Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie |
Well, the jury must've known that Zarate is a felon, right? After all, they convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm. ~Alan Acta Non Verba NRA Life Member (Patron) God, Family, Guns, Country Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan "Once there was only dark. If you ask me, light is winning." ~Rust Cohle | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process  |
That can happen either by introducing the evidence of conviction(s) or by stipulation. The jury will be instructed to consider that only for the purpose of determining guilt on that count. I know, I know, but it’s the best they can do. The fear is that jurors are unduly prejudiced against the defendant if evidence of prior serious crime is introduced. It’s a complex area, not uncontroversial. For a good read about introducing priors, http://crimejustice.law.nyu.ed...Records-at-Trial.pdf Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| Administrator |
It's called propensity (he did it this time because he's done it before). Evidence generally cannot be submitted for the purpose of establishing propensity; however, it can come in to impeach the witness ("you just said you've only ever committed one felony in your entire life...That's not exactly true, is it, Mr. Defendant?). If you can get the same evidence in under a different reason than propensity, well, once the jury hears it, they can come to their own conclusions. However, in the federal system, evidence of prior sexual assault or sexual molestation comes in under FRE 413-415. Under those rules, the jury can consider prior history in ascertaining guilt. So yes, under certain very narrow circumstances in some settings, it can come in. I don't know if California has an analog to FRE 413 through 415, but even in the Federal system, the weird exception granted by 413-415 only covers sexual assault/molestation. As JALLEN said, we don't know what the jury heard. In a case like this, what the jury did not hear might be much more important than what they did hear. If the judge says it's-not-coming-in, then it doesn't get in. Members of the general public might be very surprised at what little evidence some juries are given before they're asked to make a call. | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money  |
Did the prosecutors make a fatal mistake in the trial for the Kate Steinle killer? So far as I can tell, jurors who acquitted Jose Ines Garcia Zarate of all charges related to the death of Kate Steinle have not been hounded by journalists seeking an explanation for their puzzling findings. At a minimum, involuntary manslaughter should have been a slam dunk. Google does not find anything about interviews that jurors have granted. In fact, I have seen very little in the way of coverage of key moments in the trial. But yesterday, the Armstrong and Getty Show, broadcast in most major cities in the West, interviewed an experienced former Bay Area prosecutor and current Defense attorney, Michael Cardoza, who sat through much (though not all) of the trial. He was reluctant to harshly criticize his former colleagues in the San Francisco DA’s office, but he did indicate that the prosecution seems to have made a major mistake during the course of the trial. The initial charges filed, including manslaughter, peaked with second degree murder. But part way through the trial, the prosecutors added first degree murder, which requires intent to kill. This charge would be very difficult to sustain in the lest political of circumstances, because damage to the bullet that struck Ms. Steinle indicated that it had ricocheted off the cement surface of the pier. Thus, it could not have been directed at Ms. Steinle. In the experience of Mr. Cardoza, juries sometimes stop believing prosecutors who change their charges in the course of a trial. There is at least a chance that at that point in the trial, the jurors turned against the prosecution. http://www.americanthinker.com..._steinle_killer.html Why would prosecutors add first degree murder, which requires intent, esp. part way through the trial? "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| Member |
After the trial last September when I was Foreman, they Judge came back to thank us for serving and answer questions. We had figured out that this was not the defendant's first rodeo by his demeanor on the dash cam video and the mere fact that he asked for a jury trial, and the Judge confirmed it. I suspect this is why the Steinle jury looked like they were walking to their own executions when they were leaving the court house. The Judge had confirmed their suspicions during the post-trial meeting, and I'd bet they wanted to go back and reverse their verdicts. In our case, suspecting the defendant had been caught driving drunk in the past would not have changed our verdict, but knowing the character of the defendant in the Steinle case certainly would have, and should have. The little bastard effectively lied to the Jury and got away with it. So did his lawyers, and most probably the Judge and Prosecutors as well. -------------------------- Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -- H L Mencken I always prefer reality when I can figure out what it is. -- JALLEN 10/18/18 | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
This is exactly why the information is considered more prejudicial than probative. The jurors heard the evidence and concluded that it was not a crime. It shouldn't matter whether the guy was a life long good citizen, or a multiple felon in determining the facts to which the law must be applied. Had they known this guy was a 5 or 6 or 7 time felon and illegal, they would have convicted. That's not how it is supposed to work. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
