Steinle verdict elicits strong reactions
Incredible job
I have one thing to say about the Kate Steinle decision: Matt Gonzalez did an incredible job for his client. Barbara Tetzlaff, San Francisco
Shameful jury
I don’t understand how a young person in the prime of her life can be murdered by a multiple-convicted felon and then somehow a jury finds the defendant not guilty of murder. What kind of message are we sending here? That politics and the desire to thwart President Trump is more important than human life itself ?
This will not bode well for the concept of law and order, which will end up destabilizing society itself and bring chaos, and anyone can now randomly kill with no fear of the consequences. The jury should be deeply ashamed.
Michael Pravica, Henderson, Nev.
D.A. office’s failure
The Kate Steinle court verdict was a failure of the San Francisco district attorney’s office. Knowing the evidence and the facts before starting the court case, the D.A. must understand what the defense will use to convince the jury. The team at the D.A.’s office must have known based on the evidence that they had a very weak murder case.
Gary Chin, South San Francisco
Real negligence
It’s high time that Congress act to override local sanctuary city laws. Not only was this criminal in this country illegally, and for the fifth time, but in addition he had been under arrest for selling marijuana but had been released three months prior to the shooting and allowed to remain free because of San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy. While I can understand how the jurors might acquit him of murder, how could they not find him guilty of manslaughter, or at least criminally negligent homicide?
The guilt for this young woman’s death extends to local officials, by virtue of their refusal to cooperate with the federal immigration authorities. The line has been drawn. When someone from a foreign nation is allowed to enter and remain in this country illegally and to commit a violent crime against one of its citizens, the needs of the society as a whole outweigh local political and social agendas. For the federal government not to take action to protect our citizens is to fail to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, duties enshrined in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Such failure, in and of itself, amounts to criminal negligence.
Joel Bromberg, Narrowsburg, N.Y.
Thoughts on jurors
Many years ago, I was a young lawyer in San Francisco. I had a few early successes in trial work and naturally thought my jurors were great. I spoke on this subject to Victor Campilongo, who was then presiding judge of San Francisco Superior Court. I told him that “I really like San Francisco jurors.” His only comment was “You haven’t seen as many as I have.”
Tim Arneson, Anacortes, Wash.
Reckless employee
Regarding “Justice is not served” (Editorial, Dec. 1): The “not guilty” verdict for the senseless murder of Kate Steinle concerned the actions of an undocumented immigrant who found and fired a gun. But why haven’t prosecutors brought charges against the federal Bureau of Land Management agent whose weapon was stolen?
He left a loaded gun in a backpack stashed under the front seat of his SUV while having dinner with his family on the Embarcadero. Weren’t his actions an endangerment to the public, since the vehicle could have been (and was) broken into? Perhaps the Steinle family will get some justice in a lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management and its reckless employee.
Joshua Donahue, Montara
Difficult decision
If you have ever served on a jury you should know that the heartbreaking Kate Steinle case is not about a Mexican man in the country illegally sent to sanctuary-city San Francisco on an expired marijuana conviction, the lack of a court order from immigration to prevent his release, the theft of a legal firearm from a parked car, and the killing of a young woman on a pier. No matter how difficult the decision may be, each juror is required to determine innocence or guilt based on the evidence presented ... period.
Eleanor Cohen, San Francisco
Regain coherence
The Kate Steinle murdertrial outcome provides insight into how the bullying of the President Trump era is further distorting the relationship between the personal and the political in contemporary America. How does a ricocheting bullet that killed a bystander lead to a murder indictment? Answer: The purveyor is Mexican, undocumented, poor and homeless. How does the death of Kate Steinle not lead to conviction on involuntary manslaughter? Answer: In the environment of liars, xenophobes and terrorizing bullies using their immense political power to tear apart the already fractured seams of American culture, the public is going to resist.
The jury, San Francisco, the state of California and the American people won’t be cowed as the Germans were. People are responding to Fox, President Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Steve Bannon and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell because they have no real choice. Note that Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, on the face of the evidence, was responsible for Steinle’s death, and had the prosecutors not brought aggressive murder charges, he might have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. It gets personal, and it’s not about the right versus the left. It’s about how do we, humans, regain social coherence as a culture in the midst of the willful arrogance and evils of sociopathic fascism. Marc Sapir, Berkeley
Jury was correct
A child could have found that gun and discharged it accidentally. The jury was correct in making its finding. Justice did prevail. It is a very sad situation, but it was caused by the initial theft of the firearm. To blame it on sanctuary city policy aims at the wrong target.
Jane Sooby, Santa Cruz
Slap on the wrist
Once again, a liberal jury has let a killer off with a slap on the wrist. When will it end? Only in San Francisco. Sad day for a wonderful family.
Dan Gracia, Daly City
Sanctuary cities
The murder of Kate Steinle is secondary to San Francisco politicians. The real issue to the city of San Francisco is “sanctuary cities.” The two questions in my mind are: Were the potential jury members asked if they believed in sanctuary cities? When will the next undocumented terrorist who quietly resides in San Francisco kill again?
Jeanne Penrose, Novato
Weeds of injustice
The Kate Steinle verdict came in and provoked reactions across the spectrum. That’s not surprising given the controversial themes involved. Nor is it surprising that the president couldn’t seem to let it go without comment, and that’s the sad part. Fortunately, in the U.S., we don’t decide guilt or innocence by tweet. We have a system of justice that operates within a set of rules designed to promote fair and unbiased adjudications. Anyone who has ever served as a juror knows that a trial is a careful and purposeful process, strictly focused on relevant facts, guided by the law and culminating in an informed decision by ordinary people.
Yes, there are always a few outcomes that we don’t like, don’t agree with, or don’t understand, but we expect more from our leaders. The action of an elected representative and public leader seeking to subordinate a jury’s decision to bias-based opinion and speculation for the sole purpose of projecting power not only undermines centuries of judicial progress but also fertilizes the weeds of injustice.
Mike Walsh, Oakland