20

Kate Steinle Verdict

If you ever have a yen to commit a serious crime, do it in San Francisco:

 

Prosecutors said Jose Ines Garcia Zarate had intentionally shot the 32-year-old but a jury acquitted him of involvement in her death on Thursday.

Zarate – who had been deported five times and was wanted for a sixth deportation when the shooting took place – did not deny firing the gun but said it was a freak accident.

The case spotlighted San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” policy, which limits local officials from cooperating with US immigration authorities.

“From day one this case was used as a means to foment hate, to foment division and to foment a program of mass deportation. It was used to catapult a presidency along that philosophy of hate of others,” defence lawyer Francisco Ugarte said after the verdict.

“I believe today is a day of vindication for the rest of immigrants.”

 

Go here to read the rest.  I would have been surprised if the prosecutors had succeeded in convicting Zarate.  Let me count the ways:

  1.  The Public Defender’s Office in San Francisco wins about half its trials, which is absolutely stunning.  That points to inept prosecutors, a very leftist population inclined to vote not guilty or both.
  2. The politics behind the case.  It took the Public Defenders after the verdict about three seconds before going political.  To pretend that politics wasn’t front and center in this case is completely absurd.
  3. Legal problems in this case for the prosecution.  Go here to read an explanation of these problems.

So that leaves us with a dead young woman and the illegal alien multi felon who killed her skates.  The same political system that produced the madness of the sanctuary city in San Francisco, and now has made California a sanctuary state, made certain that the trial would be a bad farce.  Involuntary homicide should have been a slam dunk for the prosecution, especially with Zarate’s confession, but in San Francisco the jury was obviously looking for a way to send a message and they did:  illegal aliens are welcome in San Francisco, even if they manage to kill an innocent American citizen while they are here.  As noted above, there are no end of explanations for why the jury trial ended as it did, but that was the underlying political reality.  Realtors often say that when selling a house three factors are important:  location, location and location.  Those same three factors determine the success or failure of many criminal prosecutions.  In San Francisco this prosecution was doomed from the onset, and judging from the lackluster  dog and pony show the prosecutors put on at trial, they knew it too.

 

 

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

20 Comments

  1. Defence lawyer Francisco Ugarte said after the verdict.

    “I believe today is a day of vindication for the rest of immigrants.”

    If this wasn’t so tragic I’d would be laughing my arse off at that comment. Oh…and ahh..”freak accident.” (?) Well… at least the freak part sounds plausible.

  2. NRA: (and the first rule of gun safety): “Never point a gun at anything or anyone unless you’re going to shoot”.
    SF: “We find the defendant, an illegal and criminal, illegally owning a weapon, illegally here, illegally let go, illegally discharging a firearm, innocent of all charges and of murder and/or man slaughter. “You – are guilty if you think otherwise.”
    “Oh and the NRA is evil.. “

  3. I don’t know if the jury was given an instruction for manslaughter (the state might not have wanted to give them that option), but even given the defendant’s highly ridiculous defense, he should have been found guilty of at least manslaughter. I suspect pro-illegal immigrant “nullification” to send a message to Trump.

  4. In the American gulag, human life has no consequence over politics. If the killer was aiming at his victim and he missed, hitting the wall instead, the killer is still guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The U. S. Marshals ought to retry this case through malfeasance on the bench. Double jeopardy only consists in being tried twice, correctly. Nobody on earth can be that stupid.

  5. “From day one this case was used as a means to foment hate, to foment division and to foment a program of mass deportation. It was used to catapult a presidency along that philosophy of hate of others,” defence lawyer Francisco Ugarte said after the verdict.”

    I’m sure the Steinle family feels much better knowing the opinions of the defense lawyer.
    Sanctuary cities…. cockroaches welcome!

  6. . That points to inept prosecutors, a very leftist population inclined to vote not guilty or both.

