{"id":5935,"date":"2011-12-28T19:31:03","date_gmt":"2011-08-24T22:43:52","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-08-24T22:43:52","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5935","title":{"rendered":"Cal.: Possession of bullets and cocaine a decade earlier was harmless in penalty phase of serial gang killer with a long history of violence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant moved to suppress a decade old possession of bullets and cocaine in the penalty phase of his death penalty trial. In this case, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no reasonable juror would have even considered it material in light of the other evidence of his history of violence in multiple gang killings defendant was charged with where two people were executed with a gun to the head. Essentially, the challenged evidence pales in comparison to the rest of the case. People v. McKinnon<\/a>, 52 Cal. 4th 610, 259 P.3d 1186, 130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 590 (2011)*:<\/p>\n

Aside from the 1988 \u201cbullets and cocaine\u201d incident, the prosecution\u2019s aggravating evidence demonstrated defendant\u2019s well-established history of using force and violence. These examples included a violent battery and threats of further violence against his own sister, and a robbery and battery he committed in his school cafeteria. Importantly, the cold-blooded, cruel, and senseless murders of Coder and Martin sealed defendant\u2019s fate. He walked up to Coder, placed a gun against his head, and brazenly shot him. He similarly murdered Martin by shooting him in the head, in an act of revenge for the unexplained death of a fellow gang member, remote in time. There is no reasonable possibility that any erroneous admission of evidence that defendant once possessed bullets while engaged in selling cocaine would have affected the jury\u2019s penalty decision.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant led officers into his bedroom for his passport and ID and officers then saw fake IDs in plain view which was valid. United States v. Moran-Martinez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93730 (W.D. N.Y. May 20, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5935","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5935"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5935\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}