Judge finds that illegal alien cleared in Kate Steinle killing incompetent to stand trial for gun charges

From SF Gate: A Mexican man illegal alien who was acquitted of killing a woman on a San Francisco pier in a case that became a national flashpoint was found incompetent to stand trial Friday on federal gun charges.

U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria (appointed by Obama) said in a court order that a psychiatric evaluator had concluded Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate was not competent to stand trial “because of mental illness that is not presently being treated.”

Chhabria said he would meet with lawyers from both sides next week to discuss the next steps. If either side objects to the findings, a hearing would likely be required to examine Garcia-Zarate’s competency. If neither side disputes the findings, the court will discuss whether the defendant should be treated locally for mental illness or sent to a federal facility outside California.

Defense attorney Tony Serra said he would contest the finding. “He is entitled to a hearing,” Serra said. “I’m protesting that he is competent enough for this case.”

Friday’s decision is the latest delay to a case that touched off a national debate over immigration and sanctuary city policies.

Garcia-Zarate was due to stand trial in January for two counts of illegal gun possession. But Chhabria postponed the trial for an evaluation amid concerns about his “apparent mental illness.”

President Donald Trump and others in his administration have repeatedly pointed to the case as a reason for toughening the country’s immigration policies. Garcia-Zarate was living in the country illegally and had been deported five times before the shooting.

Jurors in California court found him not guilty of killing Kate Steinle in 2015. But they convicted him of being a felon in possession of a gun, leading to a three-year jail sentence.

A state appeals court threw out the conviction last August, finding that jurors received improper instructions from the trial judge. Federal prosecutors then charged him with gun possession in 2017.

Garcia-Zarate acknowledged holding the gun that killed Steinle. But he said it fired accidentally when he found it wrapped in a T-shirt under a bench on the pier, where Steinle was walking with her father.

The weapon belonged to a U.S. Bureau of Land Management ranger who reported it stolen from his parked car.

The case fueled criticism of San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy, which limits local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities on deportations.

The San Francisco sheriff’s department released Garcia-Zarate from jail several weeks before the shooting despite a federal request to detain him until immigration authorities could take him into custody.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment authors
chemtrailssuckGRIZZKevin J LankfordJackie PuppetDCG Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
She,Her,Mrs
Guest
She,Her,Mrs

90% (?)of draining the swamp involves replacing all these Obama Federal judges, it sure looks like California is key. Who could have imagined, back before our country was a cesspool of illegal immigrants, that criminal illegal aliens would enjoy the freedom to steal, kill and destroy at will? …with the blessing of these judges to remove their crimes, is it any wonder that they settle in sanitary cities, it’s a lawless free for all

She,Her,Mrs
Guest
She,Her,Mrs

..*sanctuary not sanitary …haha

truckjunkie
Guest
truckjunkie

Shouldn’t the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (or more specifically,whoever made the decision to release) be held criminally liable for choosing to release the shooter rather than holding him for Immigration Agents to take custody? Seems pretty clear to me.

Kevin Lankford
Member
Kevin Lankford

Have to wonder how a judge can give a duly appointed jury “improper instructions” when it is the whole purpose of the jury to decide the case on all moral and legal merits, with the legal right to disagree with the law its self.

What is “improper instruction” is judges claiming juries must decide based solely on law, manipulating the jury in to desired out comes, denying the true authority of a jury to judge law as well the fact of a case.

chemtrailssuck
Guest

The jury has to disregard the judge’s instructions. Period.

GRIZZ
Guest
GRIZZ

And the sodomites continue to punish the citizenry.
Bail him out and the Van of Reckoning will be there to pick him up.
Of course I’m driving.
Volunteers will be needed to work the blowtorch

chemtrailssuck
Guest

Just try to emigrate to Mexico, it’s almost impossible to get citizenship in Mexico unless you have a minimum $2000 a month guaranteed “income”. They only want gringoes with dinero.