Why a San Francisco jury might have found reasonable doubt in the widely publicized prosecution of an illegal immigrant over a young woman’s death. [Sarah Rumpf, RedState]
Why a San Francisco jury might have found reasonable doubt in the widely publicized prosecution of an illegal immigrant over a young woman’s death. [Sarah Rumpf, RedState]
31 Comments
At a minimum, it looks like involuntary manslaughter should have been open-and-shut. The reality of playing with a gun on a crowded pier should support higher homicide charges.
It was illegal for him to possess the weapon; it was illegal for him to play with it; it was illegal for him to even be in the country.
The policies of SF are directly responsible for the death of Ms, Steinle. I hope DOJ prosecutes this guy to the fullest extent of the law and he serves at least 25 years.
Illegal aliens in possession of a gun should face stiff mandatory minimum sentences.
The felon in possession issue and his immigration status are not relevant to any of the homicide charges the jury had to consider.
For involuntary manslaughter, the jury would have to find his actions to be reckless.
Personally, taking his story at face value that: he knows nothing about guns, he found an abandoned gun. I would consider the mere fact that he touched it, not knowing where it come from or it’s condition (either operating state or state of repair) to be reckless.
However, the prosecution attempted to go after recklessness with a ridiculous argument, that the defendant was playing Russian roulette in a public space with a semi-automatic pistol.
A higher level of homicide would require some level of intent. As the victim in this case was not shot directly but hit by a ricochet, that would be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
I’m not impressed with the clickbait title: “Have We Been Lied to About the Kate Steinle Case?”
Lied to about what? The prosecutor did push the murder charge, but the jury had the option of choosing involuntary manslaughter. The author seems to assume the jury is so stupid they couldn’t have possibly chosen that option unless the prosecutor told them to.
Not sure if it’s true, but I have also read that the jury weren’t even told that the guy was an illegal immigrant. So what are the options now? Deport the guy? And when he comes back, the city of San Francisco will apologize to him and pay him a settlement?
“I have also read that the jury weren’t even told that the guy was an illegal immigrant.”
And why should they have been? Is that relevant to the crime? Are you implying that the jury would have convicted him if they had known he was an illegal immigrant? That’s exactly why they AREN’T told.
“So what are the options now? Deport the guy?”
The guy is going to be deported after he finishes his felon-in-possession-of-firearm sentence (which might already be over since he spent 2 years awaiting trial, although it’s possible the judge will give more than 2 years.)
I can see why a ricochet shot on a gun with a hair trigger and no safety (even if that’s not true, it’s apparently what the jury heard evidence of) might lead a jury to believe there was reasonable doubt – especially if the prosecution foolishly decided to spend its time on other charges.
His immigration status is relevant in this respect. He had been deported and returned five times. Returning after you have been deported is a felony. So that is all part of his criminal history, and shows his overall regard for the law. Any other criminal history would certainly be admissible, so why not this?
“Returning after you have been deported is a felony. So that is all part of his criminal history, and shows his overall regard for the law. Any other criminal history would certainly be admissible, so why not this?”
There are exceptions, but generally criminal history is not admissible as evidence of guilt.
It can be admissible to impeach the defendant’s testimony if they testify on their own behalf. And it can be admitted for consideration on sentencing.
OK I’m no lawyer, but if that’s true, then every court drama I ever watched was wrong?
If someone is on trial for murder, then previous crimes, like thefts, assaults, etc would not be disclosed to the jury? I find that very hard to believe.
“I can see why a ricochet shot on a gun with a hair trigger and no safety”
No safety is typical of guns used by law enforcement. Though they usually have relatively heavy trigger pulls to compensate. (The Glock’s used by NYPD reportedly have a 20lb trigger pull)
This would partly explain the poor shooting performance repeatedly demonstrated in the field by many large police departments.
A light trigger is preferable for accurate controlled shooting, but a light trigger and no safety is a dangerous combination.
It’s possible the BLM Ranger whose gun it was had the weapon modified for a lighter trigger pull.
Does anyone know what the BLM Service Weapon was? The linked article was the first I’d read identifying it as a Sig. I’d gues the P226? That weapon does NOT have a hair trigger, and is damned hard (absent mechanical failure, nearly impossible) to cause it to fire without a finger or other something depressing the trigger.
