The Acquittal of José Ines Zarate: Good News?

1.

On November 30th, 2017, a San Francisco jury acquitted José Ines Zarate of the charges of first degree, second degree and involuntary manslaughter in the death of Kate Steinle on July 1, 2015. The death of Ms. Steinle was judged to be an accident. The verdict has received widespread condemnation--I haven't read an account so far that agrees with, much less celebrates the verdict, so I felt it was incumbent on me to write one.  I consider it a triumph of the American justice system; despite ongoing damage to our democracy from Trump and his enablers, twelve jurors, despite the vicious anti-immigration sentiment in the society in which they live, were able to cast their prejudices aside and judge the matter impartially.  It could be that they came to the wrong decision, that is possible; that they examined their consciences and came to the best conclusion of which they were capable, however, seems very likely indeed.  What more can we expect from a jury?  That they apparently were not swayed by public opinion, which in this case was in favor of conviction, is worthy of much praise.

First let me make clear that though I think the verdict most likely to have been just, my sympathies lie with Kate Steinle and her family.  Her death was an enormous loss to them and to those that knew here.  I can understand their sorrow and anger with the verdict. I often think how I would feel if a member of my family had been killed under similar circumstances.  I certainly can picture myself reacting the same way Ms. Steinle's family has.  That doesn't mean I would be right.  After a period of raging grief, I hope I would realize, however, that justice is best served by jurors who take their mandate to adjudicate impartially with the utmost seriousness.  

The jury decided that it was an accident.  An accident means that José Ines Zarate is as responsible for the death of Ms. Steinle as a rock would be, if, propelled by natural forces, had fallen on her head and killed her.

For those unfamiliar with the case, I provide a brief summary: On July 1, 2105, Kate Steinle was walking on a San Francisco pier when she was hit by a bullet and died in the arms of her father.  Zarate had been sitting on a bench when he noticed something under the boardwalk, wrapped in a shirt.  He recovered it; it proved to be a loaded weapon which had been stolen from the police several hours earlier.  The gun went off accidentally; the bullet ricocheted off the boardwalk  before fatally striking Ms. Steinle. Zarate apparently did not aim the gun at anybody. I can't vouch that all this is true, however, but it is quite possibly true; in any case, the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the tragic death had been an accident

The death of Ms. Steinle resulted in a vicious anti-immigrant backlash.  The conservative media circus brought out all its lions, tigers, and bears to denounce Mr. Zarate as a viscous killer. They used this case to demonize immigrants, especially Hispanic immigrants, and have met with much success.  

Zarete was indeed an "undocumented alien," and had been deported five times; he should not have been in the United States.  The unjust accusation, however, that sanctuary cities--ones that refuse to cooperate with summary roundups of undocumented immigrants--were harboring criminals became a rallying cry to foment ant-immigration sentiment in the United States.  Mr. Zarate is perhaps the source of Trump's wild accusations about Mexico during the campaign: "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime.  They're rapists.  And some, I assume, are good people."  Among other inaccuracies in this inflammatory statement, Mexican immigrants commit crimes at half the rate of those born in the U.S.

Fake news!

I must confess that I also believed Zarate was a monster.  I still support the existence of sanctuary cities, due to the monstrous behavior of ICE, agents of which continue, unconscionably, in my opinion, to split up families, members of which had been living together in our country for decades.

My point is this: if something like this case had occurred in the rural South in the 1950s--or even now, for that matter--do you think that a poor black man accused of committing a similar crime would have been acquitted?

2.

You don't have to go back far in time to find occasions in which justice was egregiously unserved.  In 1989, four black teenagers and one Hispanic teenager were convicted in the so-called "wilding" Central Park jogger case.  All were juveniles at the time, and were coerced into false confessions.  The jogger had been brutally beaten and raped.  DNA evidence, however, exonerated all five boys. They were convicted on the basis of their coerced confessions alone.  They languished in jail for thirteen years until the real criminal was found, who had acted alone.  In 2014, the men were awarded 41 million dollars in damages.

On May 1, 1989, Donald Trump took out the following full-page ad in the Daily News

In this ad, Trump wrote, as reported in the Wikapedia "Central Park Jogger Case" article:

Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts.  I do not think so.  I want to hate these muggers and murderers.  They should be forced to suffer...Yes, Mayor Koch, I want to hate these murderers and I always will...How can our great society tolerate the continued brutalization of its citizens by crazed misfits?  Criminals must be told that CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS.

This advocacy for Trial by Prejudice is a very anti-American stance, since the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution requires that "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." (Italics mine).

Trump states that he will always hate the Central Park five, which has been borne out by his subsequent behavior.  Even after it had been proven that the men were innocent, Trump refused to believe it.  In 2016, he stated, "They admitted they were guilty  The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty.  The fact that the case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous.  And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same."

This example of Trump's predilection for trial by prejudice reveals such a deep-seated and obvious racism that no further comment is needed.

Has Trump changed?  If Trump wrote the text of the letter, he has changed indeed. His mental state has deteriorated; his vocabulary is markedly diminished; he often rambles and wanders without making much sense. But he is still basically the same hateful person.  What follows is Trump's tweet after the Zarate verdict: 

The Kate Steinle killer came back and back over the weakly protected Obama border, always committing crimes and being violent, and yet this info was not used in court.  His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice  BUILD THE WALL

Never mind that President Obama deported more illegal residents than any other president so far, including Trump; never mind that Zarate had never been accused of having committed a violent crime; never mind that Zarate has been judged to be innocent, and therefore not a killer.

The triumph of this case, as I see it, is the fact that, despite Trump's continued attempts to erode American values, his attitudes obviously didn't affect the jury in San Francisco.  They were not composed of little Trumps, but of little Lincolns. This is, of course, what juries are supposed to do.  But with Trump as president the bar for good news is very low indeed.  Nevertheless, it is still good news.  

In 1989, trial by prejudice won. In 2017, trial by jury, despite enormous societal prejudice, was victorious.  Perhaps, despite Trump and those who think like him, things are getting better in some respects.  Despite the political mess we are in, there is, perhaps, reason to hope.  Will there be light at the end of Trump Tunnel? I hope so.