I Saw the Kate Steinle Murder Trial Up Close. The Jury Didnt Botch It.

[DonViejo]

By PHIL VAN STOCKUM December 06, 2017

I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco. I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was delivered. Most of the public reaction I've seen has been surprise, confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I'm writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that they did.

I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case. Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence, which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that favors a defendant, the jury must accept that interpretation over any others that incriminate him. This principle is a pillar of the American justice system, and it was a significant part of our jury instructions.

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of killing Steinle, was charged with 1st degree murder and the lesser included offenses of 2nd degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges. After having heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that he intended to kill anyone.

These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting another 78 feet to hit Steinle. The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety. (The jury asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge didn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there.

There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire. As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement, he threw the gun in the water and walked away. The presumption of innocence, as stated in the jury instructions, required the jury to select this interpretation because it is reasonable and favors the defendant.

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

[spanone]

1. K&R...

[Amishman]

2. Yet another example of over charging

Involuntary Manslaughter should have been the most serious charge. Murder charges were absurd

[former9thward]

9. The jury could have convicted on the manslaughter.

And found not guilty on the murder. Happens ever day in courtrooms.

[appal_jack]

3. I don't understand why the manslaughter charge did not stick.

The murder charges were clearly over-zealous prosecution. But as the article at the link states, it seemed clear that Zarate knew that the object was a gun. And any time one handles a firearm, one is responsible for safe handling. In this case, Zarate should have to bear some consequence of his failure to do so, and a manslaughter conviction seems reasonable to me, at the least.

-app

[underpants]

6. I agree but I think it has something to do with the gun

From reading that it sounds like this gun fires with very little effort. Sounds crazy dangerous to me.

[former9thward]

8. The gun does not fire by itself.

You have to pull the trigger. There was no "accident" here.

[underpants]

16. See post #15. "Hair trigger" was the phrase I was looking for

[former9thward]

22. I don't know the make of the gun.

All I have seen it was a .40 caliber. The most common .40 caliber is the Glock, a gun favored by law enforcement, and which certainly does not have a hair trigger. I have one. I don't know how the phrase "hair trigger" is being defined.

[GregW]

34. I own a Sig P239...

It's not an emergency backup weapon, and it doesn't have a "hair trigger" - whatever that is.

It is designed for concealed carry, so for someone who normally openly carries (like LEO) maybe it could be considered a backup weapon, for anyone with a CWP it could be their primary or only piece.

The Sig P239 is a double-action automatic. With the hammer down, you need to pull the trigger to bring the hammer back and fire the gun. It requires significant effort to do this. Once cocked, the gun is then single action which requires less force to fire. In either double or single action mode, the gun will not fire unless a round is chambered.

It seems reasonable that the gun may have been cocked with a round chambered, which would not require much trigger force to fire. Unless modified, the P239 has a normal pull and is not a "hair trigger".

[Thor_MN]

10. Just for the sake of discussion, could you point to the legal language for "safe handling"

of a firearm and the responsibilities of a person finding one? Common sense tells us that one should be responsible when handling firearms, but if it isn't codified, then it doesn't make much difference in a court. The way the NRA fights any sort of regulation of firearms, I doubt there is a legal definition of safe handling of something one finds on a street.

Murder was clearly over-zealous, proof of intent to kill someone that one has never met is nearly impossible.

Manslaughter might have been appropriate, but if the prosecution did not pursue that while trying for murder charges, I can see how it would be dismissed.

[erpowers]

42. Prosecution Did Not Make the Case

It seems like the juror is saying they needed to things to convict on the manslaughter charge, "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."

According to the juror the prosecution chose the crime of brandishing a gun as the first part of the manslaughter charge then never brought up brandishing, or holding the gun in the trial. So, it seems the prosecutors chose a crime and then failed to prove that the crime even occurred. As a result, the jurors were unable to convict on the manslaughter charge. If Zarate was not holding the gun how could he commit the act that caused the death.

[Fred Sanders]

4. The internet standard of proof for complex criminal trials is sentence first, trial later. Quoting.

[underpants]

5. I had no idea of some of these details until after the verdict

Which shows how much this was misreported, mostly on purpose.

Very good article.

[former9thward]

7. Yes, the jury did botch it.

The OP ignores the manslaughter charge which does not require intent. He was playing around with a gun on a crowded pier. Guns don't "accidentally fire". A reasonable person would know or should have known that pulling a trigger of a gun in a crowded area could lead to a death. They botched it.

