Needless to say, they had no answer. So, I continued with: "In poker, they say if, in the first 30 seconds of playing, you can't tell who the sucker is, then the sucker is you." More than a few squirmed uncomfortably and some even gave out with a hard, bitter, knowing and humorless laugh.
Truth, although there all along, is often "discovered" by gangbangers too late. Like when they're locked up, as was the situation with my hard-bitten, cynical, street-wise-but-life-stupid gangsters.
I am no longer at the Los Padrinos Juvenile Court School teaching hard-core gangbangers. I work full time for defense lawyers as an expert witness in gang cases being tried in court. Usually, the clause "in the company with" is what gets several of my gangbanger clients busted. Why? Being "in the company with" other known gangbangers is a proven threat to the community: Like savaging wolf packs, this "company" of gangbangers often marauds through neighborhoods, robbing, fighting, shooting, intimidating, and threatening ordinary, law-abiding persons. "In the company with" is a major plank in the platform of the City Attorney's Gang Injunction. Most of my clients argue that they were not doing anything with that other person, they were merely just being with him. Well, obviously, they are so stupid they don't realize that's exactly what they are specifically NOT supposed to be doing. D-u-u-u-h! The Gang Injunction does not say that it's okay to be with another known gangbanger so long as you are not engaged in a criminal act. Hello! The criminal act is being "in the company with" that other gangbanger. These gangbangers apparently are too stupid to obey the law, and yet they try to "re-write" (rationalize) the law by explaining they weren't doing a crime (yet).
Occasionally, I am told by clients that they didn't understand their Miranda Rights, even though the arresting officer advised them of these fundamental rights and read the Miranda script to them. Perhaps, in the excitement of getting arrested, they simply forgot the caveat: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," and so forth. My suggestion to law enforcement would be to say the following, after reading an arrestee his/her Miranda Rights: "Did you understand what I just read to you? Now, tell me, in your own words, what the rights, that I have just read to you, mean." Listen to his own wording of and utterance about his Miranda Rights. Then, make the following minor change to the official form on which the arrestee is supposed to attest that he has had his Miranda Rights read to him: Add this language: "I acknowledge by my signature that I have repeated, in my own words, the rights that I have and therefore communicated my understanding about those rights." Thus, the gangbanger arrestee has killed two birds with one stone--or rather, fed two birds with one hand (we don't want to suggest violence, do we?): He has confirmed that the Miranda Rights were read to him by the arresting officer and, equally important, that he understood them. If and when he is arrested again (often the case), he will probably be read his Miranda Rights.
My advice to him would be to stop doing the crazy, illegal and barbaric acts that result in his getting arrested. Losing his Miranda Rights is a lot more tolerable, if he's free, legal and law-abiding, than if he's arrested and incarcerated. Miranda Rights do not hold a candle to being free. (Do you hear that, my classroomful of young gangbangers who argue over whether or not the arresting officer "read me my Miranda Rights"?) You ought to be debating over a multi-dimensional strategy you can execute to get a job, keep yourself gainfully employed, go to school and finish your G.E.D. requirements, help your family, and give back to the community. Decide to stop being a prisoner of your own achievements.
In response to their endless testosterone-saturated braying and bragging, I occasionally told the hard-core gangbangers in my classroom at the Los Padrinos Juvenile Court School (Downey, CA): "All I hear you guys talk about is how smart, strong, fast, and sexy you are. But tell me, why did you get caught? Yeah, I heard laughter at somebody bragging about how the cop fell on the street, skinned his knee, and tried to run, half-crippled, before he quit and gave up the chase. But, somehow, despite that overweight, out-of-shape cop, you still got caught and now you're here." Needless to say, they had no answer. So, I continued with: "In poker, they say if, in the first 30 seconds of playing, you can't tell who the sucker is, then the sucker is you." More than a few squirmed uncomfortably and some even gave out with a hard, bitter, knowing and humorless laugh.
Truth, although there all along, is often "discovered" by gangbangers too late. Like when they're locked up, as was the situation with my hard-bitten, cynical, street-wise-but-life-stupid gangsters.
