Opinion ID: 6326955
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Prosecution Evidence at the Guilt

Text: Phase [. . .] ROSS V. DAVIS 11 The prosecution also offered expert testimony that both defendants were members of the Raymond Avenue Crips, a gang whose territory encompassed the houses where the murders occurred; that defendant Ross's nickname in the gang was “Little Evil” or “Evil;” and that defendant Champion's gang nickname was “Trecherous,” “Trech,” or “Mr. Trech,” all standing for treacherous. [. . .] In addition, the prosecution introduced a tape recording of a conversation between defendants that took place in a bus transporting them from jail to court. [. . .] In the two tape-recorded conversations, which contained numerous profanities, defendants fantasized about taking a “stroll” out of the jail and about “blow [ing] up” the driver of the transport van and escaping. They spoke in derogatory terms of a man named Ishimoto, apparently a guard at the jail, calling him a “little Jap,” a “Buddha head motherfucker,” and a “little bastard Buddha head.” Their conversations also included the following interchange, in which they talked about Bobby Hassan, Jr., the son of victim Bobby Hassan and a “junior member” of defendants' gang, the Raymond Avenue Crips. . . . According to the prosecution, in this interchange defendants discussed whether Bobby Hassan, Jr., had told the 12 ROSS V. DAVIS police about defendants' participation in the murder of his father and brother, and discussed whether the bed on which victims Bobby and Eric Hassan were lying when they were shot was a waterbed: CHAMPION: “Man, shit. I saw that mother fucker Bobby Hassan. ROSS: “Bobby Hassan what you mean? CHAMPION: “His father—the one that got killed. ROSS: “A picture? CHAMPION: “No, I saw him. He's in the courtroom. ROSS: “What you mean? He's dead. CHAMPION: “No (inaudible) (laughs) the other (inaudible). ROSS: “Oh, the Raymond Crip. CHAMPION: “Yeah. CHAMPION: “He always be at all the courts, Cuz. ROSS: “Yeah? ROSS V. DAVIS 13 CHAMPION: “(Laughs) Him and his mother . . . his other brother and shit. I look at him raw—the mother fucker (laughs). ROSS: “He's in court (inaudible)? CHAMPION: “Yeah, he be at all my courts. I look at him raw, the mother fucker (laughs). I was sleepy and just woke up . . . ROSS: “He ain't never said nothing? CHAMPION: “No, he's a punk ass. ROSS: “They supposed to be witnesses? CHAMPION: “No, they just come to see what's happening with me. (Laughs) See if I'm going to get convicted and shit. ROSS: “(Inaudible) CHAMPION: “(Inaudible) ROSS: “Was that a waterbed in that room? CHAMPION: “Uh-uh.” Defendant Ross offered no evidence at the guilt phase. Champion, 9 Cal. 4th at 898–901, 909–10. After one day of deliberation, the jury found Champion and Ross guilty of burglarizing the Hassan home and 14 ROSS V. DAVIS robbing and killing Bobby and Eric Hassan. It also convicted Ross of burglarizing the Taylor residence, of robbing Cora, Michael, and Mary Taylor, of raping Mary, and of murdering Michael. As the verdicts were being read, Ross and Champion rose and attempted to leave the courtroom, participating in the following exchange with the trial court: THE COURT: Mr. Champion, Mr. Ross, we’re not finished. CHAMPION: Not no more to hear. THE COURT: Have a seat until we finish reading the verdicts. Mr. Champion, Mr. Ross— CHAMPION: What more I gotta hear? I ain’t got no more to hear. THE COURT: We have further proceedings. Mr. Ross, Mr. Champion, have a seat. CHAMPION: I ain’t sitting down in this court. Let me go back in there. THE COURT: Mr. Ross, Mr. Champion, have a seat. CHAMPION: I’m not sitting down, your Honor, simple as that. THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’m going to excuse you at this point from the courtroom. Want ROSS V. DAVIS 15 you to go into the jury room just a few minutes. Do not discuss this case— (The defendants resume their seat at counsel table). THE COURT: All right. It will not be necessary at this time. Continue reading the verdicts. As the verdicts continued to be read, Ross and Champion again rose and were escorted out of the courtroom after the following exchange: THE COURT: Mr. Champion, Mr. Ross— CHAMPION: Fuck that, man. Get out this mother fucker, man. The California Supreme Court also recited the evidence presented at the penalty phase: At the penalty phase of the trial, the prosecution presented the following evidence of violent criminal conduct involving defendant[] Ross. [. . .] On July 29, 1977, Mark Howard, a gang member, was in Helen Keller Park when Walter Gregory approached and said that defendant Ross wanted to talk to him. Howard walked to another part of the park and spoke to Ross, who was with a group of 16 ROSS V. DAVIS people. Ross demanded that Howard return a radio that Howard had taken from Gregory. Howard said he took the radio because Gregory owed him money. When Howard refused to return the radio, Ross produced a revolver, and said that if Howard did not return the radio he would blow Howard's head off. Howard then slapped Ross, whereupon Ross shot Howard six times in the stomach and the chest. Howard recovered, but a bullet remains lodged close to his spine, and his ability to use his left leg is seriously impaired. As a result of this incident, defendant Ross entered a plea of guilty to a charge of assault with a deadly weapon, and was sentenced to three years in prison. [. . .] Champion, 9 Cal. 4th at 901–04. Though Ross’s defense counsel failed to call any witnesses in mitigation, they did introduce three pieces of evidence by stipulation and judicial notice. 