If you know anything about the relationship between the Hispanic and African-American gangs in Riverside, you'll know they're . . . not good. Personally, I did not know what caused this situation, at least beyond the usual rivalries, but according to Justice Menetrez, the history here is somewhat unique. Here's the background:
"East Side Riva is a Hispanic street gang in Riverside, California with roughly 500 active members. There are a number of cliques within East Side Riva, including Clique Los Primos, which is also known as CLPS or Primos. . . .
The Mexican Mafia is a Hispanic prison gang founded in the 1950’s. The prison gang acts as a parent organization and exerts control over all Hispanic street gangs in Southern California. The Mexican Mafia forces the street gangs to pay taxes and disciplines their members when they are incarcerated. East Side Riva pays taxes to the Mexican Mafia.
The 1200 Block East Coast Crips (1200 Block) is an African-American street gang in Riverside, California. Georgia Street Mob, or GSM, is a clique within 1200 Block. East Side Riva and 1200 Block occupy or claim the same territory. According to the People’s gang expert, Detective Trevor Childers, the area has a history of racial violence that grew out of a “beef” between East Side Riva and 1200 Block in 1991. At the time, East Side Riva and 1200 Block were cooperating to target rival gangs in other neighborhoods of Riverside. The Mexican Mafia learned of East Side Riva’s alliance with 1200 Block, and the Mexican Mafia was not happy, because the gang did not cooperate with African Americans. The Mexican Mafia punished East Side Riva by “put[ting] a greenlight” on the gangs’ members, so East Side Riva members were being assaulted in jails. The Mexican Mafia directed East Side Riva not to cooperate with African Americans ever again. In the years that followed, the violence between East Side Riva and 1200 Block became “astronomical.” East Side Riva and 1200 Block became “mortal enemies.”"
One-time confederates, now implacable antagonists. A classic movie plot line.
That history made this opinion worthy reading even on its own. But there's another portion as well that made me want to write about it.
At issue here is the conviction of Steven Carrillo, a member of Primos, for the first-degree murder of Derrion Thomas and the attempted murder of "Isaiah S." Both victims were African-American and hurt in a car-to-car shooting after a confrontation at a local Motel 6.
Both victims were carrying a gun at the time of the shooting, and at trial, the defendant contended that he shot them in self-defense. The jury disagreed, based in large part on a video of the prior events at the motel and, critically, the testimony of the surviving victim, Isiah. Isiah said that the victims never shot at the defendant; there was little to no other evidence about where respective shots were fired (apart from the recovery of the defendant's vehicle, which had ten bullet holes in it, but there was some reason to believe that those bullet holes may have potentially been planted there).
The Court of Appeal holds (and everyone agrees) that it was error for the trial court to allow the police officer to testify at trial that during his interview of Isiah, he believed that Isiah was telling the truth. It is obviously not okay to let a lay witness testify to someone's alleged veracity. The Court of Appeal nonetheless finds that this error was harmless, since the defendant was fairly clearly guilty regardless.
There's something to be said for that conclusion. But a portion of that analysis -- the part that begins on page 21 -- seems wrongheaded to me.
Justice Menetrez initially says: "First, the evidence of Carrillo’s animus toward African Americans and his willingness to use violence against them was overwhelming. For instance, he referred to himself as a killer of 1200 Block, the Georgia Street Mob clique, or “snails” (a derogatory term for 1200 Block and African Americans more generally). He called a shotgun a “‘snail gauge’” and said that he was ready for a fight. He used a racial slur when talking about Isaiah and Thomas to the undercover agents, saying that he got “into it” with the victims because of their race. Notes found in his backpack after the shooting referred to the shootout with “snails,” and he gave himself high marks for it. All of that evidence shows that Carrillo targeted the victims and intended to kill them because of his animus toward them, not because he believed that his life was in danger."
But the fact that you hate a particular racial group and subsequently laud yourself for killing one of them does not prove that they didn't shoot at you first. You would say all of that even if the shooting was in self-defense. Is it relevant evidence? Sure. It may provide a potential motive for an alleged premeditated attack. But it's far from overwhelming. Someone can seriously hate sharks, for example, and be excited about killing one of them, but that doesn't prove that the shark wasn't coming to eat him when the speargun was fired.
Justice Menetrez next says: "Second, Carrillo’s claim that the victims were trying to intimidate him or threaten him is not supported by the video evidence. Carrillo said that one of them lifted his shirt and flashed a gun at Carrillo, but the video shows no such conduct. He also claimed that they followed him and pulled up to his car at the stoplight. But the video shows that Isaiah left first, Carrillo ran a red light to catch up, and Carrillo pulled up to Isaiah’s car. The video further shows that before following Isaiah, Carrillo retrieved a gun from his room."
Yes, that's relevant evidence. It shows that Carrillo may not always be telling the truth. But sometimes, particularly when you're talking to the police after a murder, you make up particular facts even if you're innocent. Is that a great strategy? No. But it's human nature. The fact that some details may perhaps be unconfirmable (or made up) doesn't prove that the critical detail -- who shot first -- is also a lie. A jury could easily conclude that Carrillo may have exaggerated or wrongly relayed various details but that he was still telling the truth when he said that the victims (who were admittedly carrying weapons) shot at him first.
The analysis here ends with Justice Menetrez saying: "Carrillo emphasizes that Isaiah never said that Carrillo shot first, whereas Carrillo told the undercover agents and the interviewing officers that the victims shot first. However, the jurors could reasonably infer from the evidence that Carrillo shot at the victims first. Isaiah testified that the person in the Jaguar “gangbanged” on his group and cocked a gun, and then he and his companions “started getting shot at.”" But the whole question is whether Isaiah was telling the truth; the fact that he testified at trial that he was "gangbanged" and "shot at" doesn't mean that the events actually went down as he described.
The last portion of the Court of Appeal's opinion, which says that Carrillo would be guilty regardless since he admits that he "racked" his gun at the victims and thereby instigated the events at issue, is less problematic. I can potentially see this as a valid basis for the ultimate result.
The rest, though? Troubling.
Even more troubling, honestly, is the apparent state of gang race relations in Riverside. As the opinion presumably accurately recounts:
"According to the People’s gang expert: “It’s to the point now, that if you investigate a crime in the east side Riverside neighborhood, and the victim is Mexican, you assume you’re looking for a black suspect and vice versa.”"
Eww.
