Kate Steinle Murderer Acquitted
- Thread starter JimmyBob
- Start date
JD I realize you look at all this from a different perspective than the window I would look through and it is always nice to see your perspective. So two questions:
1. As a litigator what do you surmise the jury heard that made them not decide on some type of murder/manslaughter charge?
2. With the DOJ now involved do you think he will get the same outcome?
Here is what I just can't get past, hearing what the jury did or not:
Guy (previously convicted felon who should have known better) finds a gun, plays around with it, the weapon discharges and a ricochet kills a young lady. The shooter, gets up tosses the gun in the ocean and runs. Unless there was another person on the pier firing a weapon, I'm extremely perplexed how a charge of even involuntary manslaughter couldn't hold.
I'm not trying to argue with you either, just some more in-depth insight other than "you didn't hear what the jury heard" so how can you know. You've admittedly been there, so how/what do juries hear, that defies the obvious publically known facts, and make a decision that baffles you as a lawyer.
Let’s say the jury heard evidence that the defendant picked up something wrapped in a towel or a shirt, thereby not realizing it was a gun when he picked it up. That as he unwrapped it, it went off (not “plays around with it...as you seemingly have already assumed is the case). That when it did, having never handled guns before, he panicked and ran away (knowing he was both illegal and a previous nonviolent felon).
Then let’s say the prosecution in opening statement says the evidence will show that he brought the gun to the pier with intent to do harm., pointed it at the victim and fired....which they did...and charged him with 1st degree murder.
If the jury believed the evidence that he did not realize it was a gun when he picked it up and it accidentally went off, I can see reasonable doubt on involuntary manslaughter. That is especially true if the proesecution focused on trying to prove 1st degree and the jury never ever bought that. The decision whether to charge lesser included and how defense counsel deals with those can lead to odd decisions.
Now watch. You got me to speculate on what evidence the jury might have heard that could lead to such a decision. I can almost guarantee that certain folks around here will either argue either: 1. That isn’t the evidence the jury heard, or 2. That wouldn’t give them reasonable doubt if they had been on the jury.
As for a federal arrest. I have no idea. Initially, I do see a federal law connection to the shooting. I don’t even know why they arrested him for (if it was beyond his illegal entry/presence status).
Last edited:
From media reports it sounds like the federal warrant is for violation of his release conditions and a federal firearm charge.
I’m suggesting what is “publically known” might actually be “publically assumed”....and even sometimes what is publically known might not be brought into trial for a whole lot of reasons such as the rules of evidence, relevance to the charged crimes, etc.
Thanks man...good points and absolutely I didn't think about the weapon being wrapped in a shirt or something. Appreciate the insight JD. Hopefully someday we get to see what was said.
The wrapped in the shirt theory is possible but highly unlikely.
San Francisco has an epidemic of car break ins the majority of which are done by a very large homeless population. This is how this gun went missing.
We are not talking about some innocent migrant farm worker who was just in the United States to harvest tomatoes or lettuce in the San Fernando Valley. He is a career criminal.
In order to believe his story you'd have to believe that who ever stole the gun ditched it even though the gun would easily bring several hundred dollars on the street. These homeless are not stealing just to leave their booty behind.
The most likely scenario is he stole the gun, mishandled it and killed this poor girl.
This man has a long record of criminal activity, he is scum and should not of been given the benefit of the doubt. Millennial stacked liberal jury was just making a political statement. His attorneys went down the political rabbit hole and made it an immigration thing, anti Trump and justice for Kate Steinle wasn't a consideration.
San Francisco has an epidemic of car break ins the majority of which are done by a very large homeless population. This is how this gun went missing.
We are not talking about some innocent migrant farm worker who was just in the United States to harvest tomatoes or lettuce in the San Fernando Valley. He is a career criminal.
In order to believe his story you'd have to believe that who ever stole the gun ditched it even though the gun would easily bring several hundred dollars on the street. These homeless are not stealing just to leave their booty behind.
The most likely scenario is he stole the gun, mishandled it and killed this poor girl.
This man has a long record of criminal activity, he is scum and should not of been given the benefit of the doubt. Millennial stacked liberal jury was just making a political statement. His attorneys went down the political rabbit hole and made it an immigration thing, anti Trump and justice for Kate Steinle wasn't a consideration.
Last edited:
See @windriverrange ?
EXACTLY what I said would happen.....happened.
@Headhunter weighing evidence that he’s making up himself with no idea whether any of what he claims was actually in evidence (or would even be admissible....much of it irrelevant and wouldn’t).
Then HH doubles down and uses the wrong standard of proof for a criminal prosecution....substituting “most likely” instead of “reasonable doubt”.
Then HH triples down and argues that the defendant shouldn’t have even been given the benefit of the reasonable doubt standard....which is a fundamental aspect of or criminal justice system. Suggesting that a defendant shouldn’t get the benefit of the reasonable doubt standard in a criminal prosecution is scarily authoritarian and Anti-American.
This is what your Trump worship and parroting has led you to HH. Truly sad.
Mr. Know it All, you don't know anymore about the evidence than anyone else. I'll admit I'm speculating. But people can pick which speculation makes sense to them.
