Considering the national media focus of this case, one would think Gascon and his whole family would have carefully looked at this case from every angle possible to know what is the proper approach to take. To shoot for a murder charge in this case, with the evidence at hand, is absolutely stupid. I have a better shot at beating Steph in a game of horse…
It’s all about the intention. Maybe the intention of the district attorney is to let this man free, as a protest against Trump and GOP
Well, Gascon pretty much committed political suicide by “intentionally” botching up this case if you really believe that. At the end of the day, even for some crazy, hairball reason you actually truly believe a murder conviction was achievable, you still have to ask yourself, would the jury buy it? That is all that matters right? If you can’t convince the jury, don’t bother!!!
Hmm, this might explain it…
Move to red states, you will open your eyes to all the greatness of this country, bunch of racists there.
No way… a person of color only has power where the liberals are… 
1 Like
If you think that judges and/or lawyers are practicing law there, I have a beach house in Bolivia I would like to donate to you.
Even the American flag they display there is fake, or should I say not the flag you would use as the legal size.
When you lose a case, the other side’s lawyer, the court clerk, who has more power than a judge, the judge and others get paid by the $ from your penalty. That is being told by old judges in retirement, it is as fake as it can be.
By the way, I love to read about anything justice. I didn’t know that the guy pulled the trigger, the bullet went off, straight as it should, but ricocheted to the left side I believe, killing the girl. He didn’t aim at the girl at all. An accidental shooting, as it happens every day in this glorious gun brandishing America.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/06/kate-steinle-murder-trial-jury-didnt-botch-216016
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 a further 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.
These two conclusions contradict each other:
As I mentioned earlier, either he should be charged with both involuntary manslaughter plus weapon possession, or neither of these crimes.
From what this alternate juror described, it looks like he should have been acquitted from all charges.
Correct. This person’s description suggests at least he is convinced Zarate should be acquitted of all charges. There are obviously some contradictions and it seems he knew it was a gun. However, what I found interesting was some of the facts like the bullet ricocheting off the ground etc. I didn’t know of that and this does help understand how the jurors arrived at their verdict.
Well, I am going to repeat what somebody mentions a lot on this forum. “don’t get your emotions drive your response”. Right?
The jurors are bound by what the spirit of the law says. You may get emotional, but you are bound to read the law and interpret to the case you are discussing. And so many times, what the individual did in the past is not entered as a proof of anything, it doesn’t have anything to do with what he did.
I remember when I won my immigration case in court. At the end, me, being nosey, started talking to the counsel for the government. She was very friendly, never argued anything against me. She kept typing on her computer. When I asked her why, she said she was behind schedule after a vacation somewhere. Then, she started to joke with my lawyer about how he or she had won such and such case. Gee! They were talking as if we the defendants in court were an object sold on Ebay.
Now, what about the government guy neglecting to protect his gun from being stolen? I don’t remember if that guy somehow is related to this case. I would drag his ass in court so he can get the yelling of his life.
First of all, have you ever served on an actual jury before? If you have, you will recall that you were instructed to follow the jury instructions, not become Sherlock Holmes or think outside the box. I would agree that I thought for sure the jury would find him guilty, involuntary manslaughter at most, but I too was not in that court or jury room to say. What we do know though is that the DA’s game plan was flimsy at best so perhaps “we” were doomed from the get-go…
This verdict says as long as you aren’t pointing the gun at someone with the intent to shoot them, then whatever happens after the bullet leaves the gun isn’t your fault. That’s like saying a drunk driver didn’t get behind the wheel intending to kill someone, so it’s not their fault if they do kill someone.
Here is that juror who was willing to be interviewed… (Asian I believe…I am embarrassed again!!!)
So this begs the question why wasn’t there a negligent manslaughter option?
We probably need a criminal lawyer moonlighting as a RE investor to chime in. Come on, was the “brandishing of the gun” that significant in order for the manslaughter conviction to stick?
Not knowing the full details on this case, but come on, which case is stronger for a manslaughter verdict!!!
Sure, it is not like we were using any of the courtrooms…
A case for you to use your legal brain:
Should this cop be put in jail?
Another example of what our courts, under this administration are becoming, and why you shouldn’t be complaining about judges. Maybe they are not the smart tool in that shed.
Watch, this is painful, a total incompetent candidate to be a federal judge, supported by the idiot in the white house is being pummeled by a republican in congress. The poor guy can’t even respond coherently to a question. Basically, he is sent to take a job as a federal judge but doesn’t know chit about how to litigate in federal courts.
Stop what you are doing and watch this. Most important thing you can watch today.
What you are about to see is Senator John Kennedy, a Republican I might add, ask the most basic questions imaginable of men Donald Trump has nominated to become federal judges.
They’ve never tried a case. They hardly even understand the law.
It’s outrageous.