Call Today! Free Immediate Response (818) 781-1570


Gang Allegations Struck for Improper Expert Testimony – California Court of Appeals 2021

Posted by Dmitry Gorin | Jan 22, 2021

California Court of Appeals Strikes Gang Allegations Based on Improper Gang Expert Testimony

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District recently struck gang allegations against defendant and appellant Leonard Lejohn Gonzalez in appellate case number B297509. 

The court's holding in People v. Gonzalez is expected to have a substantial impact in future trials involving testimony by prosecution “gang experts.”

People v. Leonard Lejohn Gonzalez, appellate case number B297509
California Court of Appeals struck gang allegations against defendant for improper gang expert testimony.

Facts of the case 

Gonzalez was charged in Los Angeles County Superior Court with three second-degree robberies in violation of Penal Code § 211. As the appellate court succinctly put it, Gonzalez snatched people's necklaces. 

In January and February 2018, Gonzalez accosted three women in similar circumstances and took their valuable jewelry. 

In addition to the robbery charges, the People alleged that Gonzalez:

  • acted in the robberies in furtherance of;
  • a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code § 182.22(b)(1)(C).

At trial, the three victims testified that Gonzalez was their attacker. A video further showed Gonzalez at one of the crime scenes. 

Police Testimony of Criminal Activity for Benefit of a Street Gang

The main issue under contention at trial was whether Gonzalez's actions related to gang activity. Long Beach Police Officer Alexander Roberts testified for the People as a gang expert. 

He testified that Gonzalez was a member of the Boulevard Mafia Crips, a criminal street gang which specialized in broadcasting:

  • a flashy lifestyle by driving expensive cars,
  • staying in expensive hotels, and
  • taking pictures of themselves with large amounts of cash.

Roberts further explained that he had personally contacted Gonzalez multiple times and had helped arrest him. He told the jury that Gonzalez's gang moniker was “Cash Boy.”

Cross examination of police officer 

On cross-examination, Roberts admitted that many of the hallmarks of a gang-related crime were absent in Gonzalez's case:

  • he had acted alone, not in concert with other gang members;
  • he had not worn the gang's “colors;”
  • he did not display gang insignia or flash gang signs;
  • the robberies were all committed outside of the Boulevard Mafia Crips' territory.

Critically, Roberts admitted that there was no evidence that Gonzalez had told any other gang members about his robbery activity. 

The jury convicted Gonzalez on all counts and sustained the gang enhancements.

Appeals Court “Struck” the Gang Enhancement

On appeal, the court struck the gang enhancements, finding they were not supported by substantial evidence. 

Appeals Court “Struck” the California Gang Enhancement
The court said gang allegation was not supported by evidence and experts opinion can't be speculative.

The court began by affirming that gang expert testimony can properly support a jury's finding in a case involving gang enhancements.  The court noted that:

  • such expert opinion, must not be speculative, and;
  • an unsound expert opinion has no value.

Roberts had testified that Gonzalez added to the gang's reputation by committing the robberies, but offered no evidence linking Gonzalez's robberies to the gang. 

He testified that Gonzalez provided monetary value to the gang by stealing the necklaces, but conceded there was no evidence that Gonzalez shared the jewelry or the proceeds therefrom with the gang. 

He testified that Gonzalez had a propensity to commit violent acts, but even leaving aside the general prohibition against propensity evidence there was no logical connection between a violent disposition and acting for the benefit of a gang.

Police Testimony on Patterns of Observation

Most significantly, the court criticized the trial court for allowing Roberts to testify based on his “pattern of observations” about the gang and of Gonzalez. 

The court stated that it was insufficient for an expert to simply announce that based on experience a contested fact is true. 

People v. Gonzalez - 2021California Courts of Appeal Decisions
The court stated it's not enough for an expert to just say that based on their experience a contested fact is true.

The court characterized this as the method of the Oracle at Delphi and as a “black box.” 

Rather than a method which can be tested and disproved, such as scientific expertise, the court found that Roberts testimony essentially amounted to a faith-based prediction. 

The court found that this approach may be convenient for “would-be experts,” but is unacceptable in a court proceeding.

No evidence defendant told gang about robbery 

In rejecting Roberts' testimony, the court zeroed in on the critical fact of Gonzalez's conduct: there was no evidence that Gonzalez told anyone else in the gang about his robbery of the necklaces. 

This is the paradigmatic case in which a gang member acts out of his own self-interest rather than for the benefit of the gang.

Gonzalez also raised several unrelated claims relating to his convictions and the imposition of certain fines and fees by the sentencing court.  These claims were rejected. 

Gang Expertise Testimony at Trial

In sum, the Gonzalez decision confirms the simple principle that gang expertise must be treated the same as any other form of expertise which can be properly presented to a jury. 

While experts are permitted to supply opinions in support of a conviction or a true finding relating to a sentencing enhancement or special allegation, those opinions must be supported by testable, disprovable methods. 

A gang expert cannot simply take the stand and say that they are experienced in the area of gangs, has observed gangs in the past, and can therefore opine that the defendant acted in furtherance of a gang. 

Defendants are expected to cite the Gonzalez decision in future cases involving gang allegations to attempt to limit the scope of prosecution gang expert testimony.

Appeals Attorney for California Criminal Convictions

If you were convicted on a California crime and believe the trail court made an error, you might have valid reasons for a criminal appeal.

Our Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys have vast experience in appealing a conviction and Writs of Habeas Corpus.

Criminal Appeals Lawyer for California Convictions
Contact the criminal defense law firm of Eisner Gorin LLP to learn how we can help you.

We have a successful history in overturning and reversing criminal convictions from Southern California courtrooms.

Our law firm has argued in front of the California Courts of Appeal and Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Our California Bar Certified Criminal Law Specialists know how the appeals process works and the relevant procedural issues.

Eisner Gorin LLP is a nationally recognized criminal law firm representing people in Southern California courtrooms, including LA County, Orange County, Ventura County, Pasadena, Santa Clarita, Simi Valley, Riverside, Torrance, and San Bernardino.

Our office is located at 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 11th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067.

Our main San Fernando Valley office is next to the Van Nuys Superior Court at 14401 Sylvan St #112 Van Nuys, CA 91401. Contact us for an initial consultation at (310) 328-3776.

Related Content:

About the Author

Dmitry Gorin

Dmitry Gorin is a licensed attorney, who has been involved in criminal trial work and pretrial litigation since 1994. Before becoming partner in Eisner Gorin LLP, Mr. Gorin was a Senior Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles Courts for more than ten years. As a criminal tri...

We speak English, Russian, Armenian, and Spanish.

If you have one phone call from jail, call us! If you are facing criminal charges, DON'T talk to the police first. TALK TO US!

Anytime 24/7