HEADNOTE: Mario Rodriguez Gutierrez v. State of Maryland, No. 98 ...

See Robinson, 978 F.2d at 1561-62 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that expert testimony of gang
affiliation was directly probative of the defendants’ knowledge and intent to distribute
narcotics, elements of the offenses charged); Gonzalez, 135 P. 3d at 653, 659 (Cal. 2006)
(allowing expert testimony on gang culture and activities, where the only objections to the
testimony were different from those made here, relating to the breadth and effect of certain
of the assertions , id. at 657, whether the testimony invaded the province of the jury, id. at
658, as well as the sufficiency of the foundation laid for the opinion. Id. at 659.) 5 ; McDaniels,
166 Cal. Rptr. at 14-15 (Ct. App. 1980) (Expert testimony about gang fights admissible when
the witnesses were in disagreement about whether only one gang member intended to fight,
or whether wholesale retaliation was contemplated. In addition, the defendant offered
testimony that he was no longer a member of the gang, although he was present at the scene
with gang members.); Bryant, 609 N.E.2d at 918 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (Where the State and
the defendant told contrary stories of the motivation for the shooting); Utz, 505 S.E.2d at
383 (Va. Ct. App. 1998) (Where the defendant asserted self-defense, the Commonwealth
could seek to prove the murder was gang-related and, therefore, rebut the defendant’s
motive); Nieto,12 P.3d at 446 (N.M. 2000) (holding that, where the defense is duress,
cooperation in commission of a murder out of fear for his own life, the State may offer
5 In People v. Gonzalez, 135 P. 3d 649, 653, 659 (Cal. 2006), all but one
eyewitness repudiated their prior testimony, and a witness to the defendant’s admission to
being the shooter recanted at trial. Admission of the expert testimony was consistent with
the Maryland standard: identity was very much at issue; expert testimony was admissible,
inter alia, to help the jury decide whether to credit the repudiated testimony.
12