The federal court in SF pulls from all over the Bay Area ( east and north bays and possibly the peninsula) so maybe a federal jury can see the evidence in a different light.

I’ve had official residence in Santa Clara and alameda counties and been called for federal jury duty in each residence. Once at the courthouse in San Jose and once in SF

Whereas SF state court would only pull SF residents.

And the reason there was no white people riot in SF today ? We were working...

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Anyone who refuses to see this as a miscarriage of justice is part of the problem. None of us really cares about the details of who dropped the ball or why.

Couldn't have said it better Jerry.

Ill say this, without emotion or invective. He discharged a weapon in an area with other people in an unsafe manner. He attempted to conceal this fact by trying to dispose of the firearm. He left the scene without verifying what happened to the round he fired. He lied to police about firing the gun. How does that not add up to a conviction for the person's death?

Either we are responsible for what we do or we are not.

Now, I have to confess that this situation reminds me of the Hillary email debacle. She/He did it, but someone decided after deliberation that she/he didn't intend to do it. This despite multiple attempts of the part of the doer to conceal the doing. Not guilty all around. I was angry about that. I am angry about this.

His lawyer needs to be punched in the fucking mouth. (yeah, that was emotional) His victory lap is fucking disgusting and is doing nothing to improve what people like me think of lawyers.

The family and the victim deserve justice. This is not just. It isn't even close.

Exactly. He pulled the trigger. Consciously or not, he pulled it. A round discharged and inadvertently caused death or serious bodily injury to a human being. That is negligent homicide. The fact that he was an illegal in posession of a illegal weapon should have been icing on the proverbial cake.

But apparently not to the good citizens of CA...

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:



Was not the 2nd option the jury had murder2:

From my post above:

California penal code 541A, Felony Murder 2nd Degree, has the same elements as their manslaughter statute, except that the crime resulting in death was a felony, rather than a misdemeanor.

Seems like he satisfied the elements of either murder2, felonies resulting in death, or manslaughter, misdemeanors resulting in death.

Felony murder is the vicarious liability allowing all participants in an enumerated violent felony which results in death to be charged with murder. Murder adds the element of premeditation, the difference between murder and manslaughter.

I don’t find a PC541A. The felony murder rule is codified at PC189.

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:

Given the nature of the P239s internal mechanics, the trigger was pulled. It didn't fire from being dropped. He admitted to the "willfully discharged a firearm" part when he admitted to shooting at sealions.

Ok, now what in the...

There is no way that was admitted to or said in trial if we now have this verdict. He was shooting at sea lions? Really? When did he admit to that?

Look, the official story and the one that was pushed on the jury was that he found the gun wrapped in a towel or something under a public bench, and when he touched it, the gun discharged. See? Accident.

And if you believe that pile you are an imbecile. And a gullible one at that.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:

Given the nature of the P239s internal mechanics, the trigger was pulled. It didn't fire from being dropped. He admitted to the "willfully discharged a firearm" part when he admitted to shooting at sealions.

Ok, now what in the...

There is no way that was admitted to or said in trial if we now have this verdict. He was shooting at sea lions? Really? When did he admit to that?

Look, the official story and the one that was pushed on the jury was that he found the gun wrapped in a towel or something under a public bench, and when he touched it, the gun discharged. See? Accident.

And if you believe that pile you are an imbecile. And a gullible one at that.

Perhaps it was something the jury wasn't allowed to hear? I don know, but it was widely reported not long after the shooting first occurred, in his first interview with police. His story changed once he got a lawyer.

"The inspectors asked him what he was aiming at, and he confusingly said he was trying to shoot a “sea lion” or “black fish.” Police recovered the weapon on July 2, 2015."

From an ABC news article at the time.
Here's a mention of that interview. 19th paragraph down.

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017...einle-trial-verdict/

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:

Perhaps it was something the jury wasn't allowed to hear? I don know, but it was widely reported not long after the shooting first occurred, in his first interview with police. His story changed once he got a lawyer.

"The inspectors asked him what he was aiming at, and he confusingly said he was trying to shoot a “sea lion” or “black fish.” Police recovered the weapon on July 2, 2015."

From an ABC news article at the time.
Here's a mention of that interview. 19th paragraph down.

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017...einle-trial-verdict/

Thanks.

Incredible. His story changed, and this was obviously not allowed at trial.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:



Was not the 2nd option the jury had murder2:

From my post above:

California penal code 541A, Felony Murder 2nd Degree, has the same elements as their manslaughter statute, except that the crime resulting in death was a felony, rather than a misdemeanor.

