Global Courant 2023-05-30 17:00:50
When he stepped to the witness stand last week, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Jaime Juarez told the court about his first inking — the day he got his Compton station tattoo. The intimate gathering was in a house somewhere in Pomona, and most of the people there were strangers.
But he knew the man who invited him, and knew that man was wearing the same ink that Juarez was about to get—a design usually linked to a suspected gang of henchmen known as the Executioners.
On Thursday afternoon, while testifying in a civil trial, Juarez pushed up a pant leg to reveal that tattoo: a helmet-wearing skeleton gripping a rifle. The rare and candid revelation came in a case about the secret world of vicarious gangs, reports of which have plagued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for half a century and led to a series of investigations. studies and legal settlements.
The case that led to the tattoo wearing trial last week began in 2020, when Lieutenant Larry Waldie filed a lawsuit the province to claims of retaliation, claiming he was targeted and demoted after “openly resisting” the Executioners’ control of the Compton station while acting captain there.
That process continues, and the first two weeks see testimony from a range of current and former Sheriff’s Department officials. Some witnesses named everyone they saw with the so-called Executioners tattoo. One of them provided photos of a detective agency desk decorated in several places with the group’s symbol. Another – Juarez – explained the voting process used to decide who gets a tattoo and said he had helped make that decision several times.
But as much as last week’s testimony revealed, it also underlined the difficulties inherent in investigating the secret cabals. The sheriff has acknowledged that deputy gangs exist and has set up an office in his department to “wipe them out”.
Some witnesses — including former sheriff Alex Villanueva — claimed otherwise. In the past, Villanueva objected to the use of the term “deputy gangs” and last year sent the provincial Board of Supervisors a cease and desist letter demanding that it stop using it.
During opening statements in the first week of the trial, county attorneys argued that the gang deputy issue was not the root of Waldie’s troubles in Compton.
‘It has nothing to do with this case’ Sherry Gregorio told the court. “Lt. Waldie was not promoted to captain simply because more people were qualified for the position.
Waldie – whose father was ever a deputy sheriff inside same department – had been serving as an operations lieutenant at Compton station for several months when he took over as acting captain in January 2019.
At the time, Juarez was the Compton schedule deputy, which gave him the power to choose the training and vacation schedules for others on the station. In early 2019, he approached Waldie with a list of other possible deputies he wanted to take over the planning position.
But Waldie said he believed Juarez was a tattooed member of the Executioners and he wanted a new deputy who wasn’t.
So he declined the request. In response, Waldie claimed, Juarez orchestrated a “work delay” at Compton’s station. After Waldie complained to higher ups, he said, Juarez was transferred to another station for a few months.
But in August, when Waldie applied to be the permanent captain at Compton, he was cut so quickly that he wasn’t even listed in the top 10 candidates. Waldie’s lawyer argued that this was an act of retaliation for complaining about gang activity – as was the department’s later refusal to let him transfer to another division.
County attorneys told a different story, arguing that Waldie was not the most qualified candidate, that he himself was part of another tattooed group known as the Gladiators, and that he had been promoted or given special assignments to people who were fellow Gladiators.
Much of the testimony Juarez gave last week echoed what he said earlier when he made a statement in the case. Then, as now, he named names, talked about ink lots, and talked about the process of deciding who should get a tattoo.
Previously, on the advice of the district attorney, Juarez had not answered questions about his own tattoo. But this time he not only showed his ink, but also explained some details. Specifically, he said the tattoo was a “positive thing” and that the design includes the number 18 because he was the 18th person to get that tattoo. In all, about 40 deputies have the same tattoo, he said, adding that no one has a complete list of them.
He also said “there is no name” for the tattooed group, but those who wear the tattoo are sometimes referred to as “new ink” while those who bear the same tattoo as Waldie are referred to as “old ink”.
He also disputed several aspects of Waldie’s claims and denied causing a work delay. Juarez said Waldie was lying if he said otherwise.
Another star witness last week was the former sheriff, who took the stand for two days. Villanueva claimed that Waldie’s “remarkable ascension” by the department was due to nepotism, which could ultimately make him less qualified as a candidate for captain.
He also denied that there were ever gangs within the Sheriff’s Department, saying he only pursued an anti-gang policy to deal with the police’s “negative campaign”. Supervisory Board. He then told the court that he had never seen the skeleton tattoo until a photo of it was published with a news article, and that he never conducted an investigation to determine what tattoos existed within the department.
“What concerns me is behavior, not tattoos,” Villanueva said, emphasizing that he had directed others in the department to investigate allegations of misconduct in Compton.
The tense testimony comes amid wider debates over when delegates may or may not be forced to display their tattoos, or reveal the names of others wearing the same ink.
Earlier this month, Inspector General Max Huntsman, the county watchdog overseeing the sheriff’s department, ordered 35 deputies to come in for questioning and have their tattoos exposed. Sheriff Robert Luna then sent a department-wide email directing deputies to cooperate with Huntsman’s investigation or risk discipline.
Days later, deputy unions filed a labor complaint and lawsuit, arguing that the sheriff’s order circumvented the collective bargaining process and violated the deputies’ constitutional rights.
Testimony in the trial continues on Tuesday.
