“Can a jury pool fool the system’s intent based on personal feelings or ethno-centricity or cultural divide or political power-plays? Is a juror’s oath less valued than what he/she deems pertinent to local justice versus national security?”
In the numbness created by the acquittal of the illegal immigrant and five-time deportee who shot/killed Kate Steinle, the Department of Justice wasted no time in using its jurisdictional sovereignty to attain an arrest warrant for Jose Ines Garcia Zárate after he was found innocent of most of the charges. DoJ’s warrant holds Zárate accountable for “supervised release” violations.
Zárate was only found guilty of “Felon in possession of a firearm.” Hard for the jury to get that wrong since Zárate has seven felony convictions under his belt. But on all other, more-severe criminal counts…he skated away.
Was the death of Kate Steinle preventable? Absolutely! Despite what the San Fran jury was or was not exposed to, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (SFSD) was the authority which, before releasing Zárate to roam the streets, had full custodial domain and chose to dishonor an ICE detainer. Zárate, a proven snake in the grass, slithered his way back to freedom, ultimately shooting/killing Ms. Steinle with a stolen firearm.
How is such a thing possible? Is California such an entrenched mostly-sanctuary state that political powers and jurisprudence pillar those who have no belonging here over those with unadulterated rights by birth? Specifically, did the jury go ultra-lenient on Kate Steinle’s killer to jab at President Trump’s immigration policies?
“Everyone acknowledges that Jose Ines Garcia Zárate is the man responsible for Steinle’s death, yet the system in place to bring the killer to justice seems far more interested in his well-being than it ever was in hers.”
Jason L. Riley of the Wall Street Journal wrote, “Everyone acknowledges that Jose Ines Garcia Zárate is the man responsible for Steinle’s death, yet the system in place to bring the killer to justice seems far more interested in his well-being than it ever was in hers.”
Synonymously, in attempts to hold the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department responsible, the parents of Kate Steinle filed suit against the United States of America (federal law enforcement entities’ negligence), the city and county of San Francisco (law enforcement agencies which released Zárate despite an ICE detainer request), Ross Mirkarimi (then-San Fran sheriff), and Zárate. The courts denied the Steinle lawsuit.
Is that a stroke of the California system pushing back against immigration-related features, especially those with which the state refrains from cooperating?
In this particular case, it spit all over Ms. Steinle’s rights.
That says much about our border defenses and threats to national security. In this particular case, it spit all over Ms. Steinle’s rights. Many spoke out against the liberal policies which abound in California, rebuking the Left’s chronic views of gun control. Spoken like a boss, Leah admonished:
https://twitter.com/LeahRBoss/status/936409564240637952
Anyone asserting the Justice Department is only going after Zárate because he is an illegal immigrant whose sanctuary city was non-compliant with federal codes is relatively accurate. For a San Francisco jury to find Zárate innocent of life-taking criminality is preposterous. The smack-on-the-hand singular charge of felon in possession of a firearm was an obvious conviction. So were most of the charges leading to Ms. Steinle’s death.
Thus the fundamental principle that Justice is in the business to mete-out justice. Despite the menial conviction on the singular charge, it appears a would-be impartial jury adjudicated a sanctuary city inhabitant who happened to dig the deepest hole imaginable (taking a life).
Addressing the unexpected acquittal, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote: “The Department of Justice will continue to ensure that all jurisdictions place the safety and security of their [citizens’] communities above the convenience of criminal aliens.”
That “convenience” is defined by the criminal alien killer being defended by the San Francisco Public Defender‘s office chief attorney, Matt Gonzalez, who managed to woo the jury. Or was it simply a philosophical alliance among jurists and defense counsel rooted in anti-immigration platforms? That same public defender was not only a convenience for Zárate but also a courtroom masseuse. Through my eyes –the optics of a cop– imagery of Zárate’s defense attorney cradling the back of his jail-issued jumpsuit while being addressed by the judge was appalling. Footage of Zárate’s lawyer smiling at him while placing a comforting hand upon his shoulder is disgusting.
I can see why the jury denied conviction of murder, as that charge requires premeditation and a ricocheting bullet dispels the possibility.
