Prosecution in Steinle Killer Case Gave Jury Three Options—Why Didn't They Choose "Involuntary Homicide"?
Print Friendly and PDF
The San Francisco Chronicle has an article defending the jury in the Kate Steinle killing:
Kate Steinle murder trial: How the prosecution’s case fell apart

By Vivian Ho December 1, 2017

But this section makes it clear that’s ridiculous:
Garcia Zarate was charged with murder from the beginning, and prosecutors gave jurors three options.

They could convict on first-degree or premeditated murder. They could opt for second-degree murder, requiring a finding that Garcia Zarate either intended to kill Steinle or intentionally committed a dangerous act with conscious disregard for human life. Or they could choose involuntary manslaughter, which would require a finding that Garcia Zarate caused Steinle’s death with an unlawful, negligent act.

Obviously, Mexico’s Best was guilty of at least “involuntary homicide.”

Why didn’t the jury find that? I was on a jury in 2008 in a trial of an immigrant tax cheat, and about 9 of us 12 jurors were complete dimwits. Plus they appeared to be biased in favor of immigrants and tax cheats, because many were immigrants and (likely) tax cheats themselves.

[Comment at]

Print Friendly and PDF