The acquittal of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate for the murder of Kate Steinle will be one of those moments that either proves why Trump’s pandering to xenophobia was absolutely right, or the right side of the outrage machine should take a deep breath and be proud of their nation. If Ted Cruz, who should have learned something at Harvard Law School, gets his way, it will be the former. If you read this, maybe the latter will happen.
The defense in the case, adeptly and properly presented by public defender Matt Gonzalez, is explained exceptionally well by Sarah Rumpf at Redstate. Notably, the Steinle murder began with outrage, before she became a prop to the Trump campaign.
This seems to be a classic example of prosecutorial overreach. They pushed hard for a first degree murder verdict, which requires not only proving that the defendant killed the victim, but that he did it intentionally, and that it was premeditated (planned or thought out beforehand).
In the public mind, the explanation why this shouldn’t have been charged as a murder was too complicated, too counterintuitive, too inadequate to explain, so prosecutors shot for the moon to appease the lust for vengeance. Had they aimed lower, they might have had a viable case to prosecute, but it would have failed to sate the public’s fury. And then the prosecutors would have failed Kate Steinle in the public’s eye. So murder it was. So acquittal for murder it is.*
But the parsing of the evidence isn’t the discussion. The completely unsurprising failure of proof of intent to kill isn’t even relevant. What will shock and appall is that Garcia Zarate was acquitted even though he was a convicted felon who had been previously deported and illegally re-entered. How could a prosecutor not convict this guy?
It was excluded for precisely the reason he thinks it should’ve been admitted. https://t.co/8TmT1Zxc9d
— Lowering the Bar (@loweringthebar) December 1, 2017
This reflects so much of what is wrong with our public discourse today. Kevin Underhill says it well. So too Ken White and Patterico (Patrick Frey). Being a generally bad dude, being undocumented, is not relevant to whether Garcia Zarate intentionally murdered Kate Steinle. It makes us dislike him, even hate him, but we don’t convict people of crimes because we generally find them despicable. We convict people for crimes because they committed the crime.
Had Garcia Zarate had any gun convictions in his prior criminal history, it might have been relevant to disprove his defense of unfamiliarity with the Sig Sauer that, the defense argued, accidentally discharged and killed Steinle. But he didn’t.
What raises a more significant point is that Garcia Zarate was on the street at all.
Mr. Garcia Zarate had been homeless at the time of the shooting and had multiple felony convictions. He had been set free from jail only months before the shooting, in defiance of requests by federal immigration authorities, who had asked that he be held longer so he could be deported again.
This is a slippery-slope argument. When Garcia Zarate was released, no one could possibly have foreseen that he would kill Kate Steinle. Much as it’s true that he couldn’t have done so had he been incarcerated, that would justify keeping every defendant incarcerated pending trial just in case something horrible might happen in the future at his hand.
But he wasn’t merely a bad dude, but an illegal. Note that this characterization isn’t a negative reflection on undocumented immigrants who haven’t necessarily committed any crime. This is a guy who was convicted of felonies, deported and illegally re-entered the United States. Five times. This does not make him guilty of murder. It does, however, distinguish him from the thousands of undocumented immigrants tainted by his presence.
That Garcia Zarate was acquitted of the murder of Kate Steinle should make us proud of our legal system. Despite enormous forces against him, against the system working as it’s supposed to, Matt Gonzalez won an acquittal. That’s as it should be. That Garcia Zarate was here at all is another matter, not because he was an undocumented immigrant but because he was a convicted felon who had been deported and illegally re-entered.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The points about the irrelevance of his prior criminal history and his immigration status are well-taken. However, what I don’t see is how he could have been acquitted of manslaughter. That does not require the proving of intent, and it’s hard to see how his conduct could be considered less than grossly negligent.
Ken White addressed this in the twits at the bottom of Rumpf’s post. The prosecution closed on murder; they didn’t argue/explain/push the lesser-included to the jury, but pushed the murder. They made a poor strategic choice and got burned for it.
SHG,
Pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered.*
All the best.
RGK
* Looking for additional pithy agrarian aphorisms, like “keep your shirt on,” one used to be able to visit Lake Wobegon, an aptly named place if ever there was.
Where all the children are above average?
‘Til the place was invaded by confessed back-patters, and lawyers.
“so prosecutors shot for the moon to appease the lust for vengeance.”