Member |
What was the sequence of events that was presented at court? He found the gun, then ...... and then Katie was shot. Is that available somewhere? Did I miss it in this thread. Doesn't seem to be in the news articles. "Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it." L.Tolstoy "A government is just a body of people, usually, notably, ungoverned." Shepherd Book | |||
|
| Member |
No, they heard what amounted to a pack of lies and concluded after the post-trial meeting that they had been duped (I realize this is wild speculation on my part!!!). Even after taking a second look at the gun, they still bought the bullshit that it went off by itself, and I'd bet it's because nobody on the Jury knew the first thing about guns and bought the line they were fed. I doubt they were told about the defendant's story changing several times, and just heard what the Defense cooked up. This I'm sure of. If they knew about these changes, and the criminal's background, his credibility would have been Zero. As I understand it, the trial was based mostly on testimony, not physical evidence. I could go on, but would you mind addressing my question from earlier, about why this was not a Murder One charge based on the underlying crime of his being a felon in possession of a firearm? I'm seriously interested in your opinion since you used to practice law in California. -------------------------- Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -- H L Mencken I always prefer reality when I can figure out what it is. -- JALLEN 10/18/18 | |||
|
| Member |
Was the round FMJ (or in any case not HP)? There are articles that are saying the round was flattened from a ricochet. BLM (the gun was from a BLM agent?) uses FMJ in a duty gun? Was Katie standing aligned with the flat of a wall or something? I thought that the angle of reflection for a bullet is very shallow. "Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it." L.Tolstoy "A government is just a body of people, usually, notably, ungoverned." Shepherd Book | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
I did, several pages ago. You confuse ordinary murder with the felony murder rule. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| Member |
I went back and re-read your earlier post, this one above. I still can't fathom how this is not Murder One, since he was committing another felony by being a felon in possession of a firearm, and Kate Steinle's death was a direct result of that possession. We've ruled out the possibility of the gun going off by itself, even if the Defense invoked some sort of Trigger Fairy, and the Jury convicted him on the possession part, so they knew that he knew he had a gun, and pulled the trigger. Am I still missing something, or did the DA simply not want to assign blame to him, filed lesser charges, and caused the Jury to let him go? -------------------------- Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -- H L Mencken I always prefer reality when I can figure out what it is. -- JALLEN 10/18/18 | |||
|
Bad dog! |
Jamiel Shaw Sr., whose son, Jamiel Jr. was killed by an illegal alien in 2008, said that he was not surprised at the verdict, and had told his friends that the killer would walk. "The jury was filled with left-wing nut jobs," said Jamiel. He is convinced that the verdict was politically driven. That's really all there is to it. We can sift through details all day long-- factual, legal, speculative. Fine points of the law. It's all beside the point. This was a travesty of justice. This dirtbag was going to skate right from the outset. End of story.  http://insider.foxnews.com/201...ull-left-wing-nutjob ______________________________________________________ "You get much farther with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone." | |||
|
| Member |
The results of a trial are no more predictable than the results of a split decision in a boxing match. And that folks - is our justice system. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
Sorry, I may have you confused with another I replied to. Felony murder is the vicarious liability allowing all participants in an enumerated violent felony which results in death to be charged with murder. Murder reqires the element of premeditation, the difference between murder and manslaughter. The familar example is an armed robbery of a stop and rob. 4 guys hit a stop and rob, during the commission of which one of them shoots and kills the clerk. Under ordinary murder rules, the shooter is guilty of murder. If the jurisdiction has the felony murder rule, all participants are guilty of murder, even though they did not murder anyone. Murder requires malice aforethought, and premeditation. Voluntary manslaughter is heat of passion provocation, intentional but no premeditation. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| Administrator |
