Discussion in 'Trials' started by los2188, Jul 3, 2015.
this is true. he illegally enters.
We need them in this country.
No idea which way a professionally trained jury might have decided the charges, but I'd welcome them in a heartbeat.
Unfortunately, a professional jury would not be a jury of peers which is a right in this country.
Definition of jury of one's peers (from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury+of+one's+peers):
n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. .
RSBM: Thank you. I am not being snarky, and have no idea if you were but... I am well versed in what a jury consists of in this country. My point was that, IMO, it would behoove us to do away with the current system and move to professional juries, like a good number of both European and Asian countries. I'd never want a jury of my "peers" to have to have a crash course in laws, and ultimately have to decide my guilt or innocence.
Also, there is nothing in the Constitution about a "jury of your peers". We are not guaranteed that. We are entitled to a "right of trial by jury."
Not snarky. But, I happen to adhere to the idea that a jury of my peers represents all facets of my community. I think a jury having to have a "crash course" ensures that the law never becomes so out of touch with the common person. We can agree to disagree on this though.
Jury got it right. He clearly had no intention of killing her. The state should have never tried for a murder charge and I believe that was politically motivated.
All facets of my community are NOT my peers. I live in a bad neighborhood. I have nothing in common with drug dealers, petty crooks, nor the other "assorted" odd types.
Sorry, you live where you live. However, your community members are your peers. I am sure that many would say that their pediatrician or whomever is not really a peer either. But, that is how peer is defined with respect to gender, race, economic class etc--cutting across all lines. Your peers would also include people like yourself but maybe not in your close proximity. And, we will just have to agree to disagree on the validity of jury of peers.
Grand Jury indicts Zarate for being a felon in possession of a fire arm and ammunition and for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm and ammunition
And is a right in any other advanced country in the world.
I'm sorry but that is simply not true.
These are more appropriate charges and frankly is what the San Francisco DA should have been aiming towards in the first place. I do think they could have obtained a conviction for a lesser crime of homicide if that had been the theory of the case, but when the prosecutor argues 1st degree murder, I don't blame the jury for finding not guilty on the lesser included homicide crimes as well.
everyone knows what a gun is and what its used for hes a felon///// ive never known a felon not to understand that it can kill you! so how about not picking it up, he should of gotten manslaughter!
Yep, pretty sure everyone regardless of political affiliation thinks the jerk should've been found guilty & punished harshly. Murder is murder & a young life was lost senselessly. Whether the killer was an illegal immigrant, atheist, ISIS soldier, Baptist preacher, neo-Nazi, antifa or LGBT person is secondary. He's a killer first & foremost.
Any law that allows someone to kill without consequence is a law that needs reforming.
Murder is commonly defined by intent, something I'd expect most people around here to be aware of. Don't let bigotry dilute your sleuthing objectivity because (shocking spoiler alert) all borders are imaginary.
Involuntary manslaughter was an option and fit.
those ppl wont be on a jury.
I am a 4th generation San Franciscan, To see whats happened to my city is mind boggling to say the least. This latest insult to our justice system is intolerable. This man that came into our country 8 times prior committed 8 felonies. Yet he came again, took a life, handled a weapon, ran from the law afterwards and is now a free man? He obliterated this family. He should have been given the justice the mexican federals would have administered to us had the roles been reversed. Other than this our community is SPEECHLESS.
We are all shaking our heads in disbelief
this is sort of off topic but illegal entry is not a felony. yes, if you are found to be here illegally you will be deported. but its not a felony and you wont go to prison. you will simply be detained until they deport you.
now this guy has previous actual felonies so I get the outrage. again, they shouldn't have used this case in political platforms. this poor family didn't deserve this stuff.
I agree 100%, but there are always people who will use any situation to further their agenda.