The death of 14-year-old Tara Romero in a drive-by shooting in Morgan Hill was the tragic result of “two very separate worlds colliding,” Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Miguel Valdovinos said in closing arguments for the trial of two of the teen’s alleged killers April 5.
“Tara Romero (and her friends) had celebration in mind. On the other hand, you had five Surenos who had retaliation in mind,” Valdovinos told the jury in the San Jose Hall of Justice courtroom. “The (suspects’) plan was to go look for Nortenos and shoot Nortenos, and they were armed for that purpose. They opened fire and gunned them down,” he added, referring to the group of teens who had been out celebrating a birthday that evening.
The victims were not gang affiliated, and the suspects mistakenly targeted them to settle an ongoing feud between the Sureno suspects and nearby Nortenos that escalated to vandalism, threats and beyond, according to authorities.
The trial for Primitivo Hernandez, 27 of Gilroy, and Fernando Mateo Lopez, 24 of Gilroy, has been under way since March 3. They, along with three other suspects, are accused of killing Romero and wounding three of her friends in a gang-related drive-by shooting Nov. 4, 2011 at the intersection of Cosmo and Del Monte avenues. All five suspects have been in custody since their arrest by Morgan Hill police hours after the shooting.
After the closing arguments by Valdovinos and defense attorneys, the jury will determine the fate of Hernandez and Lopez.
Valdovinos summarized the testimonies of more than a dozen witnesses and hundreds of exhibits presented during the trial: the discovery of the SKS “killing rifle” in one of the suspects’ homes; ballistics analysis of the gun and casings found at the scene of the drive-by; gunshot residue found on all five suspects’ hands; text messages among at least three of the suspects that suggest a planned “conspiracy” to shoot Nortenos that night; and the statements of suspect Ricardo Diaz, who took the stand and testified against the defendants during the recent trial.
The prosecutor also reminded the jury of a handwritten note allegedly produced by Lopez and found by police during the investigation. “I’m a crazy dude, my blue handkerchief hanging, always walking with my gun…present for my hood, Surenos killing Nortenos,” the note read.
“That’s the gang culture,” Valdovinos said in his quest to convince the jury that the suspects’ criminal street gang affiliations motivated them to go out searching for rival gang members to shoot.
Before the closing arguments began April 5, Superior Court Judge Linda Clark read a lengthy list of instructions to the jury. These instructions included the charges they were to consider for Hernandez and Lopez: one count of murder, five counts of attempted murder and three counts of shooting at an inhabited dwelling house.
Each of these charges carries “special circumstances” or “special allegations”—such as gang affiliations and shooting from a moving vehicle—that could add more weight to the accusations if the jury accepts them.
The attempted murder charges are related not only to three friends of Romero’s who were wounded by the same gunfire that killed the Sobrato High School freshman. They also include two teens standing with the other victims at the time of the shooting but “luckily” ran away and did not get hit, Valdovinos told the jury.
Four of these victims—who had been out with Romero that evening and were her classmates—testified during the trial.
State’s case based on ‘theories’
Defense attorney Nicole Lambros, representing Hernandez, suggested that her client was wholly uninvolved in and unaware of the decision to shoot Nortenos or anyone else the evening of Nov. 4, 2011, even if he was a passenger in the suspects’ vehicle before and during the incident. She added that even if he has been affiliated in the Sureno street gang, that also does not necessarily implicate him in the shooting that killed Romero.
“This case is not about theories or speculation…It’s about the facts and the evidence,” Lambros said.
She picked apart the testimony and previous statements of Diaz, a key component of the state’s case against Hernandez and Lopez. She said Diaz’ statements to police and his testimony were inconsistent as to the five suspects’ motives. Lambrose pointed to one of his early statements in which he said the shooting “was about my windows,” and not about an organized gang retaliation.
In the weeks leading up to the fatal shooting, the police investigation found that some nearby Norteno suspects had broken windows on vehicles belonging to the suspects and the home of another suspect, Esmeling Bahena, who will face trial for the same charges after the current proceedings.
“Something about (Diaz’ testimony) causes you to doubt that Mr. Hernandez committed this crime,” Lambrose told the jury.
Before the closing arguments, the judge cautioned the jury that by law they cannot convict the suspects on the Diaz’ testimony alone because he is an accomplice. His statement can only be considered in a conviction of the others if it is supported by additional evidence.
Valdovinos added that while none of the evidence says which of the five suspects pulled the trigger, they are all guilty of murder and the other charges as “aiders and abettors.” Furthermore, Diaz’ testimony is reliable to some extent, partly because he pleaded guilty to the same charges and agreed to a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison.
“We all get to go home. Mr. Diaz doesn’t get to go home; he goes to prison with a ‘snitch’ jacket,” Valdovinos said.
James Blackman, attorney for Lopez, was scheduled to deliver his closing arguments April 6, but the Times was unable to attend. After his statement, Valdovinos gets a chance to rebut both defense attorneys, and then the case goes to the jury.
Valdovinos concluded April 5, “There are no winners in this case; the damage has been done…The only thing I ask (of the jury) is to do the right thing and hold them accountable.”