Sure, placing the weapon in single action by going to the effort to physically cock the hammer (which takes a bit of effort completely independent of pulling the trigger) reduces the needed trigger pull, but even in single action the trigger pull is on par with the stock trigger pull of many single action only or SA/DA revolvers in single action mode.
and Matt, the stock Glock trigger is aprox 5.5#, about 25% heavier than the Sig in single action mode. The NY trigger (technically, NY1) is 8# and the alternate NY trigger is 11# (NY-2). That’s comparable to a typical double action revolver pull around 12# +/-. https://us.glock.com/products/model/g17 The Glock, of course, has no option to “cock the hammer” and place it in single action mode.
A 20# trigger would go a long way towards explaining why that force can’t seem to hit their target, but rather some one or thing in the vicinity instead.
Charactering pulling a 4.4# trigger as a firearm failure after first placing the weapon in single action mode and your finger on the trigger is like starting your car, putting it in gear, and then claiming defect when you take your foot off the brake. Sure, you may not have meant to do it, it could be an “accident”, but it was no failure of the device in question, rather it was a failure of the idiot using it.
“The linked article was the first I’d read identifying it as a Sig. I’d gues the P226? That weapon does NOT have a hair trigger”
It may not come stock with a hair trigger, but there are plenty of custom gun shops that do after market mods. One of the most popular mods for competition shooters is reducing the trigger pull.
“Charactering pulling a 4.4# trigger as a firearm failure”
According to the defendant, he didn’t knowingly put his finger on the trigger. His story which the jury obviously accepted as credible is that he fumbled the gun and it went off.
A cocked gun without a proper safety can be set off by a sharp jarring force.
“Sure, placing the weapon in single action by going to the effort to physically cock the hammer ”
I’d have to look that up, but isn’t a double action semi-auto pistol a contradiction in terms. If the slide has been pulled back to chamber a round the weapon should be fully cocked.
The weapon used was a Sig Sauer P239.
source: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/25/the-steinle-case-a-puzzle-that-evokes-our-fears/
(Google for other sites that say the same.)
According to Sig Sauer, in dual action mode, the tripper pull is 10 pounds. In single action mode, it is 4.4 pounds.
Okay, fine.
1. The stock trigger pull data does not address the possibility that the ranger had it modified aftermarket.
2. A cocked gun with no safety can go off without the trigger being pulled at all in the right circumstances.
3 I still can’t wrap my head around how a double action semi-auto pistol could possibly be a thing. That simply doesn’t make any sense to me.
It’s interesting, and in my mind a miscarriage of justice, that the jury asked to try the trigger pull themselves and the judge refused!!
http://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Jury-reaches-verdict-in-killing-of-Kate-Steinle-12396509.php
Matt, many (most, perhaps) semi-automatic handguns are DA/SA, in that the first shot (assuming you do not manually cock the hammer) is Double Action, and each successive shot is single action, the hammer having been cocked by the operation of the slide. There are some – the classic 1911 for instance, which are SAO only, meaning pulling the trigger is incapable of pulling the hammer back – it has to be done manually, or the weapon won’t fire. and then, there are Glocks and their bretheren which don’t have a conventional hammer at all, but are probably best thought of as DAO only (albeit DAO with an SA-like trigger pull).
The SIg P239, like all Sigs, has a firing pin block to prevent accidental discharge of the weapon when the trigger is not depressed – even in single action. I obviously do not recommend, but dropping the firarm on the hammer, while cocked into single action mode, should not cause the weapon to go off, nor should hammering on the weapon with a hammer. Rotating the trigger mechanism to fire with your finger or other object both releases the hammer and pushes the firing pin block out of place so the pin can be driven forward and strike the primer of the cartridge.
Even if the trigger had been modified to reduce its draw weight, it would still be necessary to place a finger (or other opject) on the trigger and move it back to the fire position to cause a discharge.
But since the general public doesn’t understand firearms, I can hardly expect a CA jury to. Particularly with those misleading statistics about “accidental discharge” being bandied about. I worked at a firearms store whose sister location had an accidental discharge by a law enforcement officer. He stuck his firearm in a three point retention holster it was not designed for (against recommendation), and discharged the weapon in the effort to remove firearm from holster. There was no mechanical failure of the firearm, the failure was the officer placing his finger on the trigger while trying to extricate it from a holster that didn’t accomodate it. Not that you need not curl your finger around the trigger to fire – if you use enough force (most frequently, with the adrenalin pumping) having your finger laid across the side of the trigger, pushing inward, can do it. I suspect that how most of the “accidental” discharges occur – officers with their fingers in position they shouldn’t be, unaware they were depressing the trigger mechanism.
