Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Terming Defendant a ‘Gorilla Pimp’ Doesn’t Require Reversal
Failure to Object at Trial Bars Contention on Appeal That Characterization Violates Racial Justice Act, Majority Declares; Dissenter Maintains That Colleagues Are Running Afoul of Precepts Set Forth in Division’s Opinion 20 Months Earlier
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A prosecutor’s reference to the defendant as a “gorilla pimp” does not require reversal of sex-trafficking convictions, Div. Six of the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday, over a partial dissent that accuses the majority of deviating from the division’s own 2023 opinion.
Appellant Gregory Wilson contended that the description of him by a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney in closing argument was violative of the Racial Justice Act (“RJA”) which bars the use at trial of “racially discriminatory language” about the accused. That argument was forfeited because no objection to references to the defendant as a “gorilla pimp” were voiced by his trial lawyer, Justice Kenneth Yegan said in the majority opinion, in which Justice Arthur Gilbert joined.
But, Yegan added, the fact that the defense lawyer remained mum might form the basis of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on a claim of ineffective counsel.
Unfamiliar Term
The justice remarked at the outset:
“Sex trafficking has its own terminology that is unfamiliar to persons who are not engaged in the commercial sex business. For example, few people outside of this business have heard the term ‘gorilla pimp’ which is at issue here. Until this case, the author of this opinion had never heard anyone use the term.”
Explaining the term, he said that “[i]n common usage, a gorilla is a large anthropoid ape.” He quoted the American Heritage Dictionary as saying that it also means a “brutish or thug-like man.”
Yegan continued:
“ ‘Gorilla pimp’ is a term of art used in the sex worker subculture to describe a pimp who uses force and violence to recruit or control his prostitutes. At no time did the prosecutor compare appellant to an actual gorilla.”
Prosecutor’s Argument
The prosecutor used the term in in referring to what a 14-year-old victim faced, saying:
“The fact that she is staring at a 5’11”, 200 some odd pounds gorilla pimp in the face, she is in a strange environment, she doesn’t know how to get herself out of it, that is enough to make any child fearful.”
She later told jurors:
“They want to have you look down your noses and demonize and vilify these victims who are, no fault of their own, being trafficked by a gorilla pimp.”
The deputy district attorney also referred to one of the victims “being trafficked by a gorilla pimp.”
Wilson agued on appeal:
“The term ‘gorilla’ is a racially laden term that was gratuitously thrown into the prosecutor’s improper and highly inflammatory closing argument.
“The term ‘gorilla pimp’ uses animal imagery. Even when not intended as a coded racial appeal, the word ‘gorilla’ suggests racial overtones when used in a trial involving a Black defendant.”
Lack of Objection
But, Yegan said, because there was no objection at trial, Wilson “forfeited his claim that the prosecutor had violated the RJA.” He also declared that “counsel was not ineffective as a matter of law,” explaining:
“Appellant has not shown that there could be no satisfactory explanation for counsel’s failure to object. Counsel could have reasonably believed that the jury understood the prosecutor was not using the term ‘gorilla pimp’ to physically describe appellant or compare him to a gorilla. The prosecutor was using the term to describe the technique used by appellant to recruit and control the prostitutes who worked for him.”
The justice pointed out that the prosecutor had told jurors that a “gorilla pimp commonly uses threats, violence, physical force to get his sex workers to comply with his rules.”
Wilson was found guilty by a jury of two counts of human trafficking a minor by force or fear, one count of human trafficking to commit another crime, two counts of kidnapping, and one count of criminal threats, with a finding that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard M. Goul sentenced him to a determinate term of 31 years and eight months in prison, to be followed by an indeterminate term of 30 years to life.
Substantial evidence supports the verdicts and sentencing for both kidnapping and trafficking of two victims does not constitute 6 multiple punishments in violation of Penal Code §654, Yegan wrote.
Cody’s Opinion
Justice Tari L. Cody wrote:
“I concur in the majority opinion except for its discussion regarding the Racial Justice Act…and its affirmance of the judgment, from which I respectfully dissent. By gratuitously describing appellant as a ‘gorilla pimp’ during closing argument, the prosecutor violated the RJA. No satisfactory explanation exists for failing to object to such a clear violation.”
She pointed to Div. Six’s Oct. 12, 2023 opinion in People v. Simmons, authored by Gilbert and joined in by Justice Hernaldo J. Baltodano, with a dissent by Yegan. There, the defense lawyer failed to object to remarks by the prosecutor that violated the RJA; the Office of Attorney General conceded the error, on appeal, as id did in Wilson’s case; Div. Six reversed and remanded.
Cody commented in yesterday’s opinion:
“Now, the majority rejects the People’s concession, finds the RJA claim forfeited, and affirms. I see no reason to depart from Simmons. As there, no reasonable tactic or strategy justified counsel’s inaction.”
She went on to say:
“There is no dispute pimps, traffickers, and sex workers use the term ‘gorilla pimp’ in their trade. When and how it should be used in the courtroom are separate issues. The RJA accommodates the use of racially laden language ‘if the person speaking is relating language used by another that is relevant to the case or if the person speaking is giving a racially neutral and unbiased physical description of the subject.’…The prosecutor did not use the term for these purposes.”
A reversal and remand, she argued, “would be consistent with the Legislature’s conclusion that ‘racism in any form or amount, at any stage of a criminal trial, is intolerable, inimical to a fair criminal justice system, is a miscarriage of justice under Article VI of the California Constitution, and violates the laws and Constitution of the State of California.’ ”
The case is People v. Wilson, B323666.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company