I am no longer at the Los Padrinos Juvenile Court School teaching hard-core gangbangers. I work full time for defense lawyers as an expert witness in gang cases being tried in court. Usually, the clause "in the company with" is what gets several of my gangbanger clients busted. Why? Being "in the company with" other known gangbangers is a proven threat to the community: Like savaging wolf packs, this "company" of gangbangers often marauds through neighborhoods, robbing, fighting, shooting, intimidating, and threatening ordinary, law-abiding persons. "In the company with" is a major plank in the platform of the City Attorney's Gang Injunction. Most of my clients argue that they were not doing anything with that other person, they were merely just being with him. Well, obviously, they are so stupid they don't realize that's exactly what they are specifically NOT supposed to be doing. D-u-u-u-h! The Gang Injunction does not say that it's okay to be with another known gangbanger so long as you are not engaged in a criminal act. Hello! The criminal act is being "in the company with" that other gangbanger. These gangbangers apparently are too stupid to obey the law, and yet they try to "re-write" (rationalize) the law by explaining they weren't doing a crime (yet).
Occasionally, I am told by clients that they didn't understand their Miranda Rights, even though the arresting officer advised them of these fundamental rights and read the Miranda script to them. Perhaps, in the excitement of getting arrested, they simply forgot the caveat: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," and so forth. My suggestion to law enforcement would be to say the following, after reading an arrestee his/her Miranda Rights: "Did you understand what I just read to you? Now, tell me, in your own words, what the rights, that I have just read to you, mean." Listen to his own wording of and utterance about his Miranda Rights. Then, make the following minor change to the official form on which the arrestee is supposed to attest that he has had his Miranda Rights read to him: Add this language: "I acknowledge by my signature that I have repeated, in my own words, the rights that I have and therefore communicated my understanding about those rights." Thus, the gangbanger arrestee has killed two birds with one stone--or rather, fed two birds with one hand (we don't want to suggest violence, do we?): He has confirmed that the Miranda Rights were read to him by the arresting officer and, equally important, that he understood them. If and when he is arrested again (often the case), he will probably be read his Miranda Rights.
My advice to him would be to stop doing the crazy, illegal and barbaric acts that result in his getting arrested. Losing his Miranda Rights is a lot more tolerable, if he's free, legal and law-abiding, than if he's arrested and incarcerated. Miranda Rights do not hold a candle to being free. (Do you hear that, my classroomful of young gangbangers who argue over whether or not the arresting officer "read me my Miranda Rights"?) You ought to be debating over a multi-dimensional strategy you can execute to get a job, keep yourself gainfully employed, go to school and finish your G.E.D. requirements, help your family, and give back to the community. Decide to stop being a prisoner of your own achievements.
Manhood...or Madness?
Perhaps the dominant view among prosecutors is that gangbangers seem to run on 100-proof Testosterone. Prosecutors appear to think that they are literally intoxicated by their towering arrogance and ignorance. Shackled by their dinosaur-like brains, empty of both imagination and intelligence, they think anything unwanted, out of order, or just wrong can be addressed and resolved by yelling at it, cursing it, physically resisting it, fighting and battering it, or simply shooting it dead. Some of my gangbanger clients had thrown their Gang Injunction Violation citations on the sidewalk in anger and defiance when the police officer who had stopped them requested their signature on the citation as acknowledgment that he had cited and arrested them for violating one or more of the many prohibitions of the City of Los Angeles's criminal group suppression order named the "Gang Injunction."
My untimely advice to them was that they should have signed the police form and, more important, filled out its "Investigative Action/Statement" page that provided space to write their side of the story. Yes, I know. This advice is better given as a preventative to being arrested, not after the arrest has occurred. Some of my clients get arrested repeatedly; so the next time that happens, perhaps they will fill out the portion of the form that gives them almost three paragraphs-worth of space in which to tell their side of the story. Should they walk around with a pen or pencil just in case they are arrested? Well, that's better than walking around with a gun...right? "I didn't have a pencil to write with" is a poor excuse for not writing--versus telling and yelling--your innocent side of the story. You can ask the arresting officer for his pen and write your version of events to your Tupac Shakur's heart's content. Officers probably have a pen extended at the ready, in case the person detained needs it.
