The Sparks Duel

February 28, 2012

All Posts, Editorials, News

Cesar Villagrana, one of three men charged with participating in a fatal, prearranged duel in a Sparks, Nevada casino, moved last Thursday to have his case severed from that of two Vagos charged with the same offense for the same incident.

The charges against all three men stem from what rational human beings understand to have been a spontaneous, deadly fight between about a dozen Hells Angels and about 60 Vagos at John Ascuaga’s Nugget Casino Resort in Sparks, Nevada on September 23.

One man, San Jose Hells Angel Jeffrey “Jethro” Pettigrew, died. Vagos Leonard Ramirez and Diego Garcia were shot during the fight. A Vago named Ernesto Manuel Gonzalez is charged with shooting and killing Pettigrew. A former Vago named Stuart Gary “Jabbers” Rudnick is charged with issuing the challenge that resulted in the duel.

Duels and Lynchings

All three men are charged with “conspiracy to engage in an affray.” “Affray,” a variation on the words “terror” and “affright,” commonly means a fight in a public place that terrorizes innocent bystanders. The charge was invented in the Middle Ages to discourage men from fighting in church. During the 18th and 19th Centuries the word was a legal euphemism for a public duel. The charge of “conspiracy to engage in an affray” was originally intended to punish “seconds” and other assistants in deadly duels as accessories to those homicides.

The use of the charge in this instance is very creative. It is intended to assist prosecutors in the revival of another old fashioned and mostly discredited practice – lynching.

Rudnick is charged because he allegedly insulted Pettigrew until Pettigrew became enraged and began to fight. Gonzalez is charged because he allegedly fired the shots that killed Pettigrew. Villagrana is charged because he fired a gun during the fight.

All three men are charged because prosecutors apparently believe it gives them the greatest possible chance to condemn all three men to life in prison. Duels were often deadly fights over matters of honor. The participants on both sides of the Sparks fight were all bound by a code of honor to fight to protect one another. The prosecutors who led a grand jury to make the “conspiracy to engage in an affray” accusation have in effect charged all the defendants with conspiracy to live by a code of honor.

In a nation that seems increasingly divided and cynical, the notion of criminalizing the concept of “one for all and all for one” is fulsome.

One Bag

The “conspiracy to commit affray charge” is also a blatant attempt to tie adversaries together in the same bag in hopes that eventually their opposing self-interests will force them to destroy each other.

Villagrana is represented by attorney David Z. Chesnoff who may be most famous for representing Paris Hilton and Mike Tyson. In his severance motion last week Chesnoff quoted grand jury testimony from a former Vago who, acting in his own self-interest, agreed with prosecutors that the Vagos are an “outlaw gang” that is “involved in criminal activity” including “murder, rape, robbery” and “drugs.”

“If this information is presented at trial,” Chesnoff argued, “it would be clearly prejudicial to Mr. Villagrana because the jury may be led to believe that all motorcycle clubs operate the way the Vagos club does.” Chesnoff said his client “responded to an onslaught of violence in self-defense.”

Chesnoff also told Judge Connie Steinheimer the obvious truth about the absurd legal fiction that makes all three defendants co-conspirators. “For the jury to believe one version of events, it will necessarily have to disbelieve the other, thereby precluding acquittal of one of the defendants,” Chesnoff wrote. “It will therefore be unnecessary for the prosecution to prove anything. The Vagos will prosecute the Hells Angels and the Hells Angels will prosecute the Vagos.”

Prosecuting The Other Club

Chesnoff then got down to the dirty business of prosecuting the other motorcycle club. He said that the fight between Pettigrew and Rudnick, “erupted into what was actually a larger-scale, pre-meditated attack by Vagos members on Hells Angels members.”

It is exactly the sort of thing prosecutors want the opposing attorneys to say to a jury if Judge Steinheimer, a former probation officer and assistant district attorney, denies the severance. She might.

In his response to the motion for severance, prosecutor Karl Hall told the judge that there is no point in separating Vagos from Hells Angels because they are all part of the same criminal “culture.”

“Each gang has relatively equal gang history,” Hall wrote – managing to use the word “gang” twice in a seven word sentence. “Steeped in gang culture, each group willingly entered into battle.”




, , , , , ,

6 Responses to “The Sparks Duel”

  1. RVN69 Says:

    DesertH-D Says: Is there anyone who thinks this won’t end up in Fed / RICO?

    Desert H-D, this seems to be a continuing tactic, charge with local charges, hold as long as possible to drain the financial resources of the accused, then when they can’t be held any longer file additional charges based on “new evidence”, or turn the case over to the Feds to be continued for another couple of years. The goal seems to be to hold someone until they are broke, have been in jail for 2-3 years without trial to plead guilty to being part of a “gang” which then reinforces the next “gang” prosecution.

    It’s beyond me to criticize anyone for copping a plea after they have lost their family, house, job and with no end in sight.

    “I am not an angel, nor am I the devil, I am the bastard stepchild of both.”

  2. Rebel Says:

    Dear DesertH-D,

    Yeah. Saw this yesterday. I am going to do a little piece on this today.


  3. DesertH-D Says:

    Apologies if this posts twice… Had a fat-finger snafu first time.

    “… in promotion of their gang.”

    Is there anyone who thinks this won’t end up in Fed / RICO?

  4. DesertH-D Says:

    “…promotion of their gang”.

    Anybody think this ain’t gonna end up in Fed / RICO?

  5. neverwaz Says:

    The prosecution should have to prove there was a conspiracy to stage a “duel” or “affray” if the motion for severance is denied. How such a thing could ever be proved is beyond me. Unfortunately, if the Ablett case is any indication all a jury considers is the “educated speculation” of prosecution experts to form their decision.

    How much effort is put into the jury selection process by the defense in these cases?

  6. YYZ Skinhead Says:


    Don’t forget another old-fashioned practice: witch hunting, which leads to lynching. If the victims said they weren’t witches, that proved that they were, so they were lynched. If they “confessed” to witchery, that proved that they were, so they were lynched.

    YYZ Skinhead

Leave a Reply