Like the title says, this is commentary, about the characters involved, the trial, and the shooting itself. Facts will be interwoven but the trial and the result are equal parts devastating and shocking.
Cliff notes version
At 2am on April 3rd, 2022, a chaotic fracas broke out on K Street in downtown. Six people were killed and 12 were injured. It is/was the worst shooting in Sacramento history. Of the six dead, 3 were participants in the shooting, so by law in California, they are not considered victims. Three innocent people died that night. The other three assailants ran and ditched their weapons. All three were later apprehended. One died in jail of an overdose prior to trial. The trial proceedings wrapped up 7/21 with the judge declaring a mistrial due to the jury being deadlocked on all 3 “murder” charges against both defendants. They were convicted of being a felon in possession of a gun, but that carries a 3-year maximum sentence. With credit for time served, these guys will be out soon after sentencing pending the DA refiling the charges to try them again.
Editor’s Note: this shooting ties highest death toll in Sacramento history. In 1991, at the Good Guy’s store, three hostages and three gunmen were killed. Since more bystanders were shot in this instance, Chief is correct in claiming this as the worst on record.
The “Good”
I have to give credit to the two defense lawyers. Linda Parisi and Reid Kingsbury. This was a masterclass in taking down the prosecution’s “case.” They made what is obviously a successful argument that this was a late-night melee gone sideways and their clients acted in self-defense. They attacked the witnesses. They argued the video footage shown was “edited, or not the complete footage.” Like I said masterclass. They did not dispute the felon in possession charges, also smart as it signals “yeah, we know our clients messed up, we don’t dispute that, but it’s not murder.” For those who think these two lawyers are “dumb or stupid” just remember their clients said they didn’t murder anyone.
The “Bad”
The Prosecuting lawyers and the District Attorney office. Megan Eixenberger and Brad Ng are the two top prosecuting attorneys in the office. They laid a turd in the punch bowl. They tried to sell a narrative of it was a “gang turf war,” why not keep it simple? (More on this later). They cut immunity deals with lots of witnesses not knowing when it came time for trial, most would be non-compliant. They should have known when a group of people are congregating after a late night at a night club to drink more booze in the street, these folks all likely know each other or know of each other. You aren’t snitching on your friends. I would not let these two prosecute round 2. They had multiple chances to bury the defendants and failed; hell, the defendants took the stand!
The “Good”
Law and Order/CSI type television. Let’s face it, Americans watch way too much TV, and Law and Order type shows are all the rage. Everyone now sees themselves as an expert because “I saw it on TV.” There were probably several wannabe criminalist/lawyer types on that jury. Real trials rarely present the type of forensics seen on your average tv show. Fingerprints, gun shot residue, matching rifling, etc. are the exception in evidence not the rule. Also, not all evidence is presented to the jury. What the jury sees or doesn’t see in the course of the trial is often where the case is won.
The “Ugly”
The group of prosecution “witnesses from that night.” Yikes, this was a collection of the dregs of society. All who cut a deal for immunity too, they changed their testimony from what they told investigators years earlier. Some egregiously changed their stories even after being shown their earlier statements to law enforcement. However, I still blame Eixenberger and Ng. They know better about “gang type culture.” You don’t snitch on your friend especially after you get a sweetheart full immunity deal. Again, Eixenberger and Ng were convinced this was a gang related shooting. Who in a gang snitches on another gang member? Talk about a death sentence. There were two witnesses worth a damn, the guy in the hotel lobby and the 12-year-old selling hot dogs. Why a kid was selling at 2am is any one’s guess.
The “Lucky”
The defendants, both of them. How you can be in a gun battle, empty the 15-17 rounds in your gun, ditch your weapon, run, and still be found not guilty! Claiming self-defense paid off. Now they may well get convicted if re-tried but for now they are very lucky.
Blogger Note: if the jury hangs again they walk on the murder charges!
Commentary on the trial.
As described above, the scene was at 2am outside a nightclub with a lot of folks likely pretty liquored up. The scene got tense and apparently a few people started beefing. Guns were grabbed from cars and later a gun fight broke out. Guns were fired until the clip was empty, the perpetrators were either dead, or ran and ditched their weapons, and fled the area. The prosecutors said it was a gang battle or turf war. While this makes sense in theory, it’s very hard to prove someone is gang affiliated. The witnesses did not help here at all. Eixenberger and Ng tried the “here is their social media accounts” move but to no avail. I saw what I thought were stretches to prove someone is in a gang. It seemed like from the witness statements on the stand; this group of people all knew each other or were regulars at this club and closed ranks prior to the trial. The problem with the narrative of a gang turf war is you must prove gang affiliation of all parties involved.
Second big misstep was the prosecution starting the narrative that one of the dead gunmen, “Sergio” (I’m not going to use full names as case is pending re-trial), was the big bad guy and instigated it. Wow, you gave the defense a gift. Now it was self-defense. Suddenly an open and shut case got blown open, and reasonable doubt could be created. Did the two defendants illegally possess a gun? Yeah, but they only returned fire to protect themselves and people around them. That was how the trial went. If you can’t prove it’s a gang battle, then you can’t convict, right?
So how would I have prosecuted it?
I would have done the opposite of this Law and Order type prosecution attempt. I would have stayed away from creating a narrative. Just say what happened. You had enough camera footage and a couple of good witnesses. Screw the other people out there that night, honestly. Eixenberger and Ng allowed them to turn it into a dog and pony show that would have made Congress jealous. I would have focused on 2 of these men at least (not the defendants) that had their weapon on them that night. I would have focused on all 6 having long criminal histories. I would have pointed out all 6 either had their weapon on their person or in their vehicles and I believe none were supposed to possess/own a gun. My narrative would have been all 6 were out looking for trouble that night and after a long evening of drinking the situation got tense. You can see on camera these guys started arguing, A group of them go to their cars to get their weapon, then RETURN TO THE SCENE. Going back to the scene with a gun is not self-defense, it’s preparing for a gun fight. Focus on them firing all rounds from the gun whilst running from the scene after engaging in an argument/gunfire. Again, their actions don’t scream self-defense. 1 or 2 shots maybe, 15-17? No way. Then fleeing the scene? Ditching your weapon (one defendant threw his in the river, the other in a planter box). That doesn’t sound like an innocent person or someone doing self-defense. Does it sound like it to you? The 2 brothers (1 defendant/the other died in prison) are from Phoenix, the other defendant from Las Vegas. Why were they in Sacramento with their weapons?
That would be my narrative. We didn’t need a months long trial that was a dog and pony show. Keep it simple, screw the “possible” gang ties. These 6 were all bad news, no one was bigger or badder than the others. I think that gets a murder conviction, maybe not murder 1, but murder 2 for sure. What I said above was a watered-down version of how I would prosecute but dumb narratives like a turf war seem hard to prove.
Tomorrow I’ll break down the reaction from a couple of family members at the post-verdict press conference.
The Chief