 So why isn't the felon, Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, guilty of first degree felony murder if he committed a felony by being a felon in possession of a firearm, and someone died while he was committing that felony? The key lies in the terms "premeditation" and "enumerated" from JALLEN's quote. That is, the first degree felony murder rule is not triggered by just doing any felony. In order to trigger first degree felony murder rule upon himself a defendant must cause the death of another while committing a specific (i.e.: enumerated) felony, or a killing with premeditation. The defendant can qualify for felony murder by killing with a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing... [this is why JALLEN mentions about the killing needing to be willful, deliberate, and premeditated. Since the defendant seems to have convinced the jury that the killing was not premeditated, then you have to try to match a felony the defendant committed to one or more of the specific felonies listed in § 189.] or by an murder which is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate: Arson Rape and other sexual crimes Carjacking Robbery Burglary Mayhem Kidnapping Train wrecking And any homicide committed by intentionally firing a gun from a motor vehicle at a person outside of the motor vehicle with the intention to cause death The last one is tricky because it really addresses drive-bys. The defendant claims he wasn't intentionally firing a gun, but even if he did intentionally fire it, it wasn't fired from a motor vehicle. As you can see, "felon in possession..." does not appear above. So yes, the defendant did commit a felony, and someone did die as a result, but he did not commit one of the specific felonies enumerated by the California Penal Code § 198 which triggers first degree felony murder. The thing about law is that stuff fits in boxes. In order to fit into the first degree felony murder box, all conditions must be met. In this case they are not met. There is no point charging the defendant with first degree felony murder if the prosecution cannot prove every element of the charge. | |||
|
| Member |
Justjoe, this is now reality and it totally sucks. Thanks for posting the link. We need to turn this around post haste and I'm not sure how to do it? | |||
|
| Member |
Thanks, LDD, that's an explanation I understand. I don't like it, since it means you have to be a certain kind of criminal to qualify, but I understand it. It doesn't excuse clearing the guy for what was, without a doubt, a malicious act committed by a hardened criminal that resulted in the death of an innocent person. But I understand why they didn't convict him of First Degree Murder. -------------------------- Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -- H L Mencken I always prefer reality when I can figure out what it is. -- JALLEN 10/18/18 | |||
|
| 10mm is The Boom of Doom  |
Judge Jeanine on Fox just talked about the P239 used in the murder. Unfortunately, the stock gun photo was... ...a Glock. The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People again must learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. ~ Cicero 55 BC The Dhimocrats love America like ticks love a hound. | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money |
But it was the gun's fault!:  In a detailed write-up of the verdict, the San Francisco Chronicle describes many details that have rarely or never been mentioned in the vast majority of the media coverage of this case. The main issue is that the defense was able to present a credible case that the shooting was an accident, and the prosecution aggressively overplayed their hand. The Chronicle also notes that Steinle was not hit directly, but rather the bullet hit the concrete ground and then ricocheted up to hit her. The gun was a SIG Sauer pistol that had been stolen four days prior to Steinle’s death from a federal ranger’s car parked in the area. The defense also presented evidence regarding the SIG Sauer’s propensity to accidentally fire. One of Garcia Zarate’s attorneys detailed the issues in a San Francisco Examiner article: It’s an elite handgun intended for law enforcement and military personnel who may need to fire it with split second notice. Hence, it has a hair trigger in single-action mode. Even among well-trained users, it has a lengthy history of accidental discharges. Most police agencies don’t make records public, but those that do reveal disturbing data. In a four-year period (2012-2015), the New York City Police Department reported 54 accidental firearm discharges, 10 involving SIG Sauers. Los Angeles County reported more than 80 accidental discharges between 2010 and 2015, five involving SIG Sauers. From 2005 to January 2011, the San Francisco Police Department reported 29 accidental discharges (a time when it issued SIG Sauers as its primary sidearm)… The SIG Sauer in Lopez Sanchez’s case has three features prone to accidents: 1. No safety lever, making it perpetually ready for firing. 2. Manufacturer-issued trigger pull of 4.4 pounds of force (in single-action mode), which is among the lightest on the market. 3. An unlabeled decocking lever despite being essential to disengage the single-action mode. (The SIG Sauer safety manual urges “DO NOT THUMB THE HAMMER DOWN the consequences can be serious injury or death — only and ALWAYS use the decocking lever.”) New York City requires officers using SIG Sauers to disable its single-action function because the hair trigger is too dangerous. Those using the gun can only do so in double-action mode, which has a 10-pound trigger pull. Still capable of accidentally discharging, it provides some modicum of greater safety. However, single-action was not disabled on the handgun involved in this case, which Lopez Sanchez says he found wrapped in a T-shirt, thereby concealing its danger. "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie |
^^^^ That's about the stupidest thing I ever read. Jesus Christ. ~Alan Acta Non Verba NRA Life Member (Patron) God, Family, Guns, Country Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan "Once there was only dark. If you ask me, light is winning." ~Rust Cohle | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024