Why is it so important to fill out the portion of the Gang Injunction form wherein you can dispute the officer's version and declaim your own account of the goings-on that precipitated your arrest? First, because the opportunity to do so is given to you, by the arresting officer, as your legal right. Second, it is the written, not verbal, accounts that get heard and dealt with in a court of law. So, get your statement in writing; that way, the jury must hear it. The prosecutor (district attorney) arguing against you cannot suppress it. He or she has to bring up your side of the story in court. And you only have a "side" if you write it down. It does not exist otherwise. Arguing your non-involvement, yelling your innocence, braying like a mad bull, and cursing the police are not the behaviors of an innocent temporarily lost or a savior desperately seeking a phone booth in which to don his flying cape but merely the crazed antics of a human-meteor headed directly for the state pen.
In the end, where the drama is really played out (in court), the jury will merely see that act of anger and defiance as evidence of guilt. "If he is so innocent of the charges, why didn't he write out his version of events? They gave him almost half a page to tell his side," will be the driving opinion that supports a verdict of guilt. Certainly, an argument can be made (as it often is) that the arresting officer wasn't polite or courteous, or exhibited other behaviors that baited the anger of the arrested gangbanger and set him "off". Before we go there, though, let's go back to square one: The arrested gangbanger had already previously been served with a Gang Injunction; it is a court order set in motion by the City Attorney that prohibits the commission of certain illegal acts. These acts have been well-known and well-defined as imperiling the lives and limbs of individuals and shooting fear through and paralyzing entire communities. The arresting officer is not on the staff of Publisher's Clearinghouse; he or she is only required to cite and arrest the gangbanger, after ascertaining that he has broken one of the prohibitions of the Gang Injunction. The arresting officer's behavior is not required to be that of a person excitedly brandishing your winning million-dollar ticket or thrusting a congratulatory spray of robust roses in your face.
Because most gangbangers are desperately holding onto their idea of manhood and, in their distorted imaginings, think that force, violence and rudeness are the tools for surviving life, their refusal to sign the citation places them in a position of having the last word, whatever the Sam Hill that means. However, by not filling out the generous space for telling their side of the story is their way of not being "punked" or giving in to a system that they feel constantly torments and brutalizes them, and denies them fair trials in its courts. Said another way, they view their Neanderthal-like stance as being far preferable than explaining anything. Or, as they might say: "I ain't gonna ask nobody for nuthin'!" Telling their side of the story, in writing, is the equivalent of a weak person asking somebody in a dominant position for something. Oh, yes. They will complain, but they won't explain (in writing). Go figure. Again, it is important to note that the jury will see this omission as defiance and evidence of guilt. Totally lost on the jury will be counterpoints or hypotheticals about the police officer's demeanor at the time of the arrest, the manner in which he served the citation, and whether or not he proclaimed it a good day for baseball or fishing.
In this same vein, a good many of my clients are waiving their McLaughlin Rights. Very important. Very fundamental. Why? It is the "McLaughlin Probable Cause Hearing Rights" that afford an arrestee/detainee the right to have the circumstances of his arrest reviewed by a Judge or Magistrate of the Court to determine if there was probable cause for his arrest. It is this "Probable Cause Hearing" that may or may not benefit his case. But it is worth a try, especially for persons who harp about their innocence and enlist their families and friends to besiege the police department, district attorney, and city hall with torrents of claims about their innocence and the false grounds upon which they were arrested. If the gangbanger does not waive his McLaughlin Rights, but instead, takes advantage of them and states his desire for a Probable Cause Hearing, what can happen? Well, if the Magistrate determines that there was not probable cause for the arrest, the gangbanger will be released from custody immediately, as long as there are no other "holds" (legal restraints to detain) or warrants on the person. It must be noted that waiving one's rights to a "McLaughlin Probable Cause" hearing is not seen as evidence of guilt, nor does it affact the gangbanger's right to arraignment on the charges. Again, however, I would emphasize that if the gangbanger doubts there was probable cause for his arrest, he ought to go forward with the "Probable Cause Hearing." He should not let his arrogance, any feelings about weakness, or thoughts that he'd be asking the system for something barricade him against taking advantage of his legal rights.
