Thread: PC 186.22(a)
View Single Post
  #8  
Old 01-01-2013, 8:21 PM
Heiko's Avatar
Heiko Heiko is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,027
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchur6 View Post
Thank you for the link.
My pleasure!

Yes, I have to agree that California just keeps shining brightly. I am still surprised that the voters kept the DP though. Glad they did, but still surprised. Between AB109 [1170(h)], both Prop 36s (drugs and new 3 Strikes), and case law like this, it's no wonder our communities are the way they are. Job security, I guess.

I think that losing the substantive gang count does hurt. Going with the enhancement is a way to save it but I think it makes it more difficult to prove because the need to prove that the crime was committed with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members. It would be that "specific intent" that could be the hangup for often confused jurors. That's why I think a good gang expert with docs that can back up whether the defendant had committed other crimes with that specific intent or that other members of his gang have committed the same or similar crimes, and if there happens to be a similar set of facts where more than one of the gang members were involved would be great. Anything that would show that the crime was not a "one off" non-gang crime would be good. I think if it can be shown that other members of his gang do the same crimes and even with the same MO would lend credence to the gang expert testifying that it is all part of that "specific intent" because that is what that gang does and how they make money. Just some thoughts.... I'll shut up now.
Reply With Quote