Judge ready to hear trial in Steinle’s pier killing

Jury selection could begin within weeks in the San Francisco murder case that sparked a national debate over immigration policies, with the case moving a step closer to trial Friday.

More than two years after 32-year-old Kate Steinle was shot on Pier 14 by a Mexican citizen who had been wanted for deportation by federal agents, the case was assigned to Superior Court Judge Samuel Feng, who is expected to preside over pretrial legal motions Monday. No trial date has been set.

Steinle was strolling with her arm around her father when a bullet pierced her back on July 1, 2015. Police arrested Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, 54, who admitted to handling the gun that fired the round.

The gun had been stolen from a Bureau of Land Management ranger’s car four days earlier in the city, and Lopez Sanchez, who was homeless, said he found the weapon wrapped in a T-shirt under a bench. His attorneys say the shooting was an accident, but prosecutors say he committed murder because he either aimed the gun at Steinle or recklessly fired the weapon in a crowded area.

Lopez Sanchez had been on track for a sixth deportation after serving 46 months in prison for felony re-entry into the country, but was released from the San Francisco jail before the shooting, rather than being turned over to immigration agents, under the city’s sanctuary policies.

He had been transferred from federal custody to the city jail in March 2015 on an old warrant alleging he fled marijuana charges in 1995. When prosecutors discharged the case, the Sheriff ’s Department released him despite a federal request to hold him for deportation.

Lopez Sanchez’s public defender, Matt Gonzalez, said jury selection could prove difficult because of the publicity around the case. But he believes his client will be able to obtain a fair trial.

“It’s expected that the people of San Francisco will have heard of this case and will have read about it,” he said. “I don’t think that makes you ineligible to be a juror. I think the real question is whether or not those jurors haven’t read so much information that their mind is made up, that they can’t re-evaluate the facts of the case.”