The idea this career scumbag criminal is some innocent immigrant that just had bad luck doesn't pass the smell test.
Reasonable doubt. He admitted he was holding the gun, he threw it in the bay and fled. Poor innocent victim.
JD,
I understand your counterarguments. I can't understand any legal bearing where he would be convicted for the possession charge and not at least a manslaughter charge. If 'as you hypothesized' it were wrapped in a shirt and he had no awareness that it was a gun, then why the guilty verdict on the possession charge? This is the part that makes little to no common sense to me. How can he be guilty of possession and not of the manslaughter that occurred while he possessed the weapon?
I understand your counterarguments. I can't understand any legal bearing where he would be convicted for the possession charge and not at least a manslaughter charge. If 'as you hypothesized' it were wrapped in a shirt and he had no awareness that it was a gun, then why the guilty verdict on the possession charge? This is the part that makes little to no common sense to me. How can he be guilty of possession and not of the manslaughter that occurred while he possessed the weapon?
Idiot.
I said from the beginning that I didn’t know more about the evidence than the jury whom...you know...actually heard the evidence. Maybe instead of picking a “speculation” and criticizing the jury based upon that speculation.....we should just not do that....because the jury actually heard the evidence.
Good to see you are sticking with your assertion that he shouldn’t be provided the benefit of the doubt by the jury. That’s as about an unAmerican, unconstitutional position as one could take. Sad and scary, but good to know about you.
It could be as simple as the jury wanting to punish him for SOMETHING....for any number of reasons...and that’s what they had available to them.
It could be as legally technical as the possession statute being a strict liability crime and the manslaughter law having an intent to violate the law or a knowingly violating the law as an element (either within the language of the statute or established by prior court decision regarding the statute).
I will note per several sources, California's involuntary manslaughter (which was available to the jury per news reports) does not require intent. However, you are right, there could be some farfetched explaination that provides reasonable doubt. Or it could be that a bunch of leftist individuals didn't want to acquiesce the political point of illegal immigration and sanctuary city policies being dangerous to the public at large.
Does not require intent...to what?
Is the very real legal question which you are jumping over.
And you are showing your own confirmation bias with your “farfetched explanation” having yourself not heard the actual evidence.
Which has been my point from the very beginning.
Well, from now on, whenever I see a crooked cop acquitted after shooting some unarmed soul, I'll just assume that there is some evidence that I'm not aware of and that the jury understood the details better and thus made their decision, and that its not a product of political pandering.
Involuntary manslaughter in California occurs when one person kills another unintentionally, either
- while committing a crime that is not an inherently dangerous California felony, OR
- while committing a lawful act which might produce death, without due caution.1
And California's involuntary manslaughter law does not include actions that fit the definition above but involve a car. Those will be charged under California's vehicular manslaughter laws.3
https://www.shouselaw.com/involuntary_manslaughter.html
Given that he committed a crime (possession of a firearm by a felon) that he was convicted for, I can't understand how #1 doesn't apply. Intent to kill is irrelevant per the details above. But like I said, its not my concern now. He'll be deported and then return and hopefully not kill anyone else. And when the next officer shooting occurs and the cop gets off, I'll just point to this case and say: "sometimes the jury gets different details than what we see, and we shouldn't assume that politics had any impact in the ruling." I assume BLM and others who have rioted such rulings in the past will understand and accept this.
It could require intent or knowledge of the commission of a crime....which he might have lacked if he did not intitially realize it was a gun if it was wrapped in something. Clearly doesn’t require intent to cause death.
Do what you want. Speculate all you want. I don’t believe I could care less one way or the other. I just don’t get people getting bent out of shape by me declining to do so and pointing out that they are.
I love the Jordan meme, but not sure I get its relation to this thread or my post? Did you not think the "not guilty" verdict of the St. Louis police officer was outrageous given the clear video in that case? I did, and people marched and rioted in St. Louis for 2 straight days. But now, JD has opened my eyes, that I clearly cannot understand everything that the jury may see or maybe I'm not privy to all evidence. Thus going forward, I will assume that the jury had better info and was right in its judgement. Just like in this case.
No I am just belly laughing at the thought of losing you as an ally against crooked cops.
Funny. This is actually my biggest issue. I don't think all the shootings are due to crooked cops. But I do think that there are some (such as the dude in St. Louis) and when they walk, it actually hurts all of police enforcement. But since he was acquitted, I'll just assume that the jury was right and that those protestors were the ones who obviously didn't understand the nuances of the case.
You’re mischaracterizing everything I said, but proceed by all means.
I never assumed that the jury had better info and was right in its judgment. In fact, I specifically said juries are not perfect and sometimes get it wrong.
Nor did I suggest you or anyone else should assume that. I merely cautioned against assuming the exact opposite....which is what many are doing....and suggested considering the POSSIBILITY that the jury might have gotten it right and that the assumption that it is a travesty of justice resulting from liberal jurors consciously not following the law might not be an accurate narrative.
But hey....you wanna swing all the way from one assumption to another one so that you can argue definitively and claim absolute certainty rather than admitting any doubt one way or the other....feel free.
If he had sexually assaulted her, like grabbed her breasts and then masturbated in front of her? Well he would be DOOMED as AC says. It is all about the political issue of the day.
