[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6271604,"mediaKeyId","3028858-5598f94a759fd015c478ebe909ab5a85","parentId",3028858,"title","Court allows gang-affiliation evidence based on Tarrant County booking form and TxGang entry","audioSeconds",1531,"startMs",3835000,"endMs",5366000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3028858-5598f94a759fd015c478ebe909ab5a85&start=3835&end=5366","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3028858-5598f94a759fd015c478ebe909ab5a85/thumbnail_3835000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6271604/Texas/Court-allows-gang-affiliation-evidence-based-on-Tarrant-County-booking-form-and-TxGang-entry","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6271604-7f48008b3a3baa02eab6b28f56117e68/orig.mp4?Expires=1770833018&Signature=dI-Kj2XXfajpfDt2s9aPrqydfBCpq7uZEpq1SVG293WJ09-SOuw~gJ-mGlDitjADZGvVumoc0dfZQGIyWrUnThQx53mR77l6rsYFORgtN3PsKdEClwV4LxMUQBLPOySRdXMzQXiZ5MFuWHnMOUuz0lS66X4o6hrspySLjyf9cCLcoEQAQts3tYzcc9ni7qCNgyRQtER5vI9ErylOZ7Z3y8uaNoJp8Ii4ZE9hjj4l5X2znZ7Kb9zfxg5MuS2iKeDat92ZgFpY6o1RnaI69QC65fNzVHGZdllpdPJaZ~AI9LsvLi6DN2D24T47T~QirDhLL4ImQTVa3O4jVe71o8lPUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-17T00:46:23.877Z","article","The 187th District Court allowed the state’s gang expert to testify that records and photos from a Tarrant County booking indicated the defendant had self-identified as a member of the Long Beach Insane Crips.

Sergeant Anthony Rodriguez, a criminal investigator with the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office who serves as a gang liaison and administrator for local gang documentation, testified he reviewed Tarrant County records and a “gang acknowledgment” form (offered as state exhibit P3). Rodriguez said the defendant had been documented in the TxGang system and that Tarrant County records validated that earlier entry. According to Rodriguez’s testimony, the booking form included a self-admitted affiliation, a moniker (“Tayk 47”), photographs and hand signs; Rodriguez testified, “He is a member of the Long Beach And Shane Crips.”

The defense objected repeatedly, arguing that the TxGang entry and Tarrant County booking summary were hearsay, raised confrontation-clause concerns, and were not shown to be relevant because the booking and TxGang entry postdated the offense at issue. Counsel also questioned the reliability of TxGang entries, noting entries can drop off the system after five years and that the expert relied in part on regional publications and business records rather than personal, contemporaneous investigation.

The state responded that the information was captured in Tarrant County business records and that the expert had followed validation steps (checking TxGang, obtaining Tarrant County records and photographs, and reviewing the booking packet). The court found Rodriguez’s qualifications sufficient to testify as to gang affiliation and permitted the testimony and admission/publication of exhibit P3 for the jury to consider during the punishment phase, while noting defense objections were preserved.

Why it matters: Gang-affiliation evidence is commonly admitted in Texas punishment phases to help juries (and the court) evaluate a defendant’s background and character. The court’s ruling lets the state present that background evidence to the jury; the defense argued the specific Tarrant County documentation and the TxGang validation were unreliable and not tied to the charged offense.

Key details: Rodriguez described TxGang as a statewide law-enforcement database administered by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) and stated entries can be removed by the originating agency if erroneous. He said the defendant’s TxGang entry had dropped off the public system but was validated by records obtained from Tarrant County. Rodriguez acknowledged he had no personal knowledge of specific criminal acts by the Long Beach Insane Crips in Texas and that the Long Beach subset is California-based, though he characterized the Crips generally as groups that may engage in crimes “ranging everything from narcotics all the way up to murder.”

