Gang activity limits your control of damning evidence in your Virginia prosecution

Gang (G) activity by definition limits your control of damning evidence, just as does criminal conspiracy activity. As a Fairfax criminal lawyer, I know that no matter how careful G member A or criminal conspiracy member A is to avoid detection, arrest, prosecution and conviction, member A is limited on how much s/he is able to monitor, limit and control the other members’ activities. On top of that, video cameras are ubiquitous in public, and people can be sloppy in what they post on social media and elsewhere online, which means that every injudicious move of any member of a G or conspiracy can backfire on them.

How does my Virginia criminal lawyer keep out doorbell camera evidence, or at least their timestamps and date stamps?

Appellant Omari Andre Green some of his cohorts decided to go “smacking”, which involves checking for unlocked car doors to steal contents therein. The day escalated to Green’s being involved in a fatal shooting that his jury decided qualified as gang activity. Green v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Record No. 2012-24-1 (Va. App., Dec. 16, 2025) (unpublished). Unfortunately for Green, criminally damning activities of him and/or his cohorts were recorded by three homes’ doorbell cameras and on social media. On appeal, Green’s Virginia appellate lawyer tried mighty hard to argue that the doorbell camera video (including the datestamping and timestamping) was not properly authenticated, and that police screenshots of social media postings were not the best evidence. Green finds sufficient that homeowners testified to the correct functioning and timestamp / datestamp setting and accuracy of their doorbell cameras. The icing on the cake there for the prosecution is that one of the doorbell camera owners testified that the timestamp on his video footage matched the time that he personally heard a gunshot. Green finds the screenshot approach with the social media to have been sufficient, and says that the challenged social media materially overlaps with the unchallenged social media from another person’s account.

What predicate activities are needed to get a gang activity conviction?

Green was convicted under Virginia Code § 18.2-46.2 (prohibited criminal street G participation), where definitions related thereto are at Virginia Code § 18.2-46.1. For instance, the latter statutory section defines criminal street gang as: “any ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, (i) which has as one of its primary objectives or activities the commission of one or more criminal activities; (ii) which has an identifiable name or identifying sign or symbol; and (iii) whose members individually or collectively have engaged in the commission of, attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of two or more predicate criminal acts, at least one of which is an act of violence, provided such acts were not part of a common act or transaction.” Green’s dissenting judge concludes that the necessary predicate acts required to have convicted Green under Virginia Code § 18.2-46.2 were not all proven, which possibly sets this case up for an en banc review or appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court. 

What should I do if charged with committing an act of violence or other crime?

Once you are prosecuted for an alleged crime (whether for gang activity, or any felony or misdemeanor), you need to obtain a qualified lawyer, no matter how innocent or not you think you are. You are not your judge or jury, nor prosecutor, and they may end up seeing your case in a much less favorable light than you do.

Fairfax criminal lawyer Jonathan Katz relentlessly pursues your best defense against Virginia felony, misdemeanor and DUI prosecutions. For your free in-person initial confidential consultation with Jon Katz about your court-pending prosecution, contact us at 703-383-1100, Info@KatzJustice.com, or (text) 571-406-7268.