Quote:The undocumented immigrant accused of murdering Kate Steinle has been found not guilty of homicide, capping a closely-watched trial that magnified a contentious national debate over immigration policy.

(11-30-2017, 10:20 PM)treee Wrote: Why would it cause a riot? Why is it surprising that a jury found a ricocheting bullet not to be intentional killing? Maybe the prosecutor should have went for manslaughter instead.

(11-30-2017, 10:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Probably not. Sad they didn't charge with manslaughter, would have likely been a conviction.

(11-30-2017, 10:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well this was a case filled with emotion as the suspect was a felon that many thought should not have been in the country. Wonder what he was shooting at that caused the bullet to ricochet?

It is exactly as the Freddie Gray case. DA over-charged and that one caused riots if memory serves.  

(11-30-2017, 10:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I will be curious to see the sentencing for felon in possession of a firearm.

(11-30-2017, 10:36 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Not sure about riots, but I sense tweets coming soon.

(11-30-2017, 10:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..of murdering Kate Steinle

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kate-steinle-shooting-mexican-man-232500821.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=ecd5e8af-dc90-3332-9efb-d522bf6b8dfa&.tsrc=notification-brknews


Could this cause folks to riot?

(11-30-2017, 10:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Probably not. Sad they didn't charge with manslaughter, would have likely been a conviction.

(12-01-2017, 01:26 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's getting ridiculous.  This is at least the 3rd high-profile case I can probably think of that was overcharged resulting in no conviction.

(12-01-2017, 01:57 AM)Benton Wrote: There’s a variety of reasons why it happens. Attorneys looking to make a name, prosecutors expecting the other side to plead down, concerns that they’ll get a conviction only to have a judge sentence lightly. But it seems like the approach these days is too aim too high and hope for the best.

(12-01-2017, 10:00 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is an interesting write-up on the case from Red State. https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/

Quote:[One quick but important note: Garcia Zarate is not going free. The jury did convict him of a lesser charge of being a felon in possession of a gun, and he now awaits sentencing, which will be 16 months, two years, or three years in state prison. He has already served two years and will get credit for that time, but even if he is not given the maximum sentence, there is an outstanding U.S. Marshals Service warrant against him, and despite the sanctuary cities policy, San Francisco apparently does turn over undocumented immigrants to the feds when they have a warrant. So he is either getting deported, or spending more time in prison first, and then getting deported.]

(12-01-2017, 02:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Only when political reasons take precedence over the law.  In high profile cases the DA themselves, an elected official, becomes personally involved in what charges are filed.  They are, at their heart, political animals.  One need understand nothing more to grasp the reasons behind these circumstances.

Quote:The prosecutors were under tremendous political pressure. People wanted Kate Steinle’s killer’s head on a platter, even before Donald Trump ever tweeted her name.


So it’s not that surprising that “San Francisco prosecutors told the jury that Garcia Zarate intentionally brought the gun to the pier that day with the intent of doing harm, aimed the gun toward Steinle and pulled the trigger,” as the Chronicle reported, adding that the Assistant District Attorney also “spent much of the trial seeking to prove the gun that killed Steinle couldn’t have fired without a firm pull of the trigger.”

This seems to be a classic example of prosecutorial overreach.They pushed hard for a first degree murder verdict, which requires not only proving that the defendant killed the victim, but that he did it intentionally, and that it was premeditated (planned or thought out beforehand).

Focusing their strategy on the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter would have allowed the prosecutors to simply argue that Garcia Zarate acted in a criminally negligent way that resulted in Steinle’s death: he knew the object was a gun, he knew guns are dangerous, he should have known not to point it in the direction of people, etc.

Add to all of this that four-hour meandering police interrogation that allowed defense counsel to present their client as confused and intimidated by the police. Just one more little piece of the puzzle making it easier for defense counsel to portray their client as a naive fool who picked up a gun and caused a terrible accident rather than a vicious killer who stalked his victim.

(12-01-2017, 10:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: Remarkably restrained, if still unhinged.



But he's got to blame the Democrats for the GOP not being able to pass another piece of legislation so he's busy....

(12-01-2017, 10:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: Bingo.

(11-30-2017, 10:36 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Not sure about riots, but I sense tweets coming soon.

(12-01-2017, 10:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I could be wrong in this, but it would be my guess that even had the previous convictions been brought up, they would have been objected to due to relevance. Trying this case on the merits of the case alone, the prior convictions would be difficult to really bring up as none of them were violent crimes. If the crux of the case is proving intent to kill, then those don't help and could possibly result in you being in hot water with the judge.

(12-01-2017, 02:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  They are, at their heart, political animals.  One need understand nothing more to grasp the reasons behind these circumstances.