“Matt, many (most, perhaps) semi-automatic handguns are DA/SA, in that the first shot (assuming you do not manually cock the hammer) is Double Action, and each successive shot is single action, the hammer having been cocked by the operation of the slide.”
Except you have to manually operate the slide to chamber the first round.
How is it possible that the operation of the slide by recoil cocks the hammer, but manual operation of the slide does not? That’s what I don’t get.
“I obviously do not recommend, but dropping the firarm on the hammer, while cocked into single action mode, should not cause the weapon to go off, nor should hammering on the weapon with a hammer.”
Shouldn’t and can’t aren’t the same thing. Shouldn’t implies that a discharge under such conditions is unlikely but not impossible.
Nothing is impossible. HIGHLY, HIGHLY IMPROBABLE, yes. In the absence of a mechanical break in the firing pin block – testimony not offered at trial – I am left with the conclusion that it is orders of maginitude more likely than not that this defendant’s finger was on the trigger when the firearm discharged. Whether he manually set the weapon to single action mode by manipulating the slide to chamber a round, manually set it to single action mode by thuumbing the hammer, or (if you assume people just randomly dispose of high quality, high priced semi-automatic handguns at random for people to pick up already chambered and set to single action (hammer cocked) which the defendant just happened to pick up – there is absolutely no reason to believe his finger wasn’t on the trigger when it discharged.
You Tube video starting at 1:57 for firing pin block
Yes, there is the possibility that the stolen weapon was improperly and against department policy taken somewhere to have a trigger job done, and its remotely possible that said person “forgot” to re-install the automatic firing pin block, and that the internal pieces somehow managed to all be in just the right alignment for the weapon to discharge – but such an event would certainly be worthy of mentioning to the jury, and wasn’t… HIGHLY, HIGHLY Improbable.
That’s not “reasonable doubt”.
Matt …”How is it possible that the operation of the slide by recoil cocks the hammer, but manual operation of the slide does not? That’s what I don’t get.”
The Sig 239 has a manual decocker that safely lowers the hammer after racking the slide to load a round in the chamber. At that point, it’s in double action mode (round in the chamber, hammer down). After the first round is fired, the hammer is locked back with each subsequent shot being in single action mode. Afterwards, the decocker is used to lower the hammer to prevent an accidental discharge placing the weapon back in double action mode.
Not having a manual safety is irrelevant, in that the DA/SA mode is considered the safety on this type of firearm.
“The Sig 239 has a manual decocker that safely lowers the hammer after racking the slide to load a round in the chamber.”
IF that’s a manual process that the user must explicitly perform, then I think in this case, where it was a stolen gun, and they didn’t even charge the defendant with stealing the gun to counter the defense claim that he found the gun under a park bench, unless there is some way to tell after the fact, the presumption should be that the weapon was fully cocked.
That still leaves the presumption his finger was on the trigger when the gun functioned as it was mechanically designed to do… Negligent Homicide.
I’m unsure why you would presume a firearm stolen from someone’s vehicle, and in some person’s possession for a period of time before being used in this case would be left cocked – or why you seem so eager to believe that it might have discharged through no fault of the defendent’s, yet didn’t in all the intervening hours between its theft and its use. There seems to be a real reach for mitigating circumstances here that neither defense, nor prosecution, saw fit to offer at trial. That seems to me to be “unjust”.
“That still leaves the presumption his finger was on the trigger when the gun functioned as it was mechanically designed to do… Negligent Homicide”.
I agree, this should be negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.
The prosecution didn’t charge negligent homicide and while involuntary manslaughter was included as a lesser included charge, the prosecution focused on first degree murder.
“*I’m unsure why you would presume a firearm stolen from someone’s vehicle, and in some person’s possession for a period of time before being used in this case would be left cocked – or why you seem so eager to believe that it might have discharged through no fault of the defendent’s”
I don’ necessarily believe it discharged on it’s own. But for the prosecution to prove murder he would have to prove that it was discharged intentionally and he made the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard to try to convince the jury of that. The prosecutor argued that the defendant was playing Russian roulette with a semi-auto pistol.