    The district attorney for 8 years was one Terence Hallinan. Terence Hallinan once practiced in partnership with his father, Vincent Hallinan. Vincent Hallinan was notable for his red-haze politics, running in 1952 as the token presidential candidate of the dregs of the Progressive Party which had been founded by Henry Wallace in 1948 (and repudiated by Wallace in 1950). Among his exploits over the years was filing suit against the Catholic Church maintaining the Church’s theology was fraudulent. Another of their exploits was a brief run representing Patricia Hearst in September 1975. The Hearsts brought in Albert Johnson and Lee Bailey as co-counsel and Johnson persuaded the Hallinans to hit the road (per the Hallinans, they were infuriated with Johnson when he questioned their ethics and did not wish to work with him; per Johnson, the Hallinans had engaged in legal malpractice rendering Patricia Hearst vulnerable in an effort to protect other clients. The Hallinans had some crazies on their client list, among them something called ‘the New World Liberation Front). Shana Alexander interviewed the Hallinans for a book she was writing about the case. The plan the Hallinan’s hatched in September 1975 was to make use of a diminished capacity defense to spring Patty Hearst on the three robbery cases the U.S. Attorney and the local prosecutors were preparing. “We wanted a formula that would cover all three. Drug induced schizophrenia couldn’t have missed”. I’m fascinated to know what quack psychiatrists they were planning to hire to testify that (1) schizophrenia can be induced by street drugs and (2) that Patty Hears was ever schizophrenic and that (3) her mental states excused her conduct over a period of 19 months. (Johnson and Bailey did hire 4 mental health tradesmen to testify she was not responsible for her conduct, but none of them were so audacious as to claim she was schizophrenic)

  7. Before you commit that crime in San Francisco, make sure to get Trump to denounce whatever kind of criminal behavior you intend to engage in.

  8. I go Patterico! Instapundit links to two informative articles at Red State, one of Patterico’s Lawspaliner articles and to another article by Sarah Rumpf.

    I’ve discovered almost everything I was told about the case prior to the verdict by the Establishment Media, right-wing talk radio, Relevant Radio (Patrick Madrid, I’m looking at you) and alt-media (i.e., the web’s scribblers) was misleading.

    That the public and members of the media themselves were misled by sloppy reporting by the electronic media and talk-back radio hot heads led to this verdict being a surprise to most people.

    By the way, remember how many years in prison Dick Cheney served for accidentally shooting his Texas hunting buddy? (That’s a trick question.)

  9. Micha, I don’t believe you actually listened to anything listed in your comment. For one thing a quick google search for partick madrid and this case (I tried either the last name of the victim or defendant) returned no results.

    Next time you want to be believable don’t use the slang terms common to troll patterns.

  10. “Vindication for the rest of immigrants…”
    When are legal immigrants going to distance themselves from illegal immigrants aka illegal aliens by speaking out?

  11. I go Patterico!

    You mean he’s writing on criminal law rather than recycling crank economic history from the von Mises Institute?

  12. “Patrick Madrid Relevant Radio” returns results on Bing, Nate. Yes, Nate, I do listen to or read all the media I mentioned in my earlier post.

    Accidental shootings do happen and they aren’t always ruled a crime. The former Vice-President’s hunting mishap was an example of that. I know of an example that was a fatal shooting but it’s not famous like the VP’s incident.

    I wonder if the SF DA overreached because of Trump’s tweeted taunts and wanted to show that SF isn’t soft on crimmigrants. And Trump’s sneering likely made the defense eager to show Trump up. By the way, the SF deputy public defender who represented Zarate is a migrant from Texas. (If only California had a wall to keep such undesirables out.)

    The verdict appears to be a shock to those who relied on radio and TV news spots that are little more than headline reading services. This verdict isn’t another O.J. Simpson or Dan White* type of off-the-rails verdict.

    * Remember the Twinkie Defense in that SF case?