3 First, the parties stipulated that, if called, the prosecution’s gang expert would have testified that Mark Howard, who had been another shooting victim of Ross, was previously a “peripheral member” of two different gangs. This evidence impeached Howard, who had testified he was never a member of a gang. Second, the parties stipulated that Ross was twenty-one years old at the time of the three murders. Finally, at defendants’ request, the trial court took judicial notice that a jury had found Evan Malett guilty of eight felonies for his role in the Taylor home invasion murder, that one of the 3 The California Supreme Court incorrectly stated that “Ross offered no evidence at the penalty phase.” Champion, 9 Cal. 4th at 904. ROSS V. DAVIS 17 felonies was first degree murder with the personal use of a firearm, and that the total sentence Malett received was 46 years to life imprisonment. At the prosecution’s request, the court also took judicial notice that the jury in Malett’s case was instructed that personal use of a firearm included merely displaying the firearm or striking someone with it, and that the jury found not true the allegation that Malett personally inflicted great bodily injury on Taylor. Arguing for the death sentence, the prosecutor asserted that Ross continued to present a danger to society. The prosecutor relied not only on Ross’s recorded statements about committing a violent escape from custody, but also “the display that was put on . . . when the verdicts were rendered.” According to the prosecutor, when the verdicts were being read, “Mr. Ross engaged in a confrontation with the guards here and almost got into a fight with them.” As a result, Ross was not “the kind of person from whom we can protect not only the society outside of prison but society inside prison by incarcerating him for the rest of his life.” The prosecutor also emphasized the “brutal and coldblooded” nature of the murders and pointed to Ross’s shooting of Mark Howard as “a[nother] murder where the victim, fortunately, did not die.” The prosecutor, however, conceded that “we didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt, I thought, that either of the defendants actually was a shooter in any of these murders.” Nevertheless, the prosecutor maintained that the evidence showed that Ross was the leader because: (1) he had “the nerve” to shoot Howard in broad daylight; (2) he was the one who previously had spent time in state prison; (3) he told Mary that he was the leader; (4) he did most of the talking during the recorded conversation with Champion; and (5) when the verdicts were being read, “he was the one who first got up and in mock 18 ROSS V. DAVIS indignation started to walk toward the lockup, [and] Mr. Champion followed.” The prosecutor anticipated the defense’s argument that Ross deserved a life sentence because Malett’s jury found him guilty of being the actual shooter, and yet did not impose the death penalty. The prosecutor first distinguished Malett’s case from Ross’s because Malett was found guilty of the Taylor murder only, whereas Ross was found guilty of the Hassan murders as well. Moreover, unlike in Ross’s case, the jury in Malett’s case did not find true the special circumstance allegations. Additionally, based on the jury instructions, Malett’s conviction for personal use of a firearm did not necessarily mean that the jury found him guilty of being the shooter in the Taylor murder; in fact, the jury actually found untrue the allegation that Malett personally inflicted great bodily injury on Taylor. Finally, the prosecutor noted that “it’s not the test for your purposes as to whether or not this case is more or less aggravated than some other case.” For his part, Ross’s counsel Lenoir argued that a sentence less than death meant that Ross would “die in prison” because escape from Folsom prison was “an utter impossibility.” According to Lenoir, the question was “whether or not [Ross] c[ould] be useful by making license plates” because “[t]hat’s where they’re made, prison.” Comparing Ross’s case to Malett’s, Lenoir pointed out that, unlike Malett, Ross was not charged with the personal use of a firearm or the infliction of great bodily injury on Taylor. Yet, while “Malett c[ould] look forward to getting out of jail and being back on the streets,” Ross “c[ould] never dream of getting out.” ROSS V. DAVIS 19 As for Ross’s outburst during the reading of the verdicts, Lenoir noted, and Champion’s counsel agreed, that Champion was the one who stood up first. Additionally, Lenoir claimed that the courtroom bailiff “ha[d] [no] problems” with Ross until “two persons from the audience,” who apparently were plainclothes deputies, “ran over towards” him and Champion as they were walking to the lock-up area. Lenoir also attempted to mitigate the assault on Mark Howard. He explained, “I don’t say that [Howard] deserved to have been shot, but certainly he instigated it by slapping Ross.” Moreover, Lenoir noted that, even though Howard “denied being connected with any gang,” the prosecution “graciously . . . assisted me in . . . entering into the stipulation” that Howard in fact had gang affiliations. Finally, Lenoir argued that there were four specific mitigating circumstances. First, the jury “c[ould] reasonably infer that Mr. Ross behaved during the two years he was in prison” for the Howard shooting because “if there was one black mark on [his] record[,] . . . it would have been presented.” Second, because Ross was then only twentythree years old, he had “a long time [remaining in his life] to think about one thing, what I’m in [prison] for.” Third, Ross told Mary in the bathroom that “he would see [that her] mother was not hurt, and [her] mother was not hurt.” Lastly, “it ha[d] been conceded that there [wa]s no evidence that Ross had a gun at any time during these actions.” The jury began penalty phase deliberations, and, after two days, delivered death verdicts against Ross and Champion. 20 ROSS V. DAVIS