In what circumstances will a jury accept that a witness's testimony is typical of a gang member?

The jury heard testimony from a victim who defied logic in claiming that he lacked any knowledge about the assault on him, or fellow inmates he saw on a daily basis. It may be that jurors who are well versed with the system of criminal justice could correctly attribute this to the prison code of silence that prevailed even before the present predominance of gangs, but it is nonetheless behavior that could be inexplicable to other jurors. In this circumstance, it was not an abuse of discretion to allow expert testimony to explain that the victim's testimony is typical of a gang member. (In this respect, it is similar to an expert who explains, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1107, why a witness might recant a statement in a domestic violence case.) Ideally, the People should have elicited this opinion in the form of a hypothetical gang witness rather than the specific victim in this case. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1048.) But defendant did not object on this basis, and in any event we cannot fathom that a jury would have reached a result more favorable to defendant if presented with this testimony through the means of a hypothetical question.⁴ Additionally, the captain never expressly stated an opinion that the victim was being untruthful (contrary to defendant's assertion), just that the victim testified in a stonewalling manner typical of other gang witnesses.