Kate Steinle verdict is confusing

[Qaz98]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/30/567625700/jury-in-san-francisco-finds-accused-killer-of-kate-steinle-not-guilty-of-murder

So...a California jury believes a felon that he "accidentally discharged" a weapon that killed an innocent person. Okay - even then, it's still manslaughter. But...an NYC cop, who negligently discharged his weapon and kills someone is found guilty. Opposite coasts, but equally anti2a states. One person is a far less empathetic defendant. I don't even see how there wasn't a manslaughter conviction.

[BaiHu]

Thanks for starting this. I saw this, this morning.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/01/doj-weighing-federal-charges-in-kate-steinle-murder-case-after-not-guilty-verdict.amp.html

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[RJ]

Somebody correct me, but if you discharge a pistol and a ricochet kills someone, is that not manslaughter? IANAL and all that.

[okie john]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/30/567625700/jury-in-san-francisco-finds-accused-killer-of-kate-steinle-not-guilty-of-murder

So...a California jury believes a felon that he "accidentally discharged" a weapon that killed an innocent person. Okay - even then, it's still manslaughter. But...an NYC cop, who negligently discharged his weapon and kills someone is found guilty. Opposite coasts, but equally anti2a states. One person is a far less empathetic defendant. I don't even see how there wasn't a manslaughter conviction.

Protected class vs. persecuted class.


Okie John

[CDR_Glock]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/30/567625700/jury-in-san-francisco-finds-accused-killer-of-kate-steinle-not-guilty-of-murder

So...a California jury believes a felon that he "accidentally discharged" a weapon that killed an innocent person. Okay - even then, it's still manslaughter. But...an NYC cop, who negligently discharged his weapon and kills someone is found guilty. Opposite coasts, but equally anti2a states. One person is a far less empathetic defendant. I don't even see how there wasn't a manslaughter conviction.

I’m not a felon. So if I accidentally discharge a weapon that I don’t own and kill someone accidentally, then I don’t have to serve any time if it happened in San Francisco?

I’m very confused at this decision. This sets a bad precedent.

I’m at a total loss how he can not be charged with reckless endangerment and manslaughter. San Francisco is a horrible place.

I will personally never set foot into that sh*thole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Grey]

People keep wondering why I say I will never live in Cali...

Really disappointing decision...

[Sensei]

Somebody correct me, but if you discharge a pistol and a ricochet kills someone, is that not manslaughter? IANAL and all that.

Based on my brief review of the evidence, there was a VERY strong case for manslaughter, but a very weak case for murder. My honest assessment is the surprise due to equal parts of: prosecution way overplaying their hand, the media setting false expectations, and California (especially SanFran) being a worthless sack of shit.

[HCM]

Protected class vs. persecuted class.


Okie John

Correct. The verdict was pure "Virtue Signaling."

[blues]

Correct. The verdict was pure "Virtue Signaling."

If the sombrero don't fit, you must acquit!

[Matt O]

Based on my brief review of the evidence, there was a VERY strong case for manslaughter, but a very weak case for murder. My honest assessment is the surprise due to equal parts of: prosecution way overplaying their hand, the media setting false expectations, and California (especially SanFran) being a worthless sack of shit.

The prosecution went for murder, but the jury was asked to consider, and ultimately specifically also acquitted him of, involuntary manslaughter. So in the end this seems to be almost entirely due to the fact that San Fran and Cali are about as fucked up as humanly conceivable.

[Dagga Boy]

I figured he would beat the murder rap. Involuntary Manslaughter due to gross negligence should have been a given. The fact that he was commuting a felony while being in simple possession of a handgun should have bumped that up. Apparently, none of that mattered. The United States of America as we knew it is dead and circling the toilet bowl of great civilizations that came before it.

[HCountyGuy]

I'm telling you, California needs thrown out of the union and treated as another nation (hostile nation at that). They already pretty much do what they want, so it's a formality at this point.

Let's sell it to Mexico and wall their asses off.

[AMC]

Wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not. Thought there was a small chance they would convict on involuntary manslaughter, but only a small chance. I know my jury pool. And though he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, local sentences for that run around 3-6 months in county, or just modified probation. Heard a few people describing this as "Left Coast jury nullification". Probably at least partially true, but it's also the population here. Very young, very progressive, and transient. This town is their playground til they grow up and think about a family. Then they realize it's the world's biggest outpatient clinic and run like scalded dogs. Leaving the ruins of civilization in their wake.

[Peally]

It's a thoroughly psychopathic government running what is as close as you can get to a communist shithole in the United States. Dunno why anyone is surprised.

[Hambo]

Somebody correct me, but if you discharge a pistol and a ricochet kills someone, is that not manslaughter? IANAL and all that.

