p******e
发帖数: 897 | 1 I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco.
I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury
instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was
delivered. Most of the public reaction I've seen has been surprise,
confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I'm
writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that
it did.
I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case
. Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence,
which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence
that favors a defendant, the jury must accept that interpretation over any
others that incriminate him. This principle is a pillar of the American
justice system, and it was a significant part of our jury instructions.
Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of
killing Steinle, was charged with first degree murder and the lesser
included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. When
the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence
didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (
intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges. After having
heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder
charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that Garcia
Zarate intended to kill anyone.
These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: 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. (The jury members asked to feel the
trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow
it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of
the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group
of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and
picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there.
There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He
found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally
caused it to fire. As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration
enforcement, he threw the gun in the water and walked away. The presumption
of innocence, as stated in the jury instructions, required the jury to
select this interpretation because it is reasonable and favors the defendant.
But why the manslaughter acquittal? Most of the confusion I've encountered
has been over this part of the verdict, and it does seem to me personally
that manslaughter is the appropriate charge for Steinle’s killing. However,
given the evidence and the law presented in this trial, it is clear to me
that the jury made the right decision.
The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key
requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The
defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an
ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.
The jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to
use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime
to be the "brandishing," or waving with menace, of a weapon. As a juror, I
found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero
evidence of brandishing during the trial. I don’t think we even heard the
word “brandishing” until it was read as part of the charge during the jury
instructions at the trial's end. No witnesses ever saw the defendant
holding a gun, much less brandishing it. Given that baffling choice by the
prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury. Had a
different precursor crime been chosen—for instance, the unlawful possession
of a firearm by a felon—the outcome might have been different.
Even in that case, however, it is not clear to me that part (2) of the
manslaughter charge was proved. Only a single particle of gunshot residue
was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated
claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up
and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a
stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up.
The jury did convict Garcia Zarate of the separate charge of illegal
possession of a firearm, which indicates that the members felt it to be an
unreasonable conclusion that he didn’t know he was holding a gun. He was in
the seat where he claims he found it for about 20 minutes prior to the
shooting, and he made some statements during interrogation that seemed to
indicate that he had known what the item was. Without the benefit of being
able to re-examine the evidence during deliberation, I’m not sure that I
would consider that evidence to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt,
but knowing these jurors, I would trust them to have made an accurate
judgment if the manslaughter charge had survived the first requirement.
I have come away from this experience with a strong sense of respect for the
jurors and their objective handling of a sensitive case under the national
spotlight. I hope that I would have acted with the same level of maturity. | p******e
发帖数: 897 | 2 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/06/kate-steinle-murder-trial
-jury-didnt-botch-216016
.
case
【在 p******e 的大作中提到】
: I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco.
: I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury
: instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was
: delivered. Most of the public reaction I've seen has been surprise,
: confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I'm
: writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that
: it did.
: I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case
: . Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence,
: which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence
| c*******o
发帖数: 8869 | 3 Justice Scalia used to say, if the judge is not occasionally unhappy with
the conclusion he reached, he’s not a very good judge.
I guess the same applies to juror as well.
.
case
【在 p******e 的大作中提到】
: I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco.
: I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury
: instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was
: delivered. Most of the public reaction I've seen has been surprise,
: confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I'm
: writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that
: it did.
: I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case
: . Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence,
: which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence
| c*******e
发帖数: 5818 | 4 感觉 控方故意的，要是 过失杀人，也就判了，
说到底 是加州做戏给你看，然后再气你，希望 非移都去加州 ！
：I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco
. I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury
：instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was |
|