[Crabby Appleton]

11. I agree. nt

[Thor_MN]

12. Prove that he was "playing around" with it.

Firearms have fired with no intent on the part of the person handling it. There are even videos of weapons instructors shooting themselves, which I assume that they did not intend to do.

Unless you have proof that he intended for the weapon to fire, all you have is your opinion, any nothing else.

I have no special knowledge of the case, so I'm not going to make an ass of myself declaring that something happened that I have no knowledge of. I'll let the jury speak.

[former9thward]

13. You used the word "intent" three times in your post.

Involuntary manslaughter does not require intent to convict. That is why it is called "involuntary".

[Thor_MN]

14. Dodge and distract... Where's your proof that he was "playing"?

Where's your proof that firearms have never fired accidentally?

You probably have nothing other than your uninformed opinion, which is no more valuable than anyone else's here and worth a whole lot less than the juries.

[former9thward]

17. I see you quickly moved away from your "intent" argument.

I wonder why.....

As for playing let's see what the OP says: "He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire" What else was he doing with but playing? Pretending to be a police detective? Examining it to see what its metal content was? You can PLAY word games all you want but he was --- looking at it in the best light favorable to him -- playing with it.

I know how guns are made and how they operate. They do not fire accidentally. Sorry you don't know that basic fact.

If this was ANYONE else except someone in the country illegally he would have been denounced as someone acting irresponsibly with guns who should be in prison for god knows how long.

[Thor_MN]

23. Sadly, you lack proof. Please cite links to your proof.

Show me proof that firearms never fire accidentally. Your claim is nothing more than your opinion.

I know how firearms are made and how they operate. And I know that they can fire accidentally. I have seen many videos of firearms fired accidentally, unless you want to argue that 79,000 videos are "fake news"...
https://www.google.com/search?q=firearm+fires+accidentally&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt3PSa7fXXAhUlw4MKHeXdCcgQ_AUICygC&biw=1330&bih=649

Imagine how many aren't videoed? Only takes one to blow your argument out of the water. I would think that someone with your experience would know better than to make absolute statements.

"He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire" I see that it said that he picked it up and it fired. I see nothing that indicates that he was "playing" with it. "Playing" with it is nothing more than your opinion.

[GulfCoast66]

35. Accidentally caused it to fire?

Where I live we call it pulling the trigger.

He skated on a clear case of involuntary manslaughter.

And he should have got a maximum sentence for a felon possessing a firearm.

At least he will be deported and hopefully does not return for a 6th time.

[Thor_MN]

38. Firearms have fired without pulling the trigger. I wasn't there.

I have no idea if this firearm had its trigger pulled or not. Neither do you.

It was the prosecution's job to prove that it happened.

They failed, and they had actual evidence, not opinion based on armchair bravado.

[erpowers]

39. Prosecution Botched the Case Not the Jury

Last edited Wed Dec 6, 2017, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)

You need to read the full article. The alternate juror pointed out that he thought it was a clear case of manslaughter, but the prosecution never brought up the issue of Zarate holding or brandishing the gun. As a result, due to the jury instructions, the jury could not convict on manslaughter. Based on what was said in the article, it seems like the prosecution made a number of mistakes presenting their evidence.

The jurors' hands were tied based on their jury instructions. I am not a lawyer, but I know that lawyers should know that their evidence needs to line up with jury instructions. If your evidence does not line up with jury instructions you can lose your case. The prosecutions lawyers should have made sure they proved their case based on the jury instructions.

[GulfCoast66]

43. Oh, I am not blaming the jury

The prosecution presented a shitty case. But a decent prosecutor who did not over charge would have achieved a conviction.

[MosheFeingold]

19. The firearm was in proper working order

It did not fire accidentally.

[Thor_MN]

24. Got a cite for that?

[MosheFeingold]

29. Do you not have Google?

"Previewing what’s expected to be a heavy focus on the gun, Garcia spent time explaining how the firearm worked, and discussing how it got into Garcia Zarate’s hands. It was issued to a federal Bureau of Land Management agent who was on his way driving with his family from Southern California to Montana, and was stolen from his car. Garcia Zarate told police he found it on the pier.

Defense attorneys have argued that the gun may have misfired, but Garcia said it had been checked by the bureau’s armory three months before the shooting and was in perfect working order.

“It’s a very reliable, high-quality gun,” Garcia said. “It’s not the kind of gun that’s going to go off by accident.”"