  13. “Accidental shootings do happen and they aren’t always ruled a crime.”
    When driving on the WRONG side of the road and an accident happens, it is all you fault because you are not supposed to be there. The illegal immigrant and felon could not have not known he was not supposed to have a gun. Anyone smart enough to escape deportation five times is not stupid. How is this “accident” not his fault? Involuntary manslaughter carries a two year sentence in prison. NO, this verdict does not vindicate any illegal immigrants. This verdict makes them more dangerous. There be monsters among us.

  14. “Patrick Madrid Relevant Radio” returns results on Bing, Nate. Yes, Nate, I do listen to or read all the media I mentioned in my earlier post.

    Bing? BWAHAHAHAHAHA

    Anyway, considering you couldn’t even read my post I still don’t believe you. Yeah, I get results for Relevant Radio and stuff, I said I couldn’t find anything on Patrick Madrid AND THIS CASE – Meaning (now please, follow along carefully) there was no record or proof that Relevant Radio EVER had a show about Steinle or Zarate, and you STILL haven’t provided any.

    Accidental shootings do happen and they aren’t always ruled a crime.

    Well no *^%$, that still doesn’t make your claim about what others said truthful.

    The verdict appears to be a shock to those who relied on radio and TV news spots that are little more than headline reading services.

    Yeah, that’s the other sign you’re probably fibbing – because ain’t nobody surprised on those sites by San Fransisco being San Fransisco.

    Hmm… hang on, checking Instapundit…

    Micha_Elyi kennycan • 20 hours ago
    Were you there?
    By the way, do you recall what the verdict was when VP Cheney shot his hunting buddy?

    So I stand corrected on one – I just see your reading comprehension is as bad as ever. Wait… checking your disqus profile… Oh. You’re autistic.

  15. I don’t know California law, but in my state, if a felon in possession of a stolen firearm discharged it and, even without specific intent, killed someone, he’d be guilty of at least manslaughter, and possibly felony murder. I suspect California law is not too different, which is why the DA charged the case the way he did… but in a revolutionary city like SF, you get a jury pool that doesn’t care so much about the law and facts. Yet another example of why people on the right/libertarian side who argue for jury nullification should be careful what they ask for. They got it here.

  16. Micha-
    you make a rather large accusation, especially since you call a guy out by name, you really should give details on how you feel you were misled.

    I tried the archives at Relevant Radio, since that is where you targeted the accusation, and searched for the City and Madrid’s name– got two results, neither of which were his show or had anything to do with the case.
    relevantradio.com/?s=”San+francisco”+”Patrick+Madrid”
    Searching for the lady’s last name brought up zero results.
    Searching for the felon invader in possession of a firearm’s name brought up zero results.

    This suggests that your memory may be a bit off.

  17. * Remember the Twinkie Defense in that SF case?

    I seem to recall that was a ‘diminished capacity’ defense. Defenses based on ‘diminished capacity’ were a California innovation that did not and do not exist in reactionary hyper-traditionalist loci like…New York.

  18. By the way, do you recall what the verdict was when VP Cheney shot his hunting buddy?

    When you join a hunting party, you assume certain risks. The man in question was not dead or much injured. He got some birdshot in him that later triggered a heart attack. He’s still alive at age 90.

  19. Micha,

    Maybe it’s me, and perhaps I didn’t follow all the right wing media accounts. But it seems to me the point wasn’t whether or not the fellow killed young Kate in cold blood, if he planned on it all along, or in some other ways murdered her. The point was she is dead because a man came here illegally, was arrested multiple times and, due to our current attitudes about immigration, was let go and allowed back in again, over and over. Had that not happened, it’s reasonable to think that poor Kate would still be alive and have her life ahead of her. That, to me, was the issue. Whether or not he was a murderer who proves something about immigrants being murderers or not was a different matter. I’m sure there were those who made that claim. But to me, and those I heard some time ago when most of the MSM was ignoring the story, the point was to give the lie to the notion that our national security must somehow be put second to the well being of those who come here no matter how they come here. It puts a face on those Americans who are seldom mentioned as more than an afterthought when talking about those citizens who could be harmed by our current open doors policy and embrace of illegal immigrants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *