Appeals Court Reverses Gun Conviction In Kate Steinle Killing
Source: NPR
A state appeals court in California overturned the sole conviction of a homeless undocumented immigrant who admitted to handling a gun that killed Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman who died on a city pier in 2015.
Steinle's death fueled the national debate over illegal immigration as then-candidate Donald Trump invoked the case in his 2016 presidential campaign speeches as evidence of a need to crackdown on immigration.
The immigrant, Jose Ines Garcia-Zarate, who had been deported five times prior to the shooting, was acquitted on the charge of murdering Kate Steinle. Instead the jury of six men and six women convicted him of being a felon in possession of a gun.
...
The 1st District Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the trial judge made a "prejudicial" error when he failed to give the jury "the momentary possession instruction."
Read more: https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/756136254/appeals-court-reverses-gun-conviction-in-kate-steinle-killing
rampartc
(5,265 posts)and a 5 times deported felon with no aversion to possessing, or accidently firing, hand guns is set free by a "sanctuary city." meanwhile their pogrom against peaceful working immigrant families intensifies amid the category 5 tweetstorm.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)It says so in the article.
oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)And a huge waste of tax money
And how do you prove you only held a gun for a "moment"?
christx30
(6,241 posts)if Trump doesnt have ICE grab him first. Nothing really stopping that. Hed be on a plane south faster than you can blink. After everything else, hes still an undocumented person, and a felon (drug manufacturer). He doesnt qualify for citizenship.
oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)alp227
(31,962 posts)They followed his 2017 conviction in state court that later got overturned Friday.
MichMan
(11,790 posts)What makes you think just deporting him again will accomplish anything?
christx30
(6,241 posts)and they can put him back in prison for 10 years for coming back into the country after being deported.
He clearly doesnt have any respect for the law. Yes, the ranger shouldnt have left his gun on the seat. But Zapata had to open the door of a car that wasnt his and take something from inside. He clearly doesnt give a crap about other peoples stuff. He clearly takes what he wants. We have plenty of people born in this country. We dont need to import them.
displacedtexan
(15,695 posts)when the man found it. I don't think he had it very long before the tragic death of the young woman. Local SF news covered this story every day for months, but I don't recall seeing or reading anything about the officer who owned the gun. I don't think he was ever held accountable for leaving the gun unsecured.
MichMan
(11,790 posts)"It is undisputed that defendant was holding the gun when it fired. But that fact alone does not establish he possessed the gun for more than a moment. To possess the gun, defendant had to know he was holding it," the appellate court wrote.
Garcia-Zarate faced three years in prison on the gun possession conviction, but was sentenced to time already served. He is currently in federal custody on new immigration and gun charges, including being an illegally present alien in possession of a firearm.
His defense attorney on the federal charges, Tony Serra, said Garcia-Zarate could be tried again locally on the state gun charge.
oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)Wonder if the same defense could be used if you were caught holding a joint?
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)The gun was stolen from a ranger's vehicle 6/27/15. García Zárate said he found something wrapped in cloth under a park bench 7/1/15, picked it up, and it turned out to be a gun and discharged; he also made a somewhat different statement, which was disallowed as evidence. García Zárate then threw the gun into the bay. The prosecution agreed that the bullet that hit Steinle was a ricochet. Various different views were propounded on the likelihood of an unintentional discharge of the weapon
If García Zárate had stolen the weapon on 6/27/15 and then disposed of it on 7/1/15, some of the issues might be clearer. But that would have required proof. If there had been evidence that García Zárate was in possession of the weapon for any extended time, the felon-in-possession statutes would certainly be applicable. If, however, he picked up a cloth-wrapped object and it accidentally discharged, after which he hurriedly tossed all that into the bay, the matter is different, since a crime requires an intent; and the dismissal of the conviction is related to that fact: the jury was competent to decide whether or not his possession was so brief and accidental that there cannot have been a crime, or whether possession was extended enough to imply a deliberate act, but the trial judge seems not to have made this distinction clear to the jury