Not a lawyer either, but the answer is: not necessarily. I remember a local case in which a guy shot and killed his wife while target shooting. The charge: negligent homicide, which is a misdemeanor.

I really had very little to do with prosecutors, but in retirement I worked with a defense guy. All I can say is that I'm amazed anything ever gets done, and I'm amazed that given all the BS the system usually works.

[JohnO]

I see this as a confluence of 3 factors.

1. Donald Trump is President.
2. San Francisco is a lawless sanctuary city.
3. The city is overflowing with resentful commie pinkos.

Hence a pass for the poor "undocumented" citizen who encountered a nasty gun without a safety. And oh by the way, In Your Face Trump.

[JodyH]

The Trump State Department should issue a very public travel advisory worldwide that it is unsafe for tourists to travel within the state of California and especially San Francisco.
There should also be a city wide US Marshals warrant roundup and a zero tolerance ICE roundup.
San Francisco is within 100 miles of a US border, so USBP should assign a few hundred agents to the bay area for a few weeks for the full Monty of immigration checkpoints throughout the city.
Fuck 'em...

[JohnO]

The Trump State Department should issue a very public travel advisory worldwide that it is unsafe for tourists to travel within the state of California and especially San Francisco.
There should also be a city wide US Marshals warrant roundup and a zero tolerance ICE roundup.
San Francisco is within 100 miles of a US border, so USBP should assign a few hundred agents to the bay area for a few weeks for the full Monty of immigration checkpoints throughout the city.
Fuck 'em...

Even Better!

Breaking right now!

DOJ files arrest warrant for illegal immigrant acquitted in Kate Steinle case

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/01/doj-files-arrest-warrant-for-illegal-immigrant-acquitted-in-kate-steinle-case.html

[RJ]

Even Better!

Breaking right now!

DOJ files arrest warrant for illegal immigrant acquitted in Kate Steinle case

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/01/doj-files-arrest-warrant-for-illegal-immigrant-acquitted-in-kate-steinle-case.html

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171202/0086d2bc89f1ae760cca91091b438c93.jpg

[Tabasco]

Apparently the gun involved was a .40 SIG P239, highly unlikely to 'just go off'. Actually near impossible without pulling the trigger all the way to the rear. I guess you could throw one in a fire and it would 'just go off'. Eventually.

Also:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-prosecutors-made-key-miscalculation-in-Kate-12400050.php?t=2a1b4a690a

[HCM]

Apparently the gun involved was a .40 SIG P239, highly unlikely to 'just go off'. Actually near impossible without pulling the trigger all the way to the rear. I guess you could throw one in a fire and it would 'just go off'. Eventually.

Also:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-prosecutors-made-key-miscalculation-in-Kate-12400050.php?t=2a1b4a690a

I’ve also seen reports that three rounds were fired. Once could be an accident but three ?

[blues]

Apparently the gun involved was a .40 SIG P239, highly unlikely to 'just go off'. Actually near impossible without pulling the trigger all the way to the rear. I guess you could throw one in a fire and it would 'just go off'. Eventually.

Also:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-prosecutors-made-key-miscalculation-in-Kate-12400050.php?t=2a1b4a690a

They didn't want to confuse the issue with facts, obviously.

[TAZ]

Boy how many blocks would be buying right about now if the criminal had been a white cop and the victim a misunderstood youth and the verdict the same.

Justice system my ass!!

Sell Cali to Mexico and use the $$ to build a giant wall.

[blues]

Boy how many blocks would be buying right about now if the criminal had been a white cop and the victim a misunderstood youth and the verdict the same.

Justice system my ass!!

Sell Cali to Mexico and use the $$ to build a giant wall.

And when it's an Asian-American cop (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/former-nypd-cop-peter-liang-s-guilty-verdict-leaves-community-n518056)...(who compounded the severity of the issue by apparently not reporting the incident forthwith), you also get a hue and cry, and gnashing of teeth on various fronts...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Juries are weird. There was a case on CourtTV (when it existed) where kids were making noise on Halloween. The homeowner came out waving a canoe paddle at them and went inside. One teen said he was going to apologize. So he went to the door. The homeowner said he was scared by the kid at the door (kid didn't try to break in). He reached into the closet for something made of wood and steel (his words) to frighten the kid. Surprise it was a shotgun that just went off through the door as did the teen's head. The investigation demonstrated that the gun must have been raised for the shot to have occurred the way it did. The home owner was just given a misdemeanor killing of a person sentence (how that is a misdemeanor is not my area).

Have the jurors given interviews in the case? I wonder at their logic. I did hear the overcharge argument.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/06/kate-steinle-murder-trial-jury-didnt-botch-216016?lo=ap_a1

Here's an piece by an alternate juror. Take aways are:

1. Overcharged
2. The jury seemed to consider the actual law and the case wasn't conclusive to them
3. The gun (Sig 239) was said to have a light trigger pull. The jury wanted to handle the gun but wasn't allowed. That is interesting as one study found that increased exposure to the gun, was detrimental to defendants as compared to merely seeing it. Wonder if the judge knew that specifically or just going from standard prejudicial precautions.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Federal charges: http://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-charges-levied-undocumented-immigrant-found-guilty-murder/story?id=51607419

[Sensei]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/06/kate-steinle-murder-trial-jury-didnt-botch-216016?lo=ap_a1

Here's an piece by an alternate juror. Take aways are:

1. Overcharged
2. The jury seemed to consider the actual law and the case wasn't conclusive to them
3. The gun (Sig 239) was said to have a light trigger pull. The jury wanted to handle the gun but wasn't allowed. That is interesting as one study found that increased exposure to the gun, was detrimental to defendants as compared to merely seeing it. Wonder if the judge knew that specifically or just going from standard prejudicial precautions.

Actually, this alternative juror’s perspective explains a lot to me on how the jury arrived at a not guilty verdict on manslaughter. The juror noted that their instructions were the follow 2 conditions must have been met to convict on MS:

1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.

The problem comes with the fact that jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime to be the "brandishing, or waving with menace, of a weapon.” Well, guess what. The prosecution never presented any evidence that the defendant brandished the gun. No witnesses ever saw the defendant even holding a gun, much less brandishing it as the jurors understood the term. Had the prosecution chosen a different crime for part (1) such as being a felon in possession of a gun, then the outcome on MS may have been different.

In other words, the prosecution’s poor decision making contributed heavily to this outcome by dealing a shit hand to the jurors. In addition, the more I read about this case the more I’m inclined to believe certain key aspects of the defense’s story; there is a damn good chance that he did find the gun, and being a worthless shitstain managed to ND a ricochet into this poor girl’s back from 70 feet away after tinkering with it for only a few seconds. I still think that he should have gone up the river for MS in an ideal world, but I’m no longer surprised that it didn’t happen given the prosecution’s decision making.

[ssb]

3. The gun (Sig 239) was said to have a light trigger pull. The jury wanted to handle the gun but wasn't allowed. That is interesting as one study found that increased exposure to the gun, was detrimental to defendants as compared to merely seeing it. Wonder if the judge knew that specifically or just going from standard prejudicial precautions.

Not in CA, but we don't let them take it to the jury room anymore. There have been, uh, "issues" with letting them take it back with them on a few heated trials. They can see it in the courtroom under the supervision of a court officer if they feel the need.

[RoyGBiv]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/06/kate-steinle-murder-trial-jury-didnt-botch-216016?lo=ap_a1

Here's an piece by an alternate juror.
I watched his interview on Fox yesterday... I came away with an impression of "Prosecutorial failure".
On the manslaughter charge (seems clear that he was guilty of this, IMO), the jury instructions were that in order to find for manslaughter it had to be while in the commission of a criminal act. The charge was that the criminal act was "brandishing", but the term "brandishing" was not mentioned at trial, ever, until the jury was read the instructions. Since no evidence of "brandishing" was ever presented during trial, the jury, following their instructions, found that the manslaughter charge did not initiate from a criminal act and therefore they had to find not-guilty of manslaughter.

Hopefully I translated that correctly...

I had a similar experience on a jury... We had to find not-guilty on one of three charges because no mention was made at trial of any evidence supporting the charge. Like the prosecutor just forgot to mention it. Fortunately it didn't affect the other, more serious, charges.

[Wyoming Shooter]

The alternate juror, Phil Van Stockum, was interviewed by Michael Smerconish this morning. Mr. Van Stockum is a mechanical engineer with a PhD from Stanford. In addition to being very bright and thoughtful, he is extremely articulate. I came away thinking that the jury, as usual, rendered the correct verdict. His explanation was simple: there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of the charged crimes. Of course, that verdict did not speak to the efficacy of our immigration system.

Soundcloud link to interview: https://soundcloud.com/siriusxm-news-issues/kate-steinle-murder-trial-juror-the-jury-didnt-botch-it

[HCM]

The alternate juror, Phil Van Stockum, was interviewed by Michael Smerconish this morning. Mr. Van Stockum is a mechanical engineer with a PhD from Stanford. In addition to being very bright and thoughtful, he is extremely articulate. I came away thinking that the jury, as usual, rendered the correct verdict. His explanation was simple: there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of the charged crimes. Of course, that verdict did not speak to the efficacy of our immigration system.

Soundcloud link to interview: https://soundcloud.com/siriusxm-news-issues/kate-steinle-murder-trial-juror-the-jury-didnt-botch-it

The San Francisco prosecutors may have dropped the ball but given the defendants inconsistent statements and the fact the defendant fired the weapon not once but three times there was ample evidence for a competent prosecutor to support a manslaughter charge.

As for our immigration system, the defendant was arrested in Texas after illegally re-entering the country after deportation and sentenced to 46 months in federal prison. After serving that sentence, the defendant was transferred from U.S. BOP custody to ICE custody. It is standard practice to run wants/warrants checks on individuals prior to deportation. The defendant had an outstanding warrant in NCIC out of San Francisco county and was turned over to local authorities consistent with due process of law. The issue here is the blatant disrespect of due process and illegal actions by officials of the city and county of San Francisco in failing to return the defendant to federal custody once his local case was disposed of.

If Trump were serious about this case he would have directed U.S. DOJ not only to charge the defendant in federal court but to charge officials of the city and county of San Francisco with obstruction of justice and harboring illegal aliens.

[Wyoming Shooter]

HCM -

Were 3 shots fired? I didn't watch the trial and am reliant solely on media coverage. A trial witness reported hearing one shot: http://abc7news.com/witness-gives-testimony-on-day-2-of-kate-steinle-trial/2561395/. If 3 shots were indeed fired, I will stand corrected.

Garcia Zarate had been previously deported five times. I am troubled that he was not locked up longer for reentry after deportation https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1912-8-usc-1326-reentry-after-deportation-removal . I'm not aware of a federal charge that could have been brought against Garcia Zarate for causing Ms. Steinle's death. However, my experience is in only in the state system and my familiarity with the US Code is marginal.

As a state prosecutor, it's my practice to always notify ICE when I believe a defendant is in the country illegally. The "sanctuary city" policy is deplorable. The absence of border security is deplorable. Kate Steinle, her family, and her friends are paying the price. Best, ELN.


The San Francisco prosecutors may have dropped the ball but given the defendants inconsistent statements and the fact the defendant fired the weapon not once but three times there was ample evidence for a competent prosecutor to support a manslaughter charge.

As for our immigration system, the defendant was arrested in Texas after illegally re-entering the country after deportation and sentenced to 46 months in federal prison. After serving that sentence, the defendant was transferred from U.S. BOP custody to ICE custody. It is standard practice to run wants/warrants checks on individuals prior to deportation. The defendant had an outstanding warrant in NCIC out of San Francisco county and was turned over to local authorities consistent with due process of law. The issue here is the blatant disrespect of due process and illegal actions by officials of the city and county of San Francisco in failing to return the defendant to federal custody once his local case was disposed of.

If Trump were serious about this case he would have directed U.S. DOJ not only to charge the defendant in federal court but to charge officials of the city and county of San Francisco with obstruction of justice and harboring illegal aliens.

[HCM]

HCM -

Were 3 shots fired? I didn't watch the trial and am reliant solely on media coverage. A trial witness reported hearing one shot: http://abc7news.com/witness-gives-testimony-on-day-2-of-kate-steinle-trial/2561395/. If 3 shots were indeed fired, I will stand corrected.

Garcia Zarate had been previously deported five times. I am troubled that he was not locked up longer for reentry after deportation https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1912-8-usc-1326-reentry-after-deportation-removal . I'm not aware of a federal charge that could have been brought against Garcia Zarate for causing Ms. Steinle's death. However, my experience is in only in the state system and my familiarity with the US Code is marginal.

As a state prosecutor, it's my practice to always notify ICE when I believe a defendant is in the country illegally. The "sanctuary city" policy is deplorable. The absence of border security is deplorable. Kate Steinle, her family, and her friends are paying the price. Best, ELN.

8 USC 1326, illegal re-entry after Deportation had actually been the most frequently prosecuted federal crime for several years running. 46 months is average given his history. It is common for these sentences to include a 2 or 3 year period of unsupervised federal probation following the defeandants release. It is unsupervised because they are supposed to be deported after completion of their incarceration. It is intended as an option in case they come right back, as often happens.

Garcia-Zarate was still on federal probation following his federal incarceration so her death can (and apparently will) be adjudicated federally as a violation of his probation.

The state already charged Garcia-Zarate with being a felon in possession of the firearm but the federal government may stil be able to charge him federally with being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm or ammunition under 18 USC 922(g)(5).

[Kukuforguns]

My research on the evidence is consistent with yours - one shot fired. I'm not saying there was only one, but that is what I could find.

As I understand it:
Prosecution presented no evidence as to when Zarate obtained weapon
Prosecution presented no evidence as to motive
Defense presented evidence Zarate obtained weapon at pier
Defense presented evidence the gun was covered in cloth
Defense presented evidence Zarate did not know the object in cloth was a weapon
Defense presented evidence as to how gun may have ended up at pier by means other than Zarate
Defense presented evidence Zarate did not have a prior violent propensity

If the above is accurate, then I think the jury properly concluded there was reasonable doubt as to murder.