Thursday, July 9, 2026
Page 3
Repeated References to ‘Hispanic Gang’ by Expert Witness Didn’t Breach RJA—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that repeated references by the prosecution’s expert witness to the defendant’s membership in a Hispanic gang—which he testified are groups associated with violence and criminality—did not run afoul of the 2020 statute barring convictions predicated on the accused’s ancestry..
Acting Presiding Justice Maurice Sanchez authored the unpublished opinion, filed Tuesday. It rejects the contention of Bryan Alexis Gonzalez—who was convicted of offenses involving robbery, kidnapping and burglary—that the Racial Justice Act (“RJA”) requires a reversal of the judgment.
Reversal is mandatory under the RJA, Penal Code §745, where a conviction was “on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.”
The prosecution’s gang expert testified as to “the reputation of Hispanic gangs and individual members for violence.”
A motion under the RJA was brought up at a resentencing hearing before Orange Superior Court Judge Kimberly K. Menninger. Gonzalez’s convictions were upheld by Court of Appeal in 2019 but there was a remand for a fresh consideration of the penalty.
Lawyer’s Argument
The defendant’s lawyer argued at the hearing:
“There is no value to the jury in repeating the word ‘Hispanic’ before saying gang. The expert could say 17th St. is a violent gang, [Gonzalez] is a member of it, and this crime was committed to benefit the gang and its violent tendencies. But when you keep saying the word ‘Hispanic’ over, and over, and over again, it adds nothing to the analysis for the jury. Rather, it pollutes the jury in that Hispanics are more likely to be violent, they are more likely to join a gang, and, therefore, my client being a member of the Hispanic race would, therefore, be more likely than not to be guilty.”
Menninger commented that if she were to find that “the mere use of the phrase ‘Hispanic criminal street gang’ ” sufficed for a prima facie showing of an RJA violation, “that would be a ludicrous determination.”
To characterize a gang without reference to ethnicity, she said, “would be disingenuous to the roots and to the history of how these particular gangs started, just like it would be to call a white supremacist gang some other gang that might be less offensive to people in describing what their desires and efforts are.”
Sanchez’s Opinion
Sanchez wrote:
“On our de novo review, we conclude Gonzalez has failed to make a prima facie showing of a violation of the RJA. First, the appeal fails to allege specific facts to support a claim Gonzalez’s conviction was obtained due to racial discrimination. Gonzalez does not provide any supporting documentary evidence regarding his claim, such as statistical evidence or aggregate data. Nor does Gonzalez cite any authority which holds that use of the term ‘Hispanic’ by a gang expert witness in relation to discussion of gang activity is a violation of the RJA.
“In fact, in cases decided after the RJA was enacted, courts have considered expert witness testimony regarding the racial or ethnic composition of various criminal street gangs without concluding such testimony violated the RJA.”
He added that the expert did not employ “racially discriminatory language,” condemned by the RJA, but was merely providing information as to “the general history and background of Hispanic gangs and distinguishing them from other gangs whose members are generally composed of a certain race or ethnicity.”
Claims of sentencing error were also rejected.
The case is People v. Gonzalez, G064880.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company