I can see why the jury denied conviction of murder, as that charge requires premeditation; a ricocheting bullet largely dispels the possibility. However, the manslaughter charge was entirely applicable, since Zárate befit California’s statute. As articulated by FederalCharges.com,
“Manslaughter in California is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without premeditation, malice or deliberation. Manslaughter falls into two categories: voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter is characterized by the killing of a human being at the time of committing a felony or during an altered psychological state.”
I can only imagine the pitted gut of both Mr. and Mrs. Steinle watching that courtroom display as the judge and jury were present while “justice” for their slain daughter was blatantly denied. Similarly, the law enforcement officials involved in the Kate Steinle investigation must’ve been sickened to witness their suspect being coddled by defense counsel –as if a pious prophet stood before the bench– while the jury seemingly shrugged it away.
The San Francisco Police Officers Association (SFPOA) weighed-in with a pointed statement, saying,
“Out of the 300 plus sanctuary cities in this country, why is it that San Francisco has had four innocent victims murdered in cold blood, in the past eight years, by illegal aliens who should not have been here in the first place? This does not happen in other Sanctuary Cities. Why is that? The City that claims that it knows how? Well they got it wrong again.”
AG Jeff Sessions issued a metaphorical finger wag, saying, “I urge the leaders of the nation’s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.” And that speaks to the issue of what the Trump Administration and DoJ have been seeking to achieve all along. Still are.
The sanctuary city political ideological argument is so in-your-face absurd, defined by Kate Steinle’s short-lived life. But what is even more absurd is if, in fact, the jury went soft by intent. Was the jury’s decision to kid-glove Zárate a swipe at President Trump and federal immigration and naturalization codes?
On the heels of then-San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi releasing Zárate, leading to Steinle’s death, newly-elected San Fran Sheriff Vicki Hennessy struck a more “workable” accord with respect to how her agency handles immigration enforcement involving federal and state authorities.
“Hennessy will need to find a policy that serves her job as the city’s top jailer. Those duties honor Sanctuary City guidelines barring routine notification to federal agents of an arrestee’s status but do not cut off all communication. Mirkarimi had adopted his own rigid policy with tragic results,” wrote the San Francisco Chronicle.
Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan related to Fox News Neil Cavuto: “The city of San Francisco, a so-called sanctuary city, ignored our request to turn this person over to us. [Zárate] should have been in Mexico [again] rather than killing this young lady.
“They ignored [all clear and present dangers] and released him back in the community, releasing a public safety threat back into the public. It was wrong. It was stupid,” crystallized Director Homan.
No matter what side of the sanctuary-city coin one values more, how could there be any possible argument against what Director Homan said? One life is lost. The accused’s life is preserved. He gets a mere slap on the hand. And life in California goes on, status-quo.
“The Steinle case is surely a watershed… It will make the sanctuary city crowd accountable because the parents of Kate Steinle are suing the city of San Francisco. Good. It's about time the victims got justice." pic.twitter.com/CSXM9HlQiZ
— USA Association 🇺🇸 (@USAAssociation) December 3, 2017
A poll posted by Congressman Vern Buchanan (R – FL) asked the question: “Should the Justice Department pursue federal charges against Jose Ines Garcia Zaráte after his not guilty verdict?” (As of this writing, a remarkable 34 percent said “No”.)
The recent SCOTUS decision to support President Trump by giving him the Win in the Travel Ban column stems the tide of not only immigrants but those who may harbor hearts of terrorists. Supplementing this latest victory is a significant decline in refugee admissions to the United States.
A CNSNews.com report indicates an 83 percent plummet in those applicants permitted into America, coupled with the Trump Administration’s withdrawal from the United Nations. As Patrick Goodenough wrote, “fourteen months after the Obama administration backed a push at the UN for global responsibility-sharing for refugees and migrants, the Trump administration has pulled out of the initiative.”
And that speaks to the potential of a California jury empaneled for the State of California v. Jose Ines Garcia Zárate prosecution. Are California residents largely supporting sanctuary city status and thus upholding that philosophy via presiding as jurors? Are jurors swayed by liberal leanings and opposed to the Trump Administration’s full-bore immigration enforcement initiatives, to the point of perjury?