[Thor_MN]

32. Your claim, your burden to prove.

I see you are incapable of providing links, or just choose post unsubstantiated "quotes". Assuming that the quoted, but unlinked material is accurate, the condition of the firearm three months before the shooting only indicates that it was in perfect working order prior to it being stolen, abandoned, handled by numerous other people before it fired.

I'm not arguing that Zarate is innocent, mind you, I'm just pointing out that people are pulling opinions out of their asses and asserting they are facts.

[MosheFeingold]

33. Feel free to cut and paste

Into google.

No one except you argues that the weapon malfunctioned.

[Thor_MN]

36. I'm not making any claim about the weapon in this case, you are.

I know that firearms can misfire. I have no idea if this one did or did not and don't make ridiculous claims that I can't support. You also have no idea if this did or did not, but you make unsupported claims.

And that is the key point, it's the prosecution's duty to prove that it was fired by the defendant. They failed to do so.

One can whine all they want about how safe firearms are and how they never fire by accident, but that would only be opinion (and an incorrect one), that matters not at all.

[erpowers]

40. The Defense Also

I believe the defense also argued that the gun misfired.

"The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety."

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

The quote is from the alternate juror. I assume the defense tried to make the case that the light trigger and something being wrapped around the gun caused it to go off without Zarate pulling the trigger. The alternate juror claimed Zarate had very little gun powder residue on his hand, which made him believe their might actually have been something around the gun when it went off.

[MosheFeingold]

18. Concur n/t

And it's also bogus that the gun has a "hair trigger." No one sane (and this was a stolen police weapon) carries around a hair trigger gun without safety. I believe it's 10lbs on this particular weapon.

It take an intentional act to pull the trigger. It was clearly gross negligence.

[iluvtennis]

20. But there are two types of manslaughter - voluntary and involuntary. Involuntary is accidental

which is what this case was.

[former9thward]

21. Yes, and it does not require intent.

He should have been found guilty of that.

[Auggie]

25. Ever since my first jury service I learned why we can get "surprising" verdicts like this

Juries must follow the rule of law as explained by the judge and that can be very different from what you or I might think. So might the evidence.

I totally believe the OP here.

[unblock]

27. the article explains this, or at least this alternate juror's view.

in particular if there's reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant even knew it was a gun it's hard to prove the elements of manslaughter.

the defense claimed the gun was wrapped in some fabric and the prosecution apparently didn't counter this argument.



it sounds to me like the prosecution might have fallen down on the manslaughter charge, perhaps in the hope of not wanting to undermine the murder charge.

in any event, if the article accurately presents what happened at trial, complete acquittal seems the appropriate outcome.

[uponit7771]

41. Gun had a hair trigger no proof that it didn't

[former9thward]

44. Do you handle it?

What's the definition of a "hair trigger"? It sounds like a word a defense attorney would use when trying to hoodwink a jury into getting his client off.

[gratuitous]

15. Evidence isn't necessary on the internet

I've worked in law offices for 35 years, and seen verdicts all over the map. The standard response to someone upset about a verdict is, "You weren't on the jury, you didn't hear all the evidence, so you don't really know." The reason it's the standard response is because it's almost always true.

In this column, Van Stockum was indeed on the jury as an alternate, and did indeed hear all the evidence. The prosecution didn't prove the elements required to convict the defendant of homicide. The evidence in court was that the defendant found the gun on the pier, a gun with a hair trigger. The accidental discharge of the gun could have happened to me or anyone having no meaningful experience with firearms.

No, some people don't like the verdict. But that's the way the law works, and it is intended to work that way.

[Auggie]

26. +1. Well said.

[unblock]

28. interesting article. worth following the link if you want to hear more about the manslaughter charge

[AlexSFCA]

30. this was clearly an involuntary manslaughter

prosecution failed big time here at the worst possible time giving right wingers some powerful talking points. As a San Franciscan, I felt embarassed when I heard the verdict. I don’t know of a single person in my surrounding who felt otherwise.

[dlk]

31. Too Often When Prosecutors Overcharge a Defendant to Satisfy the Public, They Can't Make Their Case

[erpowers]

37. Star Jones and the O.J. Verdict

Star Jones, I think when she co-hosted the view, said something similar about the O.J. Simpson verdict. She said, sitting in the courtroom she did not think the prosecution proved their case against O.J. Simpson. I think being in the courtroom and seeing all of the evidence for yourself changes your perspective.

[Skittles]

46. read Bugliosi's book

he agrees the prosecution did a poor job, even though OJ was guilty as fuck

[Skittles]

45. now we know what it takes for repukes to be against a gun humper