In People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, the Supreme Court recognized trial court's have discretion to bifurcate the trial of a street gang enhancement from the trial on the substantive crimes. (Id. at p. 1049.) Recognizing "some of the . . . gang evidence, even as it relates to the defendant, may be so extraordinarily prejudicial, and of so little relevance to guilt, that it threatens to sway the jury to convict regardless of the defendant's actual guilt" (ibid.), the court analogized to factors relevant to the issue of whether to sever the trial of charged crimes, such as "avoiding the increased expenditure of funds and judicial resources which may result from . . . two or more separate trials," to conclude "a court may still deny bifurcation" "even if some of the evidence offered to prove the gang enhancement would be inadmissible at a trial of the substantive crime itself . . . ." (Id. at p. 1050.) In People v. Hernandez (2004) the California Supreme Court stated that "less need for bifurcation generally exists with the gang enhancement than with a prior conviction allegation." (Hernandez, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1048.) The California Supreme Court explained: "A prior conviction allegation relates to the defendant's status and may have no connection to the charged offense; by contrast, the criminal street gang enhancement is attached to the charged offense and is, by definition, inextricably intertwined with that offense." (Ibid.) "Evidence of gang membership is often relevant to, and admissible regarding, the charged offense. Evidence of the defendant's gang affiliation . . . can help prove identity, motive, modus operandi, specific intent, means of applying force or fear, or other issues pertinent to guilt of the charged crime. To the extent the evidence supporting the gang enhancement would be admissible at a trial of guilt, any inference of prejudice would be dispelled, and bifurcation would not be necessary." (Id. at pp. 1049-1050.) Nonetheless, bifurcation of a gang enhancement is sometimes appropriate: "The predicate offenses offered to establish a 'pattern of criminal gang activity' need not be related to the crime, or even the defendant, and evidence of such offenses may be unduly prejudicial, thus warranting bifurcation. Moreover, some of the other gang evidence, even as it relates to the defendant, may be so extraordinarily prejudicial, and of so little relevance to guilt, that it threatens to sway the jury to convict regardless of the defendant's actual guilt." (Id. at p. 1086.) The court observed that because of the "unique prejudice that may ensue" if a jury learns of a defendant's prior convictions, the value of bifurcating trial of those allegations has been recognized by the Legislature and the courts. (Id. at pp. 1048-1049.) On the other hand, "the Legislature has given no indication of a similar concern regarding enhancements related to the charged offense, such as a street gang enhancement. Nothing in section 186.22 suggests the street gang enhancement should receive special treatment of the kind given to prior convictions." (People v. Hernandez, supra, at p. 1049.) Hernandez observed that the trial of gang enhancement allegations differs from that of prior conviction allegations. "A prior conviction allegation relates to the defendant's status and may have no connection to the charged offense; by contrast, the criminal street gang enhancement is attached to the charged offense and is, by definition, inextricably intertwined with that offense. So less need for bifurcation generally exists with the gang enhancement than with a prior conviction allegation." (Id. at p. 1048.) The Court clarified: "This is not to say that a court should never bifurcate trial of the gang enhancement from trial of guilt. . . . The predicate offenses offered to establish a 'pattern of criminal gang activity' ( 186.22, subd. (e)) need not be related to the crime, or even the defendant, and evidence of such offenses may be unduly prejudicial, thus warranting bifurcation. Moreover, some of the other gang evidence, even as it relates to the defendant, may be so extraordinarily prejudicial, and of so little relevance to guilt, that it threatens to sway the jury to convict regardless of the defendant's actual guilt." (People v. Hernandez, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1049.) Where a gang enhancement is not at issue, evidence of gang membership is potentially prejudicial and should not be admitted if its probative value is minimal, unless, as is often the case, such evidence is relevant to prove identity, motive, modus operandi, specific intent, and the like. (Ibid.) When a gang enhancement is charged, a unitary trial is permitted even if some of the expert testimony would not have been admitted at a trial limited to guilt. (Id. at p. 1051.) "Even if some of the evidence offered to prove the gang enhancement would be inadmissible at a trial of the substantive crime itself--for example, if some of it might be excluded under Evidence Code section 352 as unduly prejudicial when no gang enhancement is charged--a court may still deny bifurcation." (People v. Hernandez, supra, at p. 1050.) Hernandez left the decision whether to bifurcate gang enhancement allegations to the trial court's discretion, observing that the trial court's discretion to deny bifurcation is broader than its discretion to admit gang evidence when no gang enhancement is alleged. (Ibid.) The burden is on the defendant "'to clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried.'" (Id. at p. 1051.) In sum, the court held that the same statute "permits bifurcation of the gang enhancement." (Id. at p. 1049.) Bifurcation should be considered where the gang evidence is "so extraordinarily prejudicial, and of so little relevance to guilt, that it threatens to sway the jury to convict regardless of the defendant's actual guilt." (Ibid.). As the Supreme Court also stated, however, "evidence of gang membership is often relevant to, and admissible regarding, the charged offense," to prove, for example, "identity, motive, modus operandi, specific intent, means of applying force or fear, or other issues pertinent to guilt of the charged crime." (Ibid.) Where the evidence supporting the gang enhancement would be admissible at trial to prove guilt, "any inference of prejudice would be dispelled, and bifurcation would not be necessary." (Id. at pp. 1049-1050.) Moreover, even where prejudice from evidence offered solely to prove the gang enhancement is a concern, a court may deny bifurcation where other factors favor joinder. (Id. at p. 1050.) "'Trial of the counts together ordinarily avoids the increased expenditure of funds and judicial resources which may result if the charges were to be tried in two or more separate trials.'" (Ibid.) The Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to bifurcate the trial of a criminal street gang enhancement from that of the underlying charged crimes where much of the gang evidence was relevant to the charged offenses. 39 (Id. at pp. 1046, 1050-1051.) It based its conclusion in part on the fact that "evidence of gang membership is often relevant to, and admissible regarding, the charged offense. Evidence of the defendant[s'] gang affiliation--including evidence of the gang's territory, membership, signs, symbols, beliefs and practices, criminal enterprises, rivalries, and the like--can help prove identity, motive, modus operandi, specific intent, means of applying force or fear, or other issues pertinent to guilt of the charged crime." (Id. at p. 1049.) The court also held that, although the trial court is under no sua sponte duty to give a limiting instruction on gang evidence, it should provide one upon request. (Id. at pp. 1051-1052.)