My untimely advice to them was that they should have signed the police form and, more important, filled out its "Investigative Action/Statement" page that provided space to write their side of the story. Yes, I know. This advice is better given as a preventative to being arrested, not after the arrest has occurred. Some of my clients get arrested repeatedly; so the next time that happens, perhaps they will fill out the portion of the form that gives them almost three paragraphs-worth of space in which to tell their side of the story. Should they walk around with a pen or pencil just in case they are arrested? Well, that's better than walking around with a gun...right? "I didn't have a pencil to write with" is a poor excuse for not writing--versus telling and yelling--your innocent side of the story. You can ask the arresting officer for his pen and write your version of events to your Tupac Shakur's heart's content. Officers probably have a pen extended at the ready, in case the person detained needs it.
Why is it so important to fill out the portion of the Gang Injunction form wherein you can dispute the officer's version and declaim your own account of the goings-on that precipitated your arrest? First, because the opportunity to do so is given to you, by the arresting officer, as your legal right. Second, it is the written, not verbal, accounts that get heard and dealt with in a court of law. So, get your statement in writing; that way, the jury must hear it. The prosecutor (district attorney) arguing against you cannot suppress it. He or she has to bring up your side of the story in court. And you only have a "side" if you write it down. It does not exist otherwise. Arguing your non-involvement, yelling your innocence, braying like a mad bull, and cursing the police are not the behaviors of an innocent temporarily lost or a savior desperately seeking a phone booth in which to don his flying cape but merely the crazed antics of a human-meteor headed directly for the state pen.
In the end, where the drama is really played out (in court), the jury will merely see that act of anger and defiance as evidence of guilt. "If he is so innocent of the charges, why didn't he write out his version of events? They gave him almost half a page to tell his side," will be the driving opinion that supports a verdict of guilt. Certainly, an argument can be made (as it often is) that the arresting officer wasn't polite or courteous, or exhibited other behaviors that baited the anger of the arrested gangbanger and set him "off". Before we go there, though, let's go back to square one: The arrested gangbanger had already previously been served with a Gang Injunction; it is a court order set in motion by the City Attorney that prohibits the commission of certain illegal acts. These acts have been well-known and well-defined as imperiling the lives and limbs of individuals and shooting fear through and paralyzing entire communities. The arresting officer is not on the staff of Publisher's Clearinghouse; he or she is only required to cite and arrest the gangbanger, after ascertaining that he has broken one of the prohibitions of the Gang Injunction. The arresting officer's behavior is not required to be that of a person excitedly brandishing your winning million-dollar ticket or thrusting a congratulatory spray of robust roses in your face.
Because most gangbangers are desperately holding onto their idea of manhood and, in their distorted imaginings, think that force, violence and rudeness are the tools for surviving life, their refusal to sign the citation places them in a position of having the last word, whatever the Sam Hill that means. However, by not filling out the generous space for telling their side of the story is their way of not being "punked" or giving in to a system that they feel constantly torments and brutalizes them, and denies them fair trials in its courts. Said another way, they view their Neanderthal-like stance as being far preferable than explaining anything. Or, as they might say: "I ain't gonna ask nobody for nuthin'!" Telling their side of the story, in writing, is the equivalent of a weak person asking somebody in a dominant position for something. Oh, yes. They will complain, but they won't explain (in writing). Go figure. Again, it is important to note that the jury will see this omission as defiance and evidence of guilt. Totally lost on the jury will be counterpoints or hypotheticals about the police officer's demeanor at the time of the arrest, the manner in which he served the citation, and whether or not he proclaimed it a good day for baseball or fishing.
