top of page


Adrian Torres
Adrian Torres

Blood In, Blood Out(1993) Extra Quality

The film was initially entitled Blood in Blood Out, but was retitled Bound by Honor before the film's release. 'Blood in blood out' refers to the initiation ritual of having to kill someone to enter a gang and, on the reverse end, not being able to leave the gang unless killed. This is a common initiation in many gangs, including prison gangs, and is also the motto of La Onda in the film. Hollywood Pictures insisted on the name change as the studio felt that the original title might incite violence in East Los Angeles. In addition, executives at Hollywood Pictures, a division of The Walt Disney Studios, were concerned about the potential effect the 1993 film could have on Los Angeles following the 1992 LA Riots, especially after the attribution that was given to Boyz n the Hood as a partial cause of or inspiration for the civil unrest. Director Taylor Hackford has stated that he was very unhappy with this decision, as the film's message was the exact opposite of the one that the studio feared could be transmitted.[13]

Blood In, Blood Out(1993)

Miklo's prison digs come with an assortment of friends nobody would want. The gangs run the clink, divided by race. Aryan Vanguard, Black Guerrilla Army and La Onda - which Baca based on the real prison gangs Aryan Brotherhood, Black Guerrilla Family, and the Mexican Mafia, respectively - all want a piece of him, mostly for use as a pretty sex toy. Even Popeye (Carlos Carrasco), his Latino guide to these nefarious tribes, tries to rape Miklo on his second day inside. It takes bonding himself through blood - an assassination ("blood in") that initiates him until he dies ("blood out") - for Miklo to survive, shanking AV's Big Al (Lanny Flaherty) after clinging to him as a faux boyfriend, rejecting the Aryan boss' advances under the guise of "building anticipation". It's a gnarly stretch of filmmaking where Hackford really leans into trying to be as "authentic" as possible, recruiting actual San Quentin staff members and inmates to shoot on location, mixing these scarred, lumpy faces in amongst a crew of character actors (which includes Tom Towles and Billy Bob Thornton).

The system Paco has bought into is a mirrored opposite of his cousin's, and no less oppressive. At one point near the climax, his partner (Thomas F. Wilson) shouts at the Latino cop about how he shouldn't care that a bunch of Chicano gang members are offing each other in San Quentin (all due to a power coup Miklo is orchestrating). Their deaths have no effect on the outside world. But for Paco and Miklo, the prison walls barely separate their overlapping operations, one trying to prevent the other. The violence spills out into the streets the cops are working, but once he gains an actual lead on his own blood, outside agencies swoop in to try and scoop the case away from East LA. Seems there's no trusting one of these barrio men on either side of the badge, but Paco isn't going to let his own cousin's business go unfinished without him.

"An epic story of three brothers. Bound by blood. Divided by fate. Driven by destiny.".Based on the true life experiences of poet Jimmy Santiago Baca, the film focuses on half-brothers Paco and Cruz, and their bi-racial cousin Miklo. It opens in 1972, as the three are members of an East L.A. gang known as the "Vatos Locos", and the story focuses on how a violent crime and the influence of narcotics alter their lives. Miklo is incarcerated and sent to San Quentin, where he makes a "home" for himself. Cruz becomes an exceptional artist, but a heroin addiction overcomes him with tragic results. Paco becomes a cop and an enemy to his "carnal", Miklo.

In the year 1994, the Laserdisc version of blood in blood out came out called as the Director's Cut with 10-minutes of cut footage[7]. Then in the year 2000 Disney home video release the "Director's cut" DVD of Blood In Blood Out Which had English subtitles, The Making of Blood In Blood Out, and it also has the same 10 minutes of cut footage from the laserdisc version. The theatrical cut and VHS was 180 minutes = 3:00:00 hours, But the US DVD version is now 190 minutes = 3:09:59hours. The 5-hour version is still lost. The other DVD versions like the Spanish, German, and Arabic versions does not have the deleted scenes in them only the US version does.

This matter is before the court on the motion of the United States to compel T.S. to comply with a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum requesting him to furnish blood samples to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of expert examination and comparison with other blood samples.

Relying upon Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(E) and the shield of secrecy under which the Grand Jury operates, the United States has stated that it is precluded from explaining to T.S. the reasons for subpoenaing his blood. However, the United States has explained that it is willing to reveal the reasons in camera to this court. On October 26, 1989, T.S.'s daughter, A.S., disappeared. On October 27, 1992, three years after A.S.'s disappearance, T.S. was served with a Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum to produce his blood samples. On the advice of a California Public Defender, T.S. appeared in person to object to the subpoena. At that time, we appointed counsel for T.S. and the parties agreed to file briefs.

