Garcia Zarate: Prior Convictions Are Best Evidence

 

The Kate Steinle verdict last Thursday by an uninformed San Francisco jury was our criminal justice system’s latest affront to common sense.

Much of the furor about this miscarriage of justice relates to Zarate’s status as an illegal criminal alien who had been deported five times before sneaking back into the country, stealing or possessing a stolen weapon, and killing Kate.

The most outrageous circumstance arising from the trial of Garcia Zarate, however, is that the jurors were not permitted to know the details of Zarate’s seven prior felony convictions, nor were they allowed to know about his five prior deportations.

Zarate had just been released back on the streets of sanctuary city San Francisco on April 15, 2015 after serving a 46-month federal sentence. It only took him 75 days before he committed more felonies, this time resulting in Kate’s death.

The Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, California and other state criminal statutes have codified the following irrationality emanating from Michelson v. United States, 335 US 469(1948): Unless a defendant takes the stand, the jury cannot know about his prior criminal convictions.

Pharisaical law professors and legal apologists are experts on what the law says, but apparently have no sense. They say the defendant’s prior criminal record is not relevant to the charge on which he is being tried, or if relevant, it is outweighed by the resulting prejudice against him.

Baloney.

Imagine being prevented by law from inquiring about your contractor’s record as a builder before he starts on your house. Wouldn’t you like to know if he had built defective houses or declared bankruptcy?

Prior acts and activities of your contractor is probably the best evidence of how he’s going to do building or renovating your house. But, current criminal law provides that if a person is on trial for burglarizing your house, the jury cannot know about his seven prior burglaries unless the evidence is offered to prove motive, system, or intent. In other words, unless the burglar used a distinctive “signature” in his prior burglaries that matched yours.

Jury consultants are paid big bucks to investigate every aspect of prospective jurors’ lives, including work and marital history, social media posts, etc. Thus the defendant, through his lawyers, gets to know everything about each juror. But the juror gets to know nothing about the defendant’s criminal