Seems like he satisfied the elements of either murder2, felonies resulting in death, or manslaughter, misdemeanors resulting in death.

Felony murder is the vicarious liability allowing all participants in an enumerated violent felony which results in death to be charged with murder. Murder adds the element of premeditation, the difference between murder and manslaughter.

I don’t find a PC541A. The felony murder rule is codified at PC189.

540A. Felony Murder: First Degree—Defendant Allegedly Committed
Fatal Act (Pen. Code, § 189)
__________________________________________________________________
The defendant is charged [in Count __] with murder, under a theory of felony
murder.
To prove that the defendant is guilty of first degree murder under this theory,
the People must prove that:
1. The defendant committed [or attempted to commit] __________
<insert felony or felonies from Pen. Code, § 189>;
2. The defendant intended to commit __________ <insert felony or
felonies from Pen. Code, § 189>;
AND
3. While committing [or attempting to commit] __________, <insert
felony or felonies from Pen. Code, § 189> the defendant caused the
death of another person.
4.
A person may be guilty of felony murder even if the killing was unintentional,
accidental, or negligent.
To decide whether the defendant committed [or attempted to commit]
__________ <insert felony or felonies from Pen. Code, § 189>, please refer to
the separate instructions that I (will give/have given) you on (that/those)
crime[s]. You must apply those instructions when you decide whether the
People have proved first degree murder under a theory of felony murder.
<Make certain that all appropriate instructions on all underlying felonies are
given.>
[The defendant must have intended to commit the (felony/felonies) of
__________ <insert felony or felonies from Pen. Code, § 189> before or at the
time that (he/she) caused the death.



Looks like I was mistaken, the statute calls it felony murder 1st degree. Specifically says the suspect, causing death during the commission of a felony. Must have intended to commit said felony. Doesn't require intent to cause death.

But, it also says the felony committed must have been from 189. Likely why this wasn't sufficient. Mayhem, arson, rape, discharging firearms from a motor vehicle and a few others are listed under 189. I guess his act didn't qualify as mayhem.

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:



Was not the 2nd option the jury had murder2:

From my post above:

California penal code 541A, Felony Murder 2nd Degree, has the same elements as their manslaughter statute, except that the crime resulting in death was a felony, rather than a misdemeanor.

Seems like he satisfied the elements of either murder2, felonies resulting in death, or manslaughter, misdemeanors resulting in death.

Felony murder is the vicarious liability allowing all participants in an enumerated violent felony which results in death to be charged with murder. Murder adds the element of premeditation, the difference between murder and manslaughter.

I don’t find a PC541A. The felony murder rule is codified at PC189.

540A. Felony Murder: First Degree—Defendant Allegedly Committed
Fatal Act (Pen. Code, § 189)
__________________________________________________________________
The defendant is charged [in Count __] with murder, under a theory of felony
murder.
To prove that the defendant is guilty of first degree murder under this theory,
the People must prove that:
1. The defendant committed [or attempted to commit] __________
<insert felony or felonies from Pen. Code, § 189>;
2. The defendant intended to commit __________ <insert felony or
felonies from Pen. Code, § 189>;
AND
3. While committing [or attempting to commit] __________, <insert
felony or felonies from Pen. Code, § 189> the defendant caused the
death of another person.
4.
A person may be guilty of felony murder even if the killing was unintentional,
accidental, or negligent.
To decide whether the defendant committed [or attempted to commit]
__________ <insert felony or felonies from Pen. Code, § 189>, please refer to
the separate instructions that I (will give/have given) you on (that/those)
crime[s]. You must apply those instructions when you decide whether the
People have proved first degree murder under a theory of felony murder.
<Make certain that all appropriate instructions on all underlying felonies are
given.>
[The defendant must have intended to commit the (felony/felonies) of
__________ <insert felony or felonies from Pen. Code, § 189> before or at the
time that (he/she) caused the death.



Looks like I was mistaken, the statute calls it felony murder 1st degree. Specifically says the suspect, causing death during the commission of a felony. Must have intended to commit said felony. Doesn't require intent to cause death.

But, it also says the felony committed must have been from 189. Likely why this wasn't sufficient.

My guess is that you have blundered onto the standard jury instructions for each crime.

