Illegal Felon killer found not guilty after killing Kate Steinie

[charmander 692]

There is a bunch of "not guilty" cases I cannot comprehend how jury reached that verdict. This is unfortunately another one. RIP Kate Steinle.

[yuna628 9,873]

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

I believe that was the Public Defender, not the prosecutor.

 

So in this case he was quite successful. 

Yes I know... what I'm saying is it sounds like he had some issues in his past as a public defender that may not have made him the best public defender for a difficult case... and despite that, still won his case.

 

It doesn't sound like this jury was dysfunctional in any way, as I said... was there evidence presented that swayed them, or did the prosecutors not present a strong case?

 

[Dashinka 25,856]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Remember we are only outside observers. We need to ask questions like: did the prosecutors present a strong case? Did the charges fit various technicalities of the crime that may have arisen? Was there forensic evidence that may have called into question the nature of the charges? We agree that his actions caused her death. He does not dispute that.... and considering he only had a public defender, matched up against the state, there must have been something that swayed them in the other direction.

 

It is often hard that our system is a jury of peers and that we must abide by decisions - good or bad. It's hard for people to accept. Often it is down to the fault of the prosecutor not having a strong enough case, sometimes it's the wrong charges brought that leave juries with difficult decisions to make without much help, and sometimes it is due to a breakdown within the jury (when it becomes hung).. but this decision seems like they were pretty sure of things. My sister was once on a big case for a pretty brutal murder..it didn't matter the evidence, there was one juror who just didn't want to ''ruin a kid for the rest of his life''.. and that led to some struggles with the jurors. This sounds like it was a complicated decision for them to make with some questions that came up.

I agree, I was wondering how the prosecution presented the case which I haven’t seen yet.  I would still think this would fall into the manslaughter or reckless discharge of a firearm resulting in a death.  You are correct, barring any egregious errors in the trial that can be proven, we have to accept the jury verdict whether we agree with it or not.  It seems the DOJ is considering federal charges.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/doj-considering-bringing-charges-against-man-found-not-guilty-in-kate-steinles-murder/ar-BBG184Y?OCID=ansmsnnews11

[bcking 3,157]

28 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree, I was wondering how the prosecution presented the case which I haven’t seen yet.  I would still think this would fall into the manslaughter or reckless discharge of a firearm resulting in a death.  You are correct, barring any egregious errors in the trial that can be proven, we have to accept the jury verdict whether we agree with it or not.  It seems the DOJ is considering federal charges.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/doj-considering-bringing-charges-against-man-found-not-guilty-in-kate-steinles-murder/ar-BBG184Y?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Agree with manslaughter/reckless discharge, at least based on what we know. 

 

I'm not surprised they didn't give him murder 1, but not really sure how they concluded it was involuntary manslaughter. He was recklessly carrying a firearm. Even if it discharging was an accident, it was still reckless. Even if he truly "found it on the ground" or whatever I think he claimed, he should have notified the police without picking up the weapon. I'd stay there, ensure that no one else manipulates it and then wait for police to arrive.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

So I am superslammed this morning at work, but I recommend this article at Red State (yes, I read Red State sometimes!) which is one of the best analyses I've read about what happened. I think the prosecution really fluffed this one and *might* have gotten an involuntary manslaughter verdict had they not been so focused on first degree murder.

 

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Much like they did in the T martin case

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

So I am superslammed this morning at work, but I recommend this article at Red State (yes, I read Red State sometimes!) which is one of the best analyses I've read about what happened. I think the prosecution really fluffed this one and *might* have gotten an involuntary manslaughter verdict had they not been so focused on first degree murder.

 

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/

Great read. Thank you.

[yuna628 9,873]

26 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

So I am superslammed this morning at work, but I recommend this article at Red State (yes, I read Red State sometimes!) which is one of the best analyses I've read about what happened. I think the prosecution really fluffed this one and *might* have gotten an involuntary manslaughter verdict had they not been so focused on first degree murder.

 

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/

Hey Maven thanks! I read stuff there sometimes too, and that does make a lot of sense.

