Kate Steinle case comes to a frustrating end.

Jury acquits illegal immigrant charged in San Francisco killing

Trial observers apparently had expected a conviction. The CBS station in San Francisco called the verdict “shocking.” “Stunning,” said the San Francisco Chronicle. Jim Steinle, Kate Steinle’s father, who was with her when she was shot, said he was “saddened and shocked,” the Chronicle reported. “Justice was rendered, but it was not served.”

After deliberations that began on Nov. 21, Garcia Zarate, 45, a Mexican citizen, was found not guilty of murder, as well of the lesser charges of involuntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon. He was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which carries a sentence of up to three years. Federal immigration officials said they would now deport Garcia Zarate.

That would be his sixth deportation over the past several decades. After each of the first five deportations, he managed to come back into the U.S., which is part of what made the case such a cause for Trump and others.

Several things come to mind here.

First is the fact that the defendant in this case changed his story in midstream. Originally stating that he shot the gun at seals and that a stray bullet accidentally struck the victim, and then later stating that he found the gun, picked it up, and it accidentally went off. Not only does neither story appear very credible, the very fact that the defendant has two stories erases any credibility.  I wonder out loud, if the jury was allowed to know that the story changed?

Secondly, the situation appears textbook involuntary manslaughter even if you determine that the shooting was accidental. The fact that he was in possession of a illegal weapon (as determined by the jury) is a criminal offense. When someone dies because of other criminal actions, generally the person committing said crime is held accountable. I wonder out loud, if there is some exception to this reasoning as it pertains to possessing illegal firearms, or to what the degree the jury was instructed to consider involuntary manslaughter.

Lastly, it makes you wonder if this is just a case of jury nullification. Did the jury specifically ignore the laws and the facts, and render a not-guilty verdict because of the politics of the situation. Perhaps feeling that convicting an illegal immigrant such as this would harm the Sanctuary city cause, and provide critics (and the President) with a victory? This was, after all, a jury of San Francisco residents, not exactly the most conservative in the nation.

Bottom line is this is has to be considered a step back for our criminal justice system. Kate Seinle is dead because she was shot in the back by a bullet from illegally obtained firearm, discharged while in the hands of a criminal alien, who was (at the time) being protected from deportation by a sanctuary city. A jury from said city apparently found that nobody was to blame, certainly not the criminal alien who shot her.