I know I've written on this borderline criminal notion of police gang "experts" who will say just about anything to make a defendant to look bad, making stuff up wholesale under the guise of "expertise." I've probably bored quite a few of you with this. Well, I have a case going now that is going to blow the top off of this at some point. A few months ago a DA elicited gang testimony in a shooting case I have, coming up with some absurd theory of retaliation against a snitch where 2 gang rivals collaborated to punish this snitch, who was from my client's gang (BTW - It is highly doubtful that my client is a gang member, but I'll just accept the cop's absurd premise for the sake of showing how absurd it is. However, no reasonable doubt can exist that the co-defendant is from a rival gang to my client and the victim's gang). I always thought the theory was idiotic, and I think I exposed much of the theory as bogus.
Well, fast forward a couple of months, and what do I get dumped on me? Multiple CDs of wiretaps, wiretap motions with affidavits by detectives and reports on the wiretap results. Furthermore, I got recordings of jail visits of people related to the case (none of them for my client). What do these show? They show pretty obviously that the "theory" and "expertise" testified about by the detectives was simply put - absurd. They show that a much more reasonable explanation shows what happened, one that no expertise was really needed for, about what rivals shot this victim. Unfortunately, they cannot fit that into some nice little package to also pin it on my client.
So what do I do now? I believe that there was outrageous government conduct - the DA elicited opinions that contradicted evidence that she had which would tend to exonerate my client. The DA did this with knowledge (constructive or actual - constructive knowledge means that the DA should've known, in this case the DA's boss actually filed the wiretap motions months before this DA elicited these opinions, and the investigator in this case worked on those wiretaps) that contrary information existed to show the information was false. Furthermore, the DA withheld exonerating information from me at the preliminary hearing, a violation of my client's constitutional rights (some people still think that stuff matters, although those people are becoming an ever smaller minority). Finally, it just violates honesty and fair play to present what the prosecutor knows to be a false theory. I guess in the DA's defense, perhaps the prosecutor could be so hard-headed, dishonest or mean spirited to still believe in the theory that harms my client but is unsupported by any actual evidence as opposed to the contrary theory which exonerates my client and is supported by mounds of evidence. But at least this should be turned over before they presented their contrary theory.
I'll keep people updated on this case. Could it be that I actually have 2 completely innocent people in just a year that I'm representing in gang shootings? These almost never happen, how could that be?
Oh, I forgot to mention, the DA is the same one I had on my other "innocent" client case.