In Schmerber v. State of California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966), the Supreme Court addressed Fifth and Fourth Amendment challenges to compulsory blood extraction. There, Schmerber was taken to a hospital following an automobile accident and placed under arrest for driving while intoxicated after a police officer smelled liquor and noted other signs of intoxication. Id. at 758, 768-69, 86 S. Ct. at 1829, 1834-35. Over Schmerber's objection, a police officer instructed the hospital to take a blood sample from Schmerber to determine his blood-alcohol level. He was later convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating beverages. On appeal, it was argued, inter alia, that the nonconsensual extraction of Schmerber's blood sample and use of his blood-alcohol test results at trial violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Id. at 758-59, 86 S. Ct. at 1829.

Unlike Schmerber, T.S. does not have the benefit of an explanation for the purpose of his blood samples. However, we are aware of no instance, nor has T.S. advanced one, in which the use of his blood samples would implicate his testimonial capacities. Therefore, we conclude that the subpoena to obtain blood samples from T.S. does not implicate his testimonial capacities and compelled production of those samples does not violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

In Schmerber, the Court expressed more concern over the petitioner's Fourth Amendment challenge. The Court concluded that the compulsory administration of a blood test "constitutes a search and seizure of a person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment" and recognized the special sensitivity required with respect to the invasion of a person's body for a blood sample. Id. at 767, 86 S. Ct. at 1834.

Although the police officer had not obtained a warrant for Schmerber's blood sample, the Court held that given the "special facts" of the case, the attempt to secure evidence of the petitioner's blood-alcohol content was an appropriate incident to petitioner's arrest despite the absence of a warrant. Id. at 770-71, 86 S. Ct. at 1835-36. The Court cautioned, however, that:

The "special facts" in Schmerber all related to the nature of the driving under the influence offense. One special fact which obviated the need for a warrant was the exigency created by the immediate diminishment of blood-alcohol levels. If the officer had delayed to seek out a magistrate to secure a warrant, the evidence sought could have disappeared before the blood test was taken. Id. at 770-71, 86 S. Ct. at 1835-36. Another special fact was that, with driving under the influence charges, the question of blood-alcohol tests often arises in the context of arrests made without warrants. In Schmerber, the Court emphasized that "there was plainly probable cause for the officer to arrest [Schmerber] and charge him with driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor." Id. at 768, 86 S. Ct. at 1834. Thus, despite the absence of a warrant, there had been probable cause initially when Schmerber was arrested.

*1199 After determining that the officer did not need to obtain a warrant for Schmerber's blood sample under the circumstances, the Court then addressed whether "the test chosen to measure [his] blood-alcohol level was a reasonable one." Id. at 771, 86 S. Ct. at 1836. The Court concluded that:

In addressing the parameters of the Fourth Amendment protections, the Court first explained that the amendment "generally protects ... against official intrusions up to the point where the community's need for evidence surmounts a specified standard, ordinarily `probable cause.'" Id. at 759, 105 S. Ct. at 1615-16. The Court reviewed Schmerber, noting that the authorities clearly had probable cause to believe Schmerber was intoxicated and "to believe that a blood test would provide evidence that was exceptionally probative in confirming this belief." Id. at 759, 105 S. Ct. at 1616. Schmerber "noted the importance of probable cause" and "recognized that the ordinary requirements of the Fourth Amendment would be the threshold requirements for conducting this kind of surgical search and seizure." Id. at 760, 105 S. Ct. at 1616 (emphasis added). As in Schmerber, the authorities in Winston clearly had probable cause to believe that Lee was the robber and, therefore, the threshold Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause had been established.

*1200 In Schmerber, this balancing led the Court to hold that the blood-alcohol test performed on Schmerber was reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes because the blood-alcohol tests did not threaten Schmerber's health or safety or constitute "an unduly extensive imposition on [Schmerber's] personal privacy and bodily integrity." 470 U.S. at 762, 105 S. Ct. at 1617. Moreover, because the blood-alcohol test was a highly effective means of ascertaining the degree of intoxication and there was a clear indication that the desired evidence would be found, the state's interest in obtaining the blood sample was well established. Id., 470 U.S. at 762-63, 105 S. Ct. at 1618. 041b061a72




bottom of page