By Sophie Marconi
On August 5, 2016, in Department 8 at 1:50 pm, Judge David Reed presided over the continuation of the preliminary hearing for the People’s case against Alejandro Loza Quezada, for the fatal shooting last month of Geovanny Gomez in Woodland. During the hearing, only one witness provided testimony, lasting until 4 pm. The preliminary hearing is scheduled to continue on Monday, August 8, and is expected to end that afternoon.
With Deputy DA Kyle Hasapes representing the People and Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira defending Mr. Quezada, the hearing began with the continued cross-examination of Detective Aaron Moe, as investigator with the DA’s office. A considerable amount of the hearing consisted of Ms. Sequeira having the witness clarify specific terminology used by the Woodland Police Department in reference to gang activity. Ms. Sequeira asked the officer to define the words associate, membership, validation, snitch, busters, primary activities, and much more vocabulary within the context of gang activity.
All of this clarification regarding terminology led Sequeira to make the argument that Quezada cannot rightfully be charged with gang activity because of the lack of evidence supporting his membership or involvement in VBN (Varrio Bosque Norte), a regional subset of the Norteño street gang.
Ms. Sequeira then asked the detective if Quezada had ever been convicted of a gang crime, to which the answer was no. She also reminded the court that the evidence the People have to support Quezada’s gang charges is rather unconvincing. She had Det. Moe state the 11 criteria that officers use to determine whether an individual is a gang member. Det. Moe stated that, in order for an individual to be considered a gang member, they only have to fit two out of 11 criteria. Some of the criteria include gang correspondence (conversing with a gang member), tattoos that appear to be “gang logos,” wearing gang clothing or colors, and being in the company of identified gang members.
Martha Sequeira brought attention to the fact that the People used Mr. Quezada’s “relationship” with a Mr. Rojas as support of the charge that he was a gang member. Ms. Sequeira then asked the witness if anyone had ever told him that Mr. Quezada and Mr. Rojas know each other, to which he responded no.
The defense then created doubt about the witness’ gang expertise by revealing that the officer did not feel comfortable estimating the amount of gang members in VBN, even though he has been a part of the gang unit since August of 2013. She then brought up the fact that the witness had stated that he was aware of the defendant because of his prior acts. She asked how his prior acts, which involve a DUI and Health and Safety Code violations, have any relevance to a gang involvement charge when the three are completely unrelated.
The defense reminded the court that Quezada has no gang-related charges or convictions on his record previous to this case, and the Woodland Police Department has never even tried to validate Quezada as a gang member up until now. She then asked the witness how he discovers information regarding gang members of VBN, and asked the witness if he looks for people in the community so he can arrange consensual contacts about gangs. The witness quickly stated that he did not seek people out for such interactions, and was then reminded by the defense that doing so was a specific task for which the gang suppression unit (the unit he is a member of) is responsible.
Ms. Sequeira then ended her cross-examination by bringing attention to the absurdity of some of the evidence used to charge Mr. Quezada of gang involvement. She brought the first image to the attention of the court, which was an image of Quezada and his brother tailgating at a 49ers game, which had been accessed via Facebook. The officer’s explanation was that the “4” on the 49ers hat that Quezada was wearing was a gang symbol.
The officer also stated that the defendant was holding up a “4” with his hand, while it appeared that the defendant was really holding up a “3.” When Ms. Sequeira brought this to the attention of the detective, he stated that if the defendant is not guilty of gang involvement then he should not be hanging out with his brother, since his brother is allegedly a gang member.
The post Gang Murder Preliminary Hearing Resumes appeared first on Davis Vanguard.