Do you think that if they had been more focused on involuntary manslaughter that it would have been good enough for people though? Emotions were high, people were putting the pressure on for the highest of charges.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

8 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Hey Maven thanks! I read stuff there sometimes too, and that does make a lot of sense.

Do you think that if they had been more focused on involuntary manslaughter that it would have been good enough for people though? Emotions were high, people were putting the pressure on for the highest of charges.

Public sentiment should have nothing to do with it -- the question is rather whether the prosecution could prove each of the elements of a particular crime.

 

The problem with murder is that it requires malice, and the prosecution must prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt. Malice can be the intent to kill, to cause serious bodily harm, through "depraved heart recklessness" (which is where the defendant has acted with conscious disregard for human life), or where malice is implied under the felony murder rule (death occurs during arson, burglary, robbery or rape). 

 

On the other hand, involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice, which has been committed through gross recklessness or criminal negligence, or during the commission of a crime which is not inherently dangerous. Gross recklessness is conduct which creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life; criminal negligence is the deviation from a standard of care that is so great that it results in death of a human being, even if the death was not intended. As you can see, the bar is much lower because you don't need to prove intent -- you just need to prove the defendant did something that was risky and that a reasonable person wouldn't do in the circumstances, and someone died because of that.

 

It's harder to prove here that the defendant intended to shoot the woman, and evidence indicates that he did not mean to kill her or cause her injury, nor was there a felony murder rule crime, and depraved heart recklessness needs conscious disregard of human life. That's more like shooting out of the window of a moving car, not at any particular person, but just out into the open and there's people walking around. You know there's a grave risk someone will die because you're shooting out of a moving car and there are people around, and the bullets could strike any one of them. On the other hand, picking up a gun isn't necessarily dangerous unless you don't know what you're doing. But if you don't know that you don't know you're doing something stupid, you don't have conscious disregard of human life. You're just being an idiot, and being an idiot isn't enough to imply malice. However, even if you're an idiot, you're still measured against what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances. A reasonable person would realize it was a gun and not touch it, because there are people around AND it's a dangerous weapon. 

 

Of course the prosecution can include involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense when charging, but (as the article points out), the prosecution would need to play up this aspect in order to get the jury on board. And in doing so, that undermines the prosecution's allegation that there was malice, thus supporting a murder charge. It's a fine line, and I can see why the prosecution did why it did. But it may have played too much into the need to satisfy the desires of some portions of the public to see a person convicted of murder rather than going with a conviction that it could more easily obtain.

[Dashinka 25,856]

45 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Public sentiment should have nothing to do with it -- the question is rather whether the prosecution could prove each of the elements of a particular crime.

 

The problem with murder is that it requires malice, and the prosecution must prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt. Malice can be the intent to kill, to cause serious bodily harm, through "depraved heart recklessness" (which is where the defendant has acted with conscious disregard for human life), or where malice is implied under the felony murder rule (death occurs during arson, burglary, robbery or rape). 

 

On the other hand, involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice, which has been committed through gross recklessness or criminal negligence, or during the commission of a crime which is not inherently dangerous. Gross recklessness is conduct which creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life; criminal negligence is the deviation from a standard of care that is so great that it results in death of a human being, even if the death was not intended. As you can see, the bar is much lower because you don't need to prove intent -- you just need to prove the defendant did something that was risky and that a reasonable person wouldn't do in the circumstances, and someone died because of that.

 

It's harder to prove here that the defendant intended to shoot the woman, and evidence indicates that he did not mean to kill her or cause her injury, nor was there a felony murder rule crime, and depraved heart recklessness needs conscious disregard of human life. That's more like shooting out of the window of a moving car, not at any particular person, but just out into the open and there's people walking around. You know there's a grave risk someone will die because you're shooting out of a moving car and there are people around, and the bullets could strike any one of them. On the other hand, picking up a gun isn't necessarily dangerous unless you don't know what you're doing. But if you don't know that you don't know you're doing something stupid, you don't have conscious disregard of human life. You're just being an idiot, and being an idiot isn't enough to imply malice. However, even if you're an idiot, you're still measured against what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances. A reasonable person would realize it was a gun and not touch it, because there are people around AND it's a dangerous weapon. 

