Opinion ID: 2321578
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: References to Gang Membership

Text: Pérez argues that the prosecutor exceeded the court's ruling that limited references to gang membership. At the beginning of trial, Villatoro's counsel asked that the prosecutor be prevented from making any reference to the gang Mara R, [49] because such references would be more prejudicial than probative. The court declined to impose a blanket restriction, explaining that appellants' gang membership was probative of the government's charge of conspiracy. The court did, however, limit the prosecutor's use of gang membership only to show identity and membership in the conspiracy. Appellants do not challenge the court's ruling. Pérez argues instead that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecutor to refer excessively to appellants as gang members. We disagree that the prosecutor's gang references were excessive. In opening statement, the prosecutor used the term gang only once in describing witness Benítez: [n]ow you might not like Mr. Benítez. He is a member of Mara R, which incidentally is spelled, M-A-R-A and the letter `R.' He is a gang member. He's a fellow gang member. The prosecutor also described how Villatoro flashed a sign at another group, resulting in a fight, but made no other explicit reference to gangs at the outset of trial. Pérez complains of only two other instances during the course of the six-day trial when the term was mentioned. First, during direct examination of Investigator Roberto Torres, the prosecutor asked him to describe his official duties. Torres replied that he was assigned to Metropolitan Police Department's Criminal Investigation Division Intelligence, the unit on gangs .... [and was] responsible to follow, concentrate on the Hispanic gang activities in Washington, D.C. Second, the prosecutor asked Torres about the informal nature of membership in East coast gangs as compared to those on the West coast. [50] The trial court stopped this line of questioning, upon objection, and instructed the jury to disregard it. During a bench conference, the trial court reaffirmed that any other questions that pertained to the association of appellants with each other would be permissible, but that general questions about gang organization would not. The government then ended its direct examination of Investigator Torres without further questions about gangs or appellant's gang membership. During closing argument, the prosecutor, heeding the trial court's injunction, characterized the case as being about mob violenceand did not make reference to a gang. Appellants complain of no other use of the term gang during the course of the trial. Here, the trial court was well aware of the potential prejudice from unsupported or unnecessary references to gang membership, and placed appropriate and clear restrictions on such evidence. See Mercer v. United States, 724 A.2d 1176, 1184 (D.C. 1999) (Our case law instructs the trial court to be cautious in the admission of potentially inflammatory evidence.). Given that appellants' association with each other in Mara R appears to have been an integral factor in their near-instant conspiracy to assault the homeless man and Helm after they were ousted from the nightclub, the prosecutor's restrained use of gang references did not exceed the trial court's ruling or constitute prosecutorial misconduct. Therefore, we are not persuaded by appellants' arguments that the prosecutor made improper comments that warrant reversal.