Ending: The witness was allowed to testify and P3 was offered and published. The court sustained and overruled specific objections at different points but ultimately allowed the jury to hear Rodriguez’s testimony; defense objections on hearsay/confrontation grounds were preserved for the record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Judge Boyd's Zoom Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Judge Stephanie Boyd allowed a Bexar County DA investigator to testify that the defendant had self-identified as a member of the Long Beach Insane Crips in a prior Tarrant County booking; defense objections on hearsay, confrontation and relevance were overruled.","taxTitle","Judge Stephanie Boyd 187th District, District Court Judges, Judicial, Texas","taxId",66298,"location","Texas","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6271609,"Judge orders defendant fingerprinted, admits courtroom fingerprint comparison over defense challenge",0,2644000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3028858-5598f94a759fd015c478ebe909ab5a85&start=2644&end=2644","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3028858-5598f94a759fd015c478ebe909ab5a85/thumbnail_2644000.jpg","/articles/6271609/Texas/Judge-orders-defendant-fingerprinted-admits-courtroom-fingerprint-comparison-over-defense-challenge","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6271609-9fad9d1fd09992bb709202d8ae587371/orig.mp4?Expires=1770833018&Signature=P~mJPIstvAUYWNlcwuTX7ykWZ6-x~80WmolMHFjhvvG6g3BE8mMvtUcLp6FvRIcm71lBRB1c3DJwAaktxbMx-VFfvNJrUGlVQqeW1j-wwyd2R1TGuB7DTFvSXJsfu1JJirvLMmk4qG2bvap3zi2bZ4H1u0csBV9u~pGtR7pSfqJvmK-2ed4O-ESquyjCAxEHdTF1L-Jxo9f9S34Nzmq1xV~PPntog5MIEDjt0Zi~~IEc7Hb80I1d7MQQUyH4fJOFBeVe2JouOG6l~ZN8uaMdWLBU1q3tN1J3iZ-bQFRRtC9nU9MT5bXzVwWBOLgpisSglT8BQlP6yERQ6TXFjHXhzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court granted the state’s motion to require the defendant be fingerprinted and allowed a fingerprint examiner to testify after a defense challenge to the method was denied.

The ruling came during a pretrial/punishment-phase hearing in which the state asked the court to have an examiner take inked prints in the courtroom and compare them to prints on a prior booking/judgment. The examiner, Mia Valdez, identified herself as a fingerprint examiner with the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office and testified she had taken the defendant’s ink prints in the courtroom and compared them to a booking card and a judgment from Tarrant County. Valdez testified, “A fingerprint is an impression made up of characteristics that is used for a means of identification for an individual,” and told the court the right thumbprint on the judgment matched the thumbprint she took in court: “They were a match.”

Defense counsel argued the comparison failed the Daubert/Kelly standard for scientific evidence, saying the courtroom comparison was not peer reviewed, that the examiner had limited formal training (a two-week course plus on-the-job experience), and that no independent check or documentation of the examiner’s visual comparison was produced. The defense urged exclusion on grounds the procedure was “definitionally unscientific” and raised concerns about reliability and due process.

The court rejected the defense’s motion to exclude the testimony and allowed the fingerprint evidence, noting the hearing was limited to qualification of the witness and admissibility of the comparison. The court admitted state exhibits P1 and P2 (the ink-print card and the judgment) and later admitted P4 (booking photos and associated identifying data). The judge also granted the state’s initial request to have the defendant fingerprinted.

Why it matters: The admitted fingerprint comparison was offered by the state to prove up a prior judgment for sentencing purposes. If the jury finds the defendant guilty on punishment, the previously adjudicated convictions and the fingerprint comparisons may be used in assessing punishment.

Key details and evidence: Valdez testified she conducted the fingerprint comparison in the courtroom after taking the defendant’s ink prints there. The judge allowed the examiner to testify despite the defense’s challenge under the Daubert/Kelly evidentiary standard. The court also ruled that whether the jury may be told about possible stacking of sentences (concurrent vs. consecutive) can be addressed later; the court said jurors may be told the court, not the jury, decides whether sentences run consecutively or concurrently.

Court rulings and procedural notes: The court (Judge Stephanie Boyd) granted the state’s motion to require fingerprinting and denied the defense’s motion to exclude the courtroom comparison under the Daubert/Kelly standard. State exhibits P1 and P2 were admitted; P4 (booking photos and identifiers) was also admitted. Defense counsel preserved objections to aspects of the underlying process and documentation.

Ending: The fingerprint examiner was excused after completing testimony; the matter will be part of the record for the punishment phase. The court returned the jury to continue the punishment-phase proceedings after resolving the Daubert/Kelly challenge and admitting exhibits.","In the 187th District Court, Judge Stephanie Boyd granted the state’s motion to fingerprint the defendant and denied a defense challenge to admit a courtroom fingerprint comparison; a Bexar County fingerprint examiner testified the prints matched a Tarrant County judgment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Court allows gang-affiliation evidence based on Tarrant County booking form and TxGang entry

Judge orders defendant fingerprinted, admits courtroom fingerprint comparison over defense challenge