In this same vein, a good many of my clients are waiving their McLaughlin Rights. Very important. Very fundamental. Why? It is the "McLaughlin Probable Cause Hearing Rights" that afford an arrestee/detainee the right to have the circumstances of his arrest reviewed by a Judge or Magistrate of the Court to determine if there was probable cause for his arrest. It is this "Probable Cause Hearing" that may or may not benefit his case. But it is worth a try, especially for persons who harp about their innocence and enlist their families and friends to besiege the police department, district attorney, and city hall with torrents of claims about their innocence and the false grounds upon which they were arrested. If the gangbanger does not waive his McLaughlin Rights, but instead, takes advantage of them and states his desire for a Probable Cause Hearing, what can happen? Well, if the Magistrate determines that there was not probable cause for the arrest, the gangbanger will be released from custody immediately, as long as there are no other "holds" (legal restraints to detain) or warrants on the person. It must be noted that waiving one's rights to a "McLaughlin Probable Cause" hearing is not seen as evidence of guilt, nor does it affact the gangbanger's right to arraignment on the charges. Again, however, I would emphasize that if the gangbanger doubts there was probable cause for his arrest, he ought to go forward with the "Probable Cause Hearing." He should not let his arrogance, any feelings about weakness, or thoughts that he'd be asking the system for something barricade him against taking advantage of his legal rights.
What Incarcerated Juveniles Really Need to Know
The following is an impromptu lesson I devised after receiving repeated signs of intense and toxic boredom with the usual lesson plan for teaching the "Cornell Method of Note-Taking." Most of these young thugs could scarcely read--anything: their own names, street signs, instructions for assembling something. Why, then, would it follow that these dummies could learn to take notes? As a result of a class action lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Probation Department, brought by parents claiming their kids were locked up and deprived of equal educational access, some high-minded (or simply high) administrator ordered the "Cornell Method of Note-Taking" be part of a progressive-sounding curriculum called "Accelerate My Future." After working in a locked room in the Special Handling Unit (SHU) with boys whose mental states were so dangerous and risky that they were labelled Level One, Level Two, and so forth, I was given a classroom and told to teach the "Accelerate My Future" curriculum. This program was university-level stuff.
In addition to my becoming infuriated with the boorish behavior of my young charges, I was equally angry with the administration. The education director should have known that when you try to teach kids something for which they have no background, no prior exposure, no skill sets, and no interest to learn, they immediately become the teachers, showing off their bad behaviors and foul mouths in excess, until times get better. They let me know I would never get their attention with the institutional detritus I was serving them. As I began to write the words you see below, the classroom became quieter and quieter. When their whispered arguments became animated murmurs about the meanings of the words, I felt relief and elation. Not only did I have their attention; they were also ready to learn. And these words, part and parcel of their everyday lives, challenged and fascinated them more than any dry university-level material ever could. In spite of their street experience, gang lives, and police encounters, most did not know what ninety-percent of the words meant. I had found an equalizer, and I was determined to use it to my and their advantage.
Juvenile Crime Words to Know
Define the following Words and write two sentences for each word, showing its correct use.
Crime
Allegation
Sentence
Juvenile
Probation
Gang
District Attorney
Gang Enhancement Charge
Counts
Felony
Battery
Status Offense
Curfew
Incorrigible
Public Defender
Violation
Gang Injunction
Thug
Hoodlum
Unfit
Controlled Substance
S.T.E.P. Act
Three Strikes
Assault
Gang Injunction
Stalk
Lying in Wait
Commit
Special Handling Unit (SHU)
District Attorney Reject
McLaughlin Probable Cause Hearing Rights
Re-violate
Status Offense
Contraband
Hearing
Verdict
Conspiracy
Misdemeanor
In addition to my becoming infuriated with the boorish behavior of my young charges, I was equally angry with the administration. The education director should have known that when you try to teach kids something for which they have no background, no prior exposure, no skill sets, and no interest to learn, they immediately become the teachers, showing off their bad behaviors and foul mouths in excess, until times get better. They let me know I would never get their attention with the institutional detritus I was serving them. As I began to write the words you see below, the classroom became quieter and quieter. When their whispered arguments became animated murmurs about the meanings of the words, I felt relief and elation. Not only did I have their attention; they were also ready to learn. And these words, part and parcel of their everyday lives, challenged and fascinated them more than any dry university-level material ever could. In spite of their street experience, gang lives, and police encounters, most did not know what ninety-percent of the words meant. I had found an equalizer, and I was determined to use it to my and their advantage.
