It would prohibit 'gang members' from gathering in public, intimidating witnesses and possessing weapons, graffiti tools, drugs or alcohol. It also would impose a 10 p.m. curfew. But how do you know someone's a gang member? Apparenlty, if they live in Broderick or Bryte and wear baggy pants?
Last April the state appeals court struck down the injunction. And now prosecutors are asking for a temporary one. And opponents are saying there isn't a gang problem.
But a team of a dozen defense lawyers countered with 98 statements from West Sacramento residents saying they were unaware of the gang problems detailed by law enforcement.
"The public doesn't believe this is a public nuisance," attorney Mark Merin told the judge.
It seems to me ignorance of a problem doesn't mean there isn't one. There are better arguments to make against the injunction
The hearing will go on for the next few days and will, inevitably, be wierd.
One witness who probably won't testify is Rick Gore, a senior investigator with the prosecutor's office, who in a recent seven-page memo accused District Attorney Jeff Reisig of seeking the gang injunction for political gain and committing misdeeds to get it.
Merin said in court Monday that the defense team had sought out Gore to testify but could not locate him. [Deputy D.A.] Linden said Gore is on medical leave and could not be forced to come to court.
I bet.
No comments:
Post a Comment