 

Of course the prosecution can include involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense when charging, but (as the article points out), the prosecution would need to play up this aspect in order to get the jury on board. And in doing so, that undermines the prosecution's allegation that there was malice, thus supporting a murder charge. It's a fine line, and I can see why the prosecution did why it did. But it may have played too much into the need to satisfy the desires of some portions of the public to see a person convicted of murder rather than going with a conviction that it could more easily obtain.

I agree, murder one seemed to be a big stretch given the circumstances, but the jury was given the lesser involuntary manslaughter option.  Are you saying they ignored this because the prosecution focused so much on murder one (the article seems to think this is the case)?  I still find it hard to believe that at least one of the 12 would have considered this, but of course neither of us were in the room.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I don't think they ignored it, from what I understand, but in order to plead involuntary manslaughter effectively, the prosecution ran the risk of undercutting their case for first or second-degree murder. If the case hinges on there being malice, it's hard to say, "oh and, hey, even though we say he totally meant to kill her/injure her/had a depraved heart, maybe he was just an idiot who didn't know what he was doing." Pleading in the alternative is fine, but it can confuse a jury, or make the jury think the prosecution's case is weak overall, as opposed to just one portion. Juries are fascinating creatures, and they tend to be sensible in spite of themselves, most of the time. 

 

I'd like to see the charging statement on this, would be interesting.

[Dashinka 25,856]

59 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

I don't think they ignored it, from what I understand, but in order to plead involuntary manslaughter effectively, the prosecution ran the risk of undercutting their case for first or second-degree murder. If the case hinges on there being malice, it's hard to say, "oh and, hey, even though we say he totally meant to kill her/injure her/had a depraved heart, maybe he was just an idiot who didn't know what he was doing." Pleading in the alternative is fine, but it can confuse a jury, or make the jury think the prosecution's case is weak overall, as opposed to just one portion. Juries are fascinating creatures, and they tend to be sensible in spite of themselves, most of the time. 

 

I'd like to see the charging statement on this, would be interesting.

Makes sense.  Thanks.  Also, thanks for the article, it was insightful, it sounds like San Fran will honor the federal warrant so unless the DOJ pursues anything he will most likely be sent back to his country of origin. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Makes sense.  Thanks.  Also, thanks for the article, it was insightful, it sounds like San Fran will honor the federal warrant so unless the DOJ pursues anything he will most likely be sent back to his country of origin. 

Hasn't he already been deported 4 or 5 times. They need to put one of those Kirk Russell exploding escape from New York city , blood stream bombs in him. Proximity detonation if he gets near the border again.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Deported 5 times previsously.  In and out of jail.  A convicted felon, which in and of itself prevents him from having a gun (though he claims he “found it in a t-shirt).  And yet, he did have a gun.  And an innocent died.  And he goes free.  Sometimes, justice is not just.

[OriZ 3,165]

8 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree, I was wondering how the prosecution presented the case which I haven’t seen yet.  I would still think this would fall into the manslaughter or reckless discharge of a firearm resulting in a death.  You are correct, barring any egregious errors in the trial that can be proven, we have to accept the jury verdict whether we agree with it or not.  It seems the DOJ is considering federal charges.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/doj-considering-bringing-charges-against-man-found-not-guilty-in-kate-steinles-murder/ar-BBG184Y?OCID=ansmsnnews11

I absolutely think this falls exactly under what you said, and I'm the type who would rather see a guilty person walk than take the slightest risk of putting an innocent person behind bars. I would not hesitate hanging a jury even if 11 people screamed at me for 48 hours. In this case...no one argues with the fact that it was indeed a reckless discharge of firearm resulting in death, so why not convict him for it? Manslaughter would have been just fine. 

Edited December 2, 2017 by OriZ