Juvenile Crime Words to Know
Define the following Words and write two sentences for each word, showing its correct use.
Crime
Allegation
Sentence
Juvenile
Probation
Gang
District Attorney
Gang Enhancement Charge
Counts
Felony
Battery
Status Offense
Curfew
Incorrigible
Public Defender
Violation
Gang Injunction
Thug
Hoodlum
Unfit
Controlled Substance
S.T.E.P. Act
Three Strikes
Assault
Gang Injunction
Stalk
Lying in Wait
Commit
Special Handling Unit (SHU)
District Attorney Reject
McLaughlin Probable Cause Hearing Rights
Re-violate
Status Offense
Contraband
Hearing
Verdict
Conspiracy
Misdemeanor
Parents: Are Your Young Destroying You?
In the aftermath of the LAPD shootout with the AK47-armed gunman in Glassell Park who shot an unarmed man twelve times, as he was out strolling hand-in-hand with a two-year old toddler, and killed him, Tuesday (February 26) morning's television news showed a small parade of angry parents berating the Los Angeles Police Department for "not letting our kids use the bathroom," "telling our children to move along, this is an emergency," and "nobody gave our kids anything to drink."
The dead gunman was a member of the notorious Avenues gang. In his honor, his gang "homies" quickly erected a shrine, replete with colorful flowers and burning candles. They drank to his memory and mourned him as a "loyal, fallen soldier who represented the Avenues."
Angry parents, instead of repeatedly criticizing the Los Angeles Police Department for taking extraordinary measures to protect school children from a gang barbarian walking around shooting off a AK-47 semi-automatic military weapon, ought to storm the Avenues members' homes and gathering spots, in a moving blitz, and verbally denounce them for the fear, intimidation, and destruction they continuously cause the Glassell Park community. Then they ought to go to the Los Angeles Criminal Courts and testify on the witness stands against them to ensure their long "vacations" in state penitentiaries like San Quentin, Tehachapi, Corcoran, Folsom, Wasco, Tracy, and Pelican Bay.
Parents, it is NOT the honorable, courageous, and public-serving members of the Los Angeles Police Department at whom you should direct your anger. Can you not give the police any kind of credit for securing the elementary school, so horribly close to the gun battle, as a place of refuge and protection for your children? You should be forever angry at the primitive cowards and barbarians who, posing as "loyal soldiers," are the criminal street gang known as the Avenues. These death-wishing LOSERS control and dominate your neighborhoods, your lives and, worst of all, your MIND. And these unfit humans do all of this with YOUR permission.
The dead gunman was a member of the notorious Avenues gang. In his honor, his gang "homies" quickly erected a shrine, replete with colorful flowers and burning candles. They drank to his memory and mourned him as a "loyal, fallen soldier who represented the Avenues."
Angry parents, instead of repeatedly criticizing the Los Angeles Police Department for taking extraordinary measures to protect school children from a gang barbarian walking around shooting off a AK-47 semi-automatic military weapon, ought to storm the Avenues members' homes and gathering spots, in a moving blitz, and verbally denounce them for the fear, intimidation, and destruction they continuously cause the Glassell Park community. Then they ought to go to the Los Angeles Criminal Courts and testify on the witness stands against them to ensure their long "vacations" in state penitentiaries like San Quentin, Tehachapi, Corcoran, Folsom, Wasco, Tracy, and Pelican Bay.
Parents, it is NOT the honorable, courageous, and public-serving members of the Los Angeles Police Department at whom you should direct your anger. Can you not give the police any kind of credit for securing the elementary school, so horribly close to the gun battle, as a place of refuge and protection for your children? You should be forever angry at the primitive cowards and barbarians who, posing as "loyal soldiers," are the criminal street gang known as the Avenues. These death-wishing LOSERS control and dominate your neighborhoods, your lives and, worst of all, your MIND. And these unfit humans do all of this with YOUR permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)