Why Kate Steinle trial jurors found suspect not guilty of murder

[TomSea]

Why Kate Steinle trial jurors found suspect not guilty of murder
BY Jessica Schladebeck

An alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial surprised by public backlash at its conclusion is attempting to explain “why the jury was right to make the decision that it did.”

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a Mexican immigrant who had been deported five times from the United States, earlier this month was cleared on first and second-degree murder charges as well as a count of manslaughter in the death of 32-year-old Steinle, who was fatally shot while walking with her father on a pier July 1, 2015.

The fatal incident sparked an intense debate on national immigration at the time, with President Trump citing the shooting for stricter policy during his campaign for the White House.

Read more at: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/kate-steinle-verdict-explained-alternate-juror-article-1.3681041

Reading the rest of the article, it's not a satisfactory explanation but it's something.

[240B]

They found him innocent for only one single reason. That is, to stick it to Trump, and incidentally to the rest of America.


It was not based on Law or Justice, it was a 'finger in the eye' verdict. It was a 'f**k all you guys' verdict.


The verdict had nothing to do with whether or not the guy was guilty. It was purely political.

[dfwgator]

They found him innocent for only one single reason. That is, to stick it to Trump, and incidentally to the rest of America.


It was not based on Law or Justice, it was a 'finger in the eye' verdict. It was a 'f**k all you guys' verdict.


The verdict had nothing to do with whether or not the guy was guilty. It was purely political.

OJ Verdict II - Stick it to Whitey.

[240B]

OJ Verdict II - Stick it to Whitey.

Sort of. I mean I agree with you except the OJ prosecution team was so inept, anyone would have got off the hook with them as prosecutors. And the judge was a joke.


But overall, your point is valid.

[Oceander]

They found him innocent for only one single reason. That is, to stick it to Trump, and incidentally to the rest of America.


It was not based on Law or Justice, it was a 'finger in the eye' verdict. It was a 'f**k all you guys' verdict.


The verdict had nothing to do with whether or not the guy was guilty. It was purely political.

Basic jury nullification

[Suppressed]

He added jurors requested to handle the weapon during deliberations, but the judge turned them down.

Judges' rulings on evidence these days are ridiculous. It's made into a game, with true justice being something viewed as an impediment.

[txradioguy]

Judges' rulings on evidence these days are ridiculous. It's made into a game, with true justice being something viewed as an impediment.

From what I understand the judge excluded most if not all of the evidence the DA could have use to convict this dirtbag.

But then I don't believe the DA really wanted a guilty verdict in the first place.