I have doubt about it having been stolen at all.
And there is no evidence at all, that the gun was in the defendants possession for more than a few minutes.
While the ranger reported it stolen, the prosecution never charged the defendant in the death of Kate Steinie with stealing the gun. From that I take that they never had any evidence to support such a charge. Such a charge and evidence to support it, would have gone a long way to discrediting the defendant’s claim to have found the gun under the park bench.
It’s possible the ranger simply lost the gun, and reported it stolen to cover his own ass for losing his weapon.
Headline writers will do clickbait, yes. I interpreted the “lied to” as meaning that third-party commentators had misstated key elements of the case, rather than as a slam on prosecutors.
I haven’t looked into the evidentiary rulings, but Ken White (Popehat), who practices in California criminal defense, said President Trump this morning had slammed the judge for an exclusionary ruling about the defendant’s past that (White said) was entirely routine and would have raised no eyebrows in an ordinary case.
I read Popehat routinely – though not as routinely as here – and don’t recall seeing Ken’s comments since his mention of “Katie’s Law” back in September of 2016. Did you read this in an OpEd he did for a local paper, or somewhere else? I’d be curious as to his take on the case.
Like (I suspect) many, I was shocked at the not guilty verdict on the Involuntary Manslaughter charge, though the not guilty verdicts on the murder charges (again, based on media reports of the crime) seem appropriate to me.
So, if I might prevail upon you for a pointer in the right general direction?
Very best, and thank you.
Never mind, think I found it – or substantially it. I was being lazy, its late. NDT Interview
I was referring to Ken’s comments on Twitter. I see the news story you linked picked up and embedded several of those comments, more here:
https://twitter.com/Popehat/with_replies
For those unfamiliar with firearms, the belief that it must have been an accident because the shot ricocheted is misplaced.
The defendant claimed to be inexperienced with firearms. A very common action by people with little or no firearms experience is to anticipate the recoil, resulting in their pushing the gun forward and down when pulling the trigger. This can cause the bullet to hit the ground ahead if the intended target. I’ve seen people ricochet a bulleted off of the ground this way and still hit their target; many do not even know the bullet ricocheted.
The prosecutor should have countered the defense ricochet argument with testimony from experienced firearm instructors identifying this possibility.
“For those unfamiliar with firearms, the belief that it must have been an accident because the shot ricocheted is misplaced.”
I am not unfamiliar with firearms, though my experience with hand guns is limited and a few decades old.
I have seen nothing in what has been made public that would satisfy me beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun in this case was intentionally discharged at all, much less that the victim was an intended target.
Still, I would have gone for involuntary manslaughter. Given the defendant’s claimed ignorance of guns, plausible because what criminal record he has is entirely non-violent offenses, I would consider him handling the gun at all reckless.
MattS,
Two things:
Earlier you said:
1. The stock trigger pull data does not address the possibility that the ranger had it modified aftermarket.
The data doesn’t, but the trial does. If the pull weight was even less, don’t you think the defense would have brought it in as further proof that the gun had “issues?” If the modification was to make the trigger pull heavier, don’t you think the prosecution would have introduced that to disprove the claims of the defense? Instead, the lawyers all went with the data which shows there was no modification.
Secondly:
Still, I would have gone for involuntary manslaughter. Given the defendant’s claimed ignorance of guns, plausible because what criminal record he has is entirely non-violent offenses, I would consider him handling the gun at all reckless.
California prosecutor Patterico addresses that with the jury instructions:
“Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:
1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury;
AND
2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.
In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.”
Merely picking up the gun is what a reasonable person would do or at the very least it is not outside of what a reasonable person would do.
An alternate juror’s account:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/06/kate-steinle-murder-trial-jury-didnt-botch-216016
Thank you. This comment “The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety.” that I keep seeing repeated – seems to be a mantra for some, I don’t understand where it comes from. One could as accurately say “The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a slender weapon used by some law enforcement for concealed carry that fires in both double action and single action modes, with integral safeties.”
The lack of gun powder residue would seem supportive of claims the weapon was wrapped in a covering of some sort, and lends some credence to claims he may not have known his finger was on the trigger when the weapon discharged. As to the defendent’s own testimony, it is so contradictory I’ve discounted it entirely and focused instead on what the physical evidence revealed.