I Saw the Kate Steinle Murder Trial Up Close (Alternate Juror Speaks Out)

a reply to: face23785

I feel the jury was a bit naive in believing he found the gun after 6 people had been in that area for an extended time just before the shooting, but that's not really critical to the involuntary manslaughter charge anyway. They did right given what they had.

Yes, the jury did do right. It really isn't a matter of what the jury believes... only what the prosecutor has proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. If another scenario is just as possible -- not likely, not reasonable, not believable, but simply possible -- then the prosecutor did not prove his case and the jury must vote to acquit.

I really have to lay the blame solely on the prosecutor, whether intentionally or unintentionally it was a helluva blunder.

I don't think it was a blunder. The prosecutor presented the case he wanted to present for his own reasons and purposes, and it happens all the time.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where half will applaud the prosecutor and half will attack the prosecutor for their own reasons -- truth be damned! The prosecution did the same thing in the George Zimmerman (Trayvon) trial, over-charging and even refusing to answer jury questions while deliberating. The thing is, the same people applauding that verdict are the same people screaming from the rooftops about this one... and vice versa.

It doesn't matter what or who anyone believes. All that matters is what the prosecution and can (and will) prove to the jury based on evidence.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

You're completely correct...blame the prosecution. All along I have been saying that the prosecution/the state did not present a clear cut case with any sort of reasonable attempt to garner a conviction.

This is because California would rather apologize for illegal aliens than seek justice for actual American citizens. I would not be surprised if the prosecution gave this a half-assed attempt from the get go.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I don't know the political leaning of the prosecution, nor should that be a factor. I feel that the prosecution thought that they could present this case and get a conviction based solely upon the merits of the case... Not taking into account that they would actually have to make the case, pound the points home and assure that the defendant was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" of the charges for which he was being prosecuted. They failed utterly.

IMO it's just sloppy law, sloppy research into the charges filed and an even sloppier attempt to prosecute.

The jurors are idiots. That's all there is to it. Logic went out the window with this bunch.

Same story with OJ.

Reverse racism and a desire to send the white man a message.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

You're completely correct...blame the prosecution. All along I have been saying that the prosecution/the state did not present a clear cut case with any sort of reasonable attempt to garner a conviction.

This is because California would rather apologize for illegal aliens than seek justice for actual American citizens. I would not be surprised if the prosecution gave this a half-assed attempt from the get go.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I don't know the political leaning of the prosecution, nor should that be a factor. I feel that the prosecution thought that they could present this case and get a conviction based solely upon the merits of the case... Not taking into account that they would actually have to make the case, pound the points home and assure that the defendant was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" of the charges for which he was being prosecuted. They failed utterly.

IMO it's just sloppy law, sloppy research into the charges filed and an even sloppier attempt to prosecute.

I can agree with most of this, I just find it hard to believe a career prosecutor could be that sloppy on such a major case. It's not like this was a low-profile case they tossed to their rookie prosecutor to gain some experience. Of course that's just my view, there's no evidence he threw the case on purpose. If he didn't, and he's really just that incompetent, he probably should be fired.

San Francisco is a sanctuary city. Who does the Prosecutor work for? Who re-elects the District Attorney? No. The Prosecutor didn't make any mistakes. He got the desired out come.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
San Francisco is a sanctuary city. Who does the Prosecutor work for? Who re-elects the District Attorney? No. The Prosecutor didn't make any mistakes. He got the desired out come.

Actually Prosecutors are scored on how many convictions they get...and on a high profile case like this one, he would have probably gotten a few extra stars on his personnel file. He just goofed up and needs to be replaced. He overreached on the charges.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: JIMC5499
San Francisco is a sanctuary city. Who does the Prosecutor work for? Who re-elects the District Attorney? No. The Prosecutor didn't make any mistakes. He got the desired out come.

Actually Prosecutors are scored on how many convictions they get...and on a high profile case like this one, he would have probably gotten a few extra stars on his personnel file. He just goofed up and needs to be replaced. He overreached on the charges.

Eh, maybe early in their careers. When you get up to this point though, where you're one of the top prosecutors for the DA of a major city, I'd wager politics plays more of a role in further advancing your career than anything else does. For example, if he wants to be DA someday, or mayor, he has to get elected. That won't be based on his conviction rate. It'll be based on his politics. If he got a conviction on this poor illegal immigrant that killed a legal white woman, he wouldn't be too popular with San Fran voters.

A most informative article, and it is so rare to see a jury NOT rubberstamp a poor prosecution. The government failed to prove the charges, and the jury did the right thing.

originally posted by: Salander
The government failed to prove the charges, and the jury did the right thing.

I don't think that they failed, I think that they didn't try to prove the charges.

originally posted by: face23785
. If he got a conviction on this poor illegal immigrant that killed a legal white woman, he wouldn't be too popular with San Fran voters.

It's possible.

I will agree to disagree with you on this one.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: face23785
. If he got a conviction on this poor illegal immigrant that killed a legal white woman, he wouldn't be too popular with San Fran voters.

It's possible.

I will agree to disagree with you on this one.

I'd have to say your impression is possible too. I'll agree to your agreement to disagree. It's certain open to interpretation.