You really think that the mandarins of SF love trump and would like to help his cause? This kind of political strategy is kinda like, normal stuff there.
Or that happened before Trump seized upon this case and Trump had nothing to do with it.
“That Garcia Zarate was acquitted of the murder of Kate Steinle should make us proud of our legal system.”
Proud that it’s all about embarrassing the other political party?
Hard as it may be to believe, law isn’t all about politics.
One takeaway from this is that the police had better step up their game on firearm safety. It was a stroke of genius for the defense attorney to collect all the negligent discharge incidents from the surrounding police agencies and use it. Also that setting yourselves up as “the only ones to be trusted with guns” would eventually bite you in the ass, hard.
So just giving cops guns wasn’t reason enough for them to learn how to handle them properly?
I’ll just leave this right here. Scroll to 30 seconds for the good part.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHEOSyMqug?rel=0&w=560&h=315%5D
Never gets old.
Used to be a running gag on the Andy Griffith show, with the Barney Fife character.
Not at all surprised that Matt Gonzalez would put on a good defense. He seemed to be a very smart, capable and savvy guy when he nearly beat Gavin Newsom to become mayor of San Francisco.
Garcia Zarate’s acquittal of murder, of involuntary manslaughter, of assault with a deadly weapon “should make us proud of our legal system.” Indeed. Nothing could so expose your etiolated, toad’s eye view of the world as this post. Don’t speak of Justice, I’ve read here. What counts are the narrow words of the law and only the words of the law. But the law should have it’s alpha and omega in Justice, regardless of what the criminal defense bar asserts, glorying in it’s culturally corrosive triumph in San Francisco. Lex iniusta non est lex. This has been our Western belief since Aquinas, reemphasized by such as Martin Luther King. Whether because of prosecutorial folly, the Judge’s misdirection, the blatant lies of the Defense or the inadequacy of the statute, when the law delivers such an injustice as in this case it is cause for tears, not celebration. Not irrelevant to how good citizens and true react to this case is the fact that today, under its Sanctuary policies, San Francisco would again release Garcia Zarate if asked under the same conditions to hold him for ICE custody.
Something is wrong, very wrong, in San Francisco’s administration of Justice. Kate Steinle’s father has the last word: “Justice was rendered, but it was not served.”
The legal system is about law, not whatever vague notions of “justice” pop into the heads of the clinically insane before the meds kick in.
Pitiful. If not for snark, a mind so reductionist as to approach the vanishing point. But as is apparent from the overwhelmingly negative reaction to this case, there will be consequences. Meanwhile you may bask in the knowledge that your handful of acolytes agree with you.
Pitiful, indeed, Mary. I hate to tell this, but the problem isn’t my handful of acolytes, but you’re a total fruitcake.
Am I the only one imagining Jake and Mary locked in a room screaming “justice, JUSTICE!!!” at each other?
You are one twisted dude.
In the U.S. criminal justice system there’s a theory that the power of the state makes the prosecution powerful; the defense, lacking that power, is relatively weak. Therefore the state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the defendant did what he was accused of doing, and that it was against the letter of the law. Public and government opinion concerning what the law should be, is irrelevant. Therefore, if the prosecutor makes a mistake it should come back on the prosecution, not the defense.
There are governments where the prosecution has the right of way in such matters. They aren’t very nice places to live.
When you’re reduced to explaining the most basic concepts in criminal law, perhaps someone isn’t at the stage of self-actualization to get it?
“Whether because of prosecutorial folly, the Judge’s misdirection, the blatant lies of the Defense or the inadequacy of the statute”
“Something is wrong, very wrong, in San Francisco’s administration of Justice”
It doesn’t matter what the problem is, you just demand it be fixed? But how, Mary? You demand better, but don’t know how to achieve it. Your words are empty platitudes grasping for some kind of cosmic justice that has never existed. Reality doesn’t owe you anything, everything we have we’ve built ourselves in a cold and uncaring universe.
The people actually doing the work are telling you that this was a good outcome. If you think you know better, then step up to the plate and make a suggestion. You said the law is unjust – why is it unjust? How do you plan to make it better? Will your plan have unforeseen consequences that lead to more vague cosmic injustice than the current situation? You have to actually take action to find out. Become a prosecutor, become a judge, become a lawmaker and do better, shine your light on those insensitive, etiolated crusty snarkers. Feelz don’t help anyone.