Posted on 12/03/2017 11:46:03 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian
So, we have a defendant with zero connection to Steinle. He had a history of drug crimes but no known violent crimes. The bullet that killed Steinle hit the ground and then ricocheted upwards. There was a video possibly showing another group of people disposing of the gun where Garcia Zarate said he found it.
Reviewing the SIG Sauer website shows these handguns cost $1,000 or more. You can see how defense counsel could easily argue that a homeless illegal immigrant would be unfamiliar with one.
All of this adds up to the defense presenting a plausible explanation for how Garcia Zarate could have fired the gun and killed Steinle by accident. That’s reasonable doubt.
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).
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
The evidence was enough for a manslaughter conviction.
She wasn’t murdered, the prosecution reached trying to put intent. However to say the man who killed her was not guilty of manslaughter is an affront to justice. His actions caused her death, whether intentional or not, that’s manslaughter.
At the very least he committed negligent homicide. Period.
It was OK for him to kill her because maybe someday, somebody might be mean to him.
Yes, like another Freeper similarly said....if Kate had been a Spotted Owl, he’d be facing 20 years....
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).
The jury had the option of involuntary manslughter.
Sweet justice: Garcia is “accidentally” shot three times by an illegal alien.
a clear easily made case.
Double Jeapordy is a constitutional right. I thought constitutional rights only belonged to citizens?
They did, but the prosecutor didn't argue that to the jury.
As a lawyer, I can tell you that it's very tough to argue two inconsistent things to a jury: "The defendant's dog didn't bite the plaintiff, but if he did, the plaintiff provoked him." You basically have to pick one story and push it, and the prosecutor here picked the wrong one-- a homeless guy owned a $1,000 handgun and intentionally shot someone he didn't know.
There's a lot more to the article, I could only post 300 words.
“Reviewing the SIG Sauer website shows these handguns cost $1,000 or more. You can see how defense counsel could easily argue that a homeless illegal immigrant would be unfamiliar with one.”
Absolute, pure baloney. Cost has nothing to do with it. It works like millions of other guns made by dozens of other manufacturers in the last 75 years. Red State sinks further and further into the left-wing slime.
The Constitution says "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Nothing in there about citizens.
This guy ought to be shot then hanged but, the prosecutor over charged....
That's what I've been wondering, did they have the option of lesser included charges, or was this an all-or-nothing charge?
cripes...this illegal alien is illegally in this country for the 6th time, making him a 4 time felon...yet he don’t know nothin from nothin.
How did he ever find his way back to this country ? just to be homeless...
Charge with and try the most serious possible offense, so that there is no way there can be a followup retry on a lesser charge?
DAs do this all the time with cops charged with murder, and lose, so they can shield them, and the city, from civil financial exposure.
In one syllable terms, the DA went into the tank for the sanctuary city's policy.
That the bullet richocet off the ground points to a lack of intent.
The prosecutor should have stuck with manslaughter
Being San Francisco it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the prosecutor did just enough to appear to be prepared and competent, but little enough to guarantee an acquittal....Remember, prosecutors are political animals, too, and we all know about Bay Area politics....
.
Nothing respectable here.
Not the judge, not the jury, and not the prosecutor.
No judge should ever be allowed to instruct a jury unless the jury so requests.
In a proper court room, two things are always on trial:
~ The statutes under which the defendant was charged.
~ The defendant.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.