Kate Steinle’s accused killer found not guilty of murder, to be deported

hm1996

Moderator
Staff member

What a crock!
cursing.gif
cursing.gif


Quote:
Kate Steinle’s accused killer found not guilty of murder, to be deported


By Elizabeth Zwirz | Fox News

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was found not guilty Thursday of murdering Kate Steinle on Pier 14 in San Francisco in July 2015 in a case that sparked a heated national debate over illegal immigration and so-called sanctuary cities, and U.S. immigration officials said he will be deported.

Zarate was acquitted of first and second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. He also was found not guilty of assault with a semi-automatic weapon. He was found guilty of possessing a firearm by a felon. The jury had deliberated for six days.

Steinle was walking with her father and a family friend in July 2015 when she was shot, collapsing into her father's arms. Zarate had been released from a San Francisco jail about three months before the shooting, despite a request by federal immigration authorities to detain him for deportation.

San Francisco is a sanctuary city, with local law enforcement officials barred from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. President Trump has threatened to withhold federal funding to cities with similar immigration policies, but a federal judge in California permanently blocked his executive order last week.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced late Thursday: "Following the conclusion of this case, ICE will work to take custody of Mr. Garcia Zarate and ultimately remove him from the country."

ICE Deputy Director Tom Homan added, "San Francisco's policy of refusing to honor ICE detainers is a blatant threat to public safety and undermines the rule of law. This tragedy could have been prevented if San Francisco had turned the alien over to ICE, as we requested, instead of releasing him back onto the streets."

In a response to the verdict, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a statement saying that despite California's attempt at a murder conviction, Zarate was able to walk away with only a firearm possession conviction because he was not turned over by San Francisco to ICE.

"When jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the streets rather than turning them over to federal immigration authorities, they put the public's safety at risk," the statement said. "San Francisco's decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle."

Upon leaving the courtroom, representatives from both sides spoke to reporters. Defense Attorney Matt Gonzalez offered his condolences to the Steinle family and said the outcome of the case did not make what happened in 2015 any less terrible.

Public Defender Jeff Adachi also released a statement saying Zarate was "extremely relieved" by the outcome and that while Steinle's death "was a horrible tragedy," it was used as "political fodder for then candidate Donald Trump's anti-immigration agenda."

Adachi added, "Despite the unfairly politicized atmosphere surrounding this case, jurors focused on the evidence, which was clear and convincing, and rendered a just verdict."

A spokesperson for the district attorney's office said the verdict was not the one prosecutors were seeking but at the end of the day, the jury ultimately makes the decision. Prosecutors also said the Steinle family was "incredible" and that their hearts went out to them.

While Zarate's immigration status brought the case into the national spotlight, jurors did not hear evidence about that, and it was not a factor in the trial.

After 12 days of testimony, dozens of witnesses and two days of closing arguments, the jury had to decide whether Steinle's death was the result of an act of murder or a tragic accident.

Reporters in the room said the jurors looked very somber as they entered. When the judge was handed the verdict, the courtroom was completely silent. During the reading of the not guilty verdict of involuntary manslaughter, the defense team nodded in approval but didn't show any emotion. Zarate sat stoically in his seat.

Earlier in the day, the bailiff and court clerk were seen entering the jury room with a small yellow evidence bag before retreating with it a few minutes later.

A source inside the courtroom confirmed that the jury asked to see the gun used to shoot Steinle. Zarate and his defense team maintained the argument that the suspect found the stolen weapon on the pier that day and it "just fired."

The gun belonged to a federal Bureau of Land Management ranger and was stolen from his parked car a week earlier.

The bullet ricocheted on the pier's concrete walkway before it struck Steinle, killing her. Zarate has admitted to shooting Steinle, but says it was an accident.

However, the prosecution painted a very different picture, telling jurors that Zarate deliberately shot the gun towards Steinle while "playing his own secret version of Russian roulette."

Following Steinle's death, Congress took action to pass new legislation called Kate's Law. The law -- passed by the House of Representatives in June -- increases the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States and are caught.

Fox News' Claudia Cowan and Jennifer Girdon in San Francisco and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/30/kate-steinle-s-accused-killer-found-not-guilty-murder.html
 
Saw that last night. Not guilty of every possible crime involving shooting someone, but guilty of touching a gun. But hey, at least they're deporting him. Again.
 
[beeep]. What the heck is the definition of involuntary manslaughter? I mean, at the very least the story they went with lines up with that! [beeep]..
 
ETA: Now congress needs to get off their azz and pass legislation to bypass the (CA) federal judge who blocked President Trumps' EO withholding federal funds from sanctuary entities!


Quote:
DOJ weighing federal charges in Kate Steinle murder case, after not guilty verdict


By Jake Gibson | Fox News

DOJ weighing federal charges in Kate Steinle murder case

Department of Justice Director of Public Affairs Sarah Isgur Flores has the details on 'Fox & Friends' after the not guilty verdict.

