LAKEPORT >> Defense attorneys each provided their comments on a number of points in the prosecution”s case against three Sonoma Chapter Hells Angels members, while the people”s attorney”s final closing argument provoked some contention in the courtroom Friday.
Most central to the arguments was their contention of a lack of evidence to prove their clients” guilt in each charge levied against them. But they also each dabbled in calling gang expert Jorge Gil-Blanco”s credibility into question and calling the jury”s attention to some speculative reasons why the prosecution hadn”t presented more evidence.
Like any defense attorney might argue, the concept of having to prove the defendants” guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was highly stressed. And when held up to the standard of proof required by law to convict someone of such charges, clips of blurry security video footage without audio and testimony from a biased member of law enforcement claiming to be an expert of the motorcycle club wouldn”t cut it, the attorneys argued.
The first count for each defendant, charging them with assisting in felonious criminal conduct as members of a gang, can only be found true if the jury is able to determine the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club constitutes a criminal street gang. Defense attorney Michael Clough told the jury the only evidence provided to them that showed the Hells Angels were a gang came from Gil-Blanco, whose lack of qualifications were also poked at by each defense attorney.
Aside from Gil-Blanco”s testimony, however, the jury is presented with predicate convictions for other Hells Angels members mostly from the club”s Ventura chapter. To charge the defendants with assisting their so-called gang with felonious conduct, the jury will have to find such felonious conduct is a primary activity of the club.
Attorney Jai Gohel argued that he wasn”t trying to prove all Hells Angels members were innocent or that the jurors should want their sons to be one, but that didn”t mean the Hells Angels as a club spent its time committing such crimes.
A charge specific to defendant Timothy Bianchi (who threw the first punch of the fight) is that of using force likely to inflict great bodily injury. But Gohel cast doubt on the jury”s ability to find his client guilty of the charge as the video footage of the fight shows Bianchi taking a swing at Vagos member Michael Burns but never making contact with Burns. Gohel also asked if Burns” injuries — a possible broken nose and a cut on his lip — constituted great bodily injury.
On the other hand, charges specific to defendants Nicolas Carrillo and Josh Johnson require an even heavier burden of proof. Attorneys Patrick Ciocca and Michael Clough pointed out their felony charges of aiding and abetting a criminal street gang could only be found true if defendants Josh Johnson and Nicolas Carrillo were also found to be guilty of aiding and abetting a felony assault.
In order to show guilt of that, however, the jury would also have to have been presented evidence of the two Hells Angels members” intent to aid Bianchi in his alleged crimes. The defense contests evidence of their intent could perhaps be speculated upon by District Attorney Deputy Art Grothe, but couldn”t be proved with the available evidence.
The defense also asked the jury why the prosecution hadn”t been able to gather more evidence. The sheriff”s office could have pressed charges against the three defendants a week after the incident and before the rest of the casino”s video footage was cleared, they argued.
Instead, the department waited two months before pressing charges and the only visual evidence of the alleged crimes came from law enforcement”s sampling of camera footage. Other witnesses who saw the casino fight were not interviewed, much less called to the stand to testify about what they saw, the defense pointed out.
“You can”t draw any inferences because the evidence simply isn”t there,” Clough said. “That”s a serious problem and it”s of the prosecution”s making.”
They also asked the jury why more evidence of a historical rivalry between the Hells Angels and Vagos in Lake County hadn”t been produced. The prosecution”s evidence of a rivalry rested on a few non-confrontations between Burns and supposedly some Hells Angels members but at least two of the incidents, including the casino fight, seemed to show Burns as the instigator.
Grothe”s final words, to which the defense didn”t have an opportunity to negate in front of the jury, caused some trouble after the jury was dismissed. Based on Grothe”s alleged misrepresentation of what Clough considered significant issues in the case, Clough said he would be moving for a mistrial if the errors weren”t pointed out to the jury.
Grothe”s closing argument mostly constituted a response to the defense counsel”s allegations against his case.
He responded to the defense”s allegation that Gil-Blanco”s list of 50 violent instances between the Hells Angels and other motorcycle clubs didn”t accurately represent the reality of those instances.
The defense had cross-examined Gil-Blanco about his list, which didn”t include names or other relevant details, and found multiple instances on the list were inaccurately depicted and didn”t actually result in convictions for Hells Angels members.
“This is not a mini-trial on each of those instances. If we had two years, yes, we could bring in witnesses and police reports but that”s not the purpose of this trial,” Grothe argued.
He also responded to the idea that video hadn”t been collected from the casino that could have assisted in the case.
“There are not some magical segments of tape out there,” he said. “That”s what some people will do to try and muddy the waters.”
Grothe”s claim that one of the predicates presented to the jury but later redacted for its inaccuracy was the fault of himself, Gil-Blanco and the defense council drew heated criticism outside the presence of the jury.
Clough argued it was not their mistake in any way that the inaccurate information was presented by Gil-Blanco and asked the jury be informed of the error in Grothe”s statement that it was.
The jury received partial instructions that guided them in their consideration of the charges. Deliberations begin Wednesday and the jury is anticipated to give its verdict shortly.