As President Donald Trump said many times throughout this travesty of justice, “But where was the sanctuary for Kate Steinle?” Presiding Judge Samuel Feng admonished the jury against factoring the politicization surrounding the Steinle killing, especially President Trump often invoking Kate Steinle’s name in national security dialogue. Clearly, that is a part of a judge’s job: to keep the waters from tainted thoughts.
“The political dynamics had no bearing on Garcia Zarate’s culpability for Steinle’s death,” the San Francisco Gate editorial board wrote, adding “But that does not mean, in the aftermath of the trial, that sanctuary cities — and now the state of California, with its sanctuary policy — should be satisfied that they have struck the right balance for public safety.”
But the political dynamics were abundantly loud and clear from the mouths of Zárate’s defense team declaring victory while denouncing President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions, throwing more shade than what is on the dark side of the moon.
In the words of US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, remaining in the Global Compact on Migration “is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”
https://twitter.com/GartrellLinda/status/938255046067806208
According to the Media Research Center, “The GOP’s new tax plan includes a nuanced, all but unnoticeable provision allowing millions of illegal aliens to claim tax credits for their children at taxpayer expense.” That is a handsome prospect for illegal aliens squatting in California’s safe-place sanctuaries while teething on federal benefits. Enough to sway a jury to betray their sworn oath to objectively meet-out justice? Maybe.
Voir Dire
California’s jury pool process has the following oath taken before trials are commenced:
“Do you, and each of you, understand and agree that you will accurately and truthfully answer, under penalty of perjury, all questions propounded to you concerning your qualifications and competency to serve as a trial juror in the matter pending before this court, and that failure to do so may subject you to criminal prosecution?”
It is similar language in other states. It is free of ambiguity and/or complex legalese.
WSJ‘s Riley summed-up well when he asserted,
“San Francisco jurors who went easy on Mr. Garcia Zárate haven’t made public their reasoning, and maybe they never will. But don’t rule out jury nullification. The president is deeply unpopular in the City by the Bay, where less than 10% of voters supported his presidential bid. Kate Steinle may also have been a victim of ideologically driven jurors looking to send a message to the president.”
God help us.
Can a jury pool fool the system’s intent based on personal feelings or ethno-centricity or cultural divide or political power-plays? Is a juror’s oath less valued than what he/she deems pertinent to local justice versus national security? Did the jury simply…sell-out? Solidarity that strong in Cali?
Both criminal prosecution and civil tort claims were denied in California. All Mr. and Mrs. Steinle have to hold on to is the memory deposited by their daughter Kate.
Pursuant to Courts.Ca.Gov. outlining juror responsibilities, it is conveyed:
“…you should think seriously about the oath before taking it. The oath means you give your word to reach your verdict upon only the evidence presented in the trial and the court’s instructions about the law. You cannot consider any other evidence and instruction other than those given by the court in the case before you. Remember that your role as a juror is as important as the judge’s in making sure that justice is done.”
Is it possible the prosecution could have erred in putting on its case, causing the jury to come back with the acquittal of Zárate? Of course, yet I can not fathom that they couldn’t profoundly assert the Manslaughter charge whereby there was no doubt in any juror’s mind as to its applicability. And that invokes the question: What happened?
As a policeman often in court always paying acute attention to both prosecutorial pursuits and defendants’ disclaimers, the good-guys side didn’t always impress before the bench. To the following analysis authored by former prosecutor/defense attorney Jenna Ellis, I fully concur:
“If the prosecutors in the Steinle case had not overplayed their hand and had charged only what they could actually prove absent a politically motivated jury, they may indeed have secured a conviction beyond possession of an illegal weapon. Many people wondered why Zárate wasn’t convicted of a lesser offense, such as manslaughter.”
As I’ve mentioned earlier, charging murder (premeditation at its core) was never the way to go, but the Steinle prosecution went all in and came out mostly empty, save the felon in possession of a firearm conviction.
“But when the prosecutor’s theory of the case was that Zárate intentionally pulled the trigger to intentionally kill Steinle, it basically boxed the jury into an all or nothing situation,” Ellis punctuated. While Zárate’s defense team has been hugging the media mic aplenty, the prosecution has been largely silent.
Is sanctuary city blood really that thick?
