“Hey Princess. Had anyone addressed comment to you on this thread, before you decided to post some more of your half-truth misrepresentations of isolated info? “
Huh! My post was a quote from the source you posted in your post! If it was a half-truth misrepresentation of isolated info then so was your post.
What is anyone to make of such a confusing mess like the above? You made many posts, Princess. I was commenting on those both generally, and some portions specifically. But what's the use of rehashing it now? I see none, because I know that no matter how much effort I would put into making you less confused, you'd simply squirm around in your chair trying to make a puddle...
Princess, nobody here had addressed you prior to you cranking up your troll act.
Deal with that.
The Judge effectively said; "don't do that" "don't say 'gangster gunfight'.
Even he was getting sick of hearing it.
It's like ---prove it with evidence instead of all the labeling and name-calling. And then let's see just how far evidence may or may not apply to this particular defendant (or any particular defendant for that matter).
Which is much what many of us here have been asking for. Real evidence pertaining to specific individuals, instead of impugning guilt that blankets each and defendant through use of crude innuendo.
Comprehend this:
1. The indictment or information shall be read to the jury by the attorney prosecuting. When prior convictions are alleged for purposes of enhancement only and are not jurisdictional, that portion of the indictment or information reciting such convictions shall not be read until the hearing on punishment is held as provided in Article 37.07.
Generally speaking, prior convictions are not admissible as evidence that a defendant is guilty of a crime they're presently being charged with, for reason that mentions of such would serve to confuse a jury and unduly prejudice them.
In the instance of showing images of patches and the like (which was allowed by Judge Johnson) followed by "expert testimony" of what bad guys bikers are, it can be even worse, because it's not speaking towards past crimes that a particular defendant had been tried and found guilty of (which would be inadmissible) but is so closely akin to being hearsay evidence regarding yet others who are not on trial, it's difficult to distinguish from hearsay, and even worse, it's form of hearsay that is not necessarily applicable to particular individual defendant.
How can anyone defend themselves against such type of loose, guilt-by-association allegations? The "hey, look at all those other guilty persons! the defendant must be guilty too!" is like introducing into Court prior convictions as evidence itself, yet the prior 'convictions' allowed to enter into the record because they do not narrowly apply to a particular defendant even as it's being used to prejudice a jury against a particular defendant.
The jury is by law assigned to be finders of fact(s) pertinent to whatever crime a defendant is charged with committing.
Being a member of a "gang" is not a crime, in and of itself. There must be other acts, actual commission of crime perpetrated by a defendant (for which they would be specifically accused) -- even under Section 71 of the criminal code. Mere association alone is not enough. The individual must have been a knowing part of a combination, either in planning stage, or in action at the scene of a crime. OR-- was profiting in a monetary (fiduciary) sense from a specific criminal act that they were being charged with committing.
I have no hope that you'd ever more properly understand the law. I am hoping others will. Otherwise I'd not bother with responding to your ongoing display of dull-thud-ness.