The Justice Department is considering bringing federal charges against Jose Ines Garcia Zarate after his not guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial, department officials told Fox News on Friday.


Read full story here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/...ty-verdict.html
 
Last edited:
Not surprised. What more could be expected from a state that is run by criminals and perverts.


Hopefully, this causes more to emerge from the state of sleep that so many Americans are in with regards to sanctuary city policies, wide open borders, government corruption and their agenda to flood America with as many leftist supporters/voters as possible.
 
I always wonder how a person can be found not guilty, hung-jury, reduced charges, or whatever, and the Fed's can then go and charge a person under federal statutes for essentially the same crime.

And I'm not just talking about just this case, it happens ALL the time. It also makes me wonder why they didn't charge the Bundy clan on the state level first and if that failed then charge them federally. Cause I'm pretty sure the Fed's are going to get jury nullification and lose the Bundy case. I personally believe they could have gotten state convictions rather easily.

As much as yall might disagree, I believe the government should only get one shot at making a case. If that fails, then the person should be free, despite how much we may or may not agree with each situation.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: littledawgI always wonder how a person can be found not guilty, hung-jury, reduced charges, or whatever, and the Fed's can then go and charge a person under federal statutes for essentially the same crime.

And I'm not just talking about just this case, it happens ALL the time. It also makes me wonder why they didn't charge the Bundy clan on the state level first and if that failed then charge them federally. Cause I'm pretty sure the Fed's are going to get jury nullification and lose the Bundy case. I personally believe they could have gotten state convictions rather easily.

As much as yall might disagree, I believe the government should only get one shot at making a case. If that fails, then the person should be free, despite how much we may or may not agree with each situation.

Yep,
if they get more than one shot why in the heck even have rules concerning double jeopardy?

*
 
Double jeapordy only prevents you from being charged with the same crime twice. It does not keep you from being charged with a separate crime.
 
Originally Posted By: NdIndyDouble jeapordy only prevents you from being charged with the same crime twice. It does not keep you from being charged with a separate crime.

So the cops in the Rodney King case were charged with beating Rodney King. The feds charged them with a civil rights violation for beating Rodney King. Sure it’s so clear, two separate crimes.
unsure.gif
 
1 act can be against multiple different laws. Going from smallest up it may be against a municipal ordinance, and a county law, and state statute and the federal criminal law. Then you have the civil laws, personal liability etc.

Law is not black and white.

Double jeopardy only prohibits you from being charged with the exact law you have been found not guilty of, so you can't get murder 1 over and over and over again. It won't prevent you from being charged with any other crime that you may have v broken in the process.

Most prosecutors go after the most serious crime they can reasonably expect a conviction of, with the expectation of a plea to a lower crime.

Ignoring what happened, the fact he want at least hit with manslaughter is baffling.
 
I appreciate that, I even understand what you’re saying, but when lawyers and politicians can circumvent the constitution with semantics, why have a constitution at all. Just rename the crime and keep at it until you get the verdict you want.
 
I understand that as well. The flip side is having a jury with a mission and have someone get away with murder and have no repurcussions. 99.99999999999999999% of the time a prosecutor won't try a separate trial if they l9se a conviction even though they have other crimes they can do. This one had entirely too much national press to expect it to get let go.

Being that they even failed to get manslaughter is nuts. I haven't looked into their specific statute but in general manslaughter is the catch all. Pretty much "I had 0 intention to hurt someone, but I did something stupid and someone died". Driving down the road and a drunk steps out between 2 cars directly in front of you? Manslaughter. Chuck a rock at something, it bounces off and falls on someones head? Manslaughter. It's killing someone with no specific or general intent. You may not see any charges in those examples, but if you do, it will be manslaughter.

In this case you have someone with a stolen gun, points it at a person and shoots them in the head. You have 3 routes at this point. At least where I dealt with crime there were exactly 3 but ymmv and California probably has 50 or 60.

Murder 1, that requires what is called specific intent. Basically it is premeditation, even if it was only moments before the act. "I'm going to kill this person." And then kill them.

2nd degree requires general intent, think heat of the moment. You're in a fight and it goes too far.

Then #3, manslaughter.

Manslaughter doesn't actually fit very well for primary charge as you have a specific action that any person would know is likely to either kill or cause substantial injury. Both 1st and 2nd do fit depending on if you can prove intent. But as a catch all, it should have caught it. Especially since that's pretty much the exact thing his attys said happened.

The jury entirely dropped the ball imo. You have a violent felon, literally getting away with murder as it sits. The feds shouldn't have to prosecute, but personally I this situation I think they should. That's my opinion anyway:) if he does face the federal charges and doesn't get convictedhe is pretty much done. He'll be free and clear,no lower court will try again.

 
Back
Top