Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County prosecutors and police describe changes after court limits gang-validation testimony
Summary
Montgomery County prosecutors and police told the Public Safety Committee they have added detective peer review and supervisor sign-off to gang-validation summaries after a judge limited expert testimony, but council members pressed whether that step alone cures wider Daubert concerns.
Assistant State's Attorney Gabriel Carrera and Special Investigations Director Ian Clark told the Public Safety Committee that a February motion in limine by Judge Chernofsky limited the scope of gang-validation expert testimony unless the department adds independent review. "Peer review is essential," Carrera said, describing a recent MS-13 prosecution in which motions over validation evidence lengthened pretrial proceedings and affected trial strategy.
Clark described the department's current process: an initial validation by a detective, a peer review by another detective and a newly added supervisory review to resolve conflicts. He said officers now take several weeks to prepare a thorough ‘‘gang packet’’ that documents monikers, affiliations, social-media activity and other indicators. Clark emphasized, "We do not do immigration enforcement. We do not do operations with ICE," in response to committee concerns about operational scope.
Council members pressed whether adding reviewers addresses Daubert/Roskine concerns about testability, error rates and whether the technique is generally accepted. Carrera and Clark said they are studying other jurisdictions and consulting partners but cautioned that wholesale changes to the eight-point validation tool cannot be implemented overnight. The ASA noted one case where a jury convicted one defendant and hung on another after a 5.5-week trial; he said revising methodology and demonstrating consistent peer oversight are priorities to preserve the tool as admissible evidence.
The committee asked staff for an updated staffing analysis in November and recommended continued interagency comparison (including DOCR standards) and documentation of peer-review procedures before the validation summaries are again offered in court.