Edit to add: yep. https://www.justia.com/crimina...alcrim/500/541a.html

Sadly, had he shot a sea lion, the conviction would have been sure and swift.

This sort of failure of the system and these sort of shitbags are what make "The Punisher" so popular. The attorney doesn't surprise me at all. After 9 years opposing these type of attorneys in court I've seen it all. I feel for the family of the victim right now.

I am not going to open this thread, much less read any of the posts. My blood pressure is already too high. If I read the not guilty verdict, my blood vessels will erupt.

It's official. The gun was solely at fault. Are we talking about a Sig Sauer or Nambu Type 94?

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/calif...afety/#ixzz505oLYCR3

Gonzalez responded by blaming the gun, a .40 caliber Sig Sauer that had been stolen from a federal agent who works for the Bureau of Land Management. He says the gun “has no safety” and claims “there is no evidence that [Lopez-Sanchez] put his finger in the trigger.”

I don't like the fact that JALLEN is right about us not knowing what went on in the courtroom, but he is. In my experience on two court-martials (not the same as civilian jury, but similar), I have seen one lost because the jury never saw any evidence from the prosecution except a shaky, distant picture of the alleged wound. Either they didn't have any evidence, or they forgot to bring it. In the other case, the judge threw out one charge, and we jury nullified the rest (dude had done the wrong thing for the right reasons). Unless you were in the courtroom, you don't know what transpired.

This has led me to believe that a jury trial really isn't a jury trial. You are really just a proxy of the judge because he/she determines what you see or don't see. If you've ever been selected for jury duty, you know the first people they throw out are the subject matter experts.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Make no mistake, the question of illegals, immigration, sanctuary city nonsense, etc. are very serious, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with this man’s guilt of a ctime, any more than the US officer who lost the gun.

If this took place in San Fran, safe storage laws apply. If it's a good enough law to charge John Q. Citizen with, then it's a good enough law to charge the BLM officer with.

quote:

Originally posted by Herknav:
If this took place in San Fran, safe storage laws apply. If it's a good enough law to charge John Q. Citizen with, then it's a good enough law to charge the BLM officer with.

So, do you believe it’s a good law? Should it apply everywhere in the country? Would charging the officer make a horrible outcome all better?

(I am sure, BTW, that most of San Francisco would agree with you. It would help validate the contention that the shooter wasn’t really at fault for what happened.)

And I’m not familiar with the law; what does it say about leaving firearms in vehicles?

My mistake. After further research, it appears the law only applies to firearms stores in residences. As to your question, I think it's a dumb law; however, the courts don't seem to think so. Until and unless the law is changed, it should be applied equally, without regard to whether or not one collects a government paycheck.

Again, I stand corrected on the applicability of that law in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by Herknav:
I don't like the fact that JALLEN is right about us not knowing what went on in the courtroom, but he is. In my experience on two court-martials (not the same as civilian jury, but similar), I have seen one lost because the jury never saw any evidence from the prosecution except a shaky, distant picture of the alleged wound. Either they didn't have any evidence, or they forgot to bring it. In the other case, the judge threw out one charge, and we jury nullified the rest (dude had done the wrong thing for the right reasons). Unless you were in the courtroom, you don't know what transpired.

This has led me to believe that a jury trial really isn't a jury trial. You are really just a proxy of the judge because he/she determines what you see or don't see. If you've ever been selected for jury duty, you know the first people they throw out are the subject matter experts.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Make no mistake, the question of illegals, immigration, sanctuary city nonsense, etc. are very serious, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with this man’s guilt of a ctime, any more than the US officer who lost the gun.

If this took place in San Fran, safe storage laws apply. If it's a good enough law to charge John Q. Citizen with, then it's a good enough law to charge the BLM officer with.

Maybe, but that’s a different law. The BLM officer is not responsible, criminally, for the death.

I remind us of the thought of Antonin Scalia relevant here:

quote:

If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong. Antonin Scalia

Apparently his prior criminal history was not admissible? Is it ever allowed, or is it at the judge's discretion?

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
Apparently his prior criminal history was not admissible? Is it ever allowed, or is it at the judge's discretion?

Generally, evidence of prior convictions cannot be used to prove a defendant’s guilt or tendency to commit crimes, but sometimes can be used to question the truthfulness or credibility of the defendant’s testimony.

One reason defendants don’t take the stand to testify in their own behalf is to preclude evidence of their prior criminal convictions, usually felonies only. There are limitations depending on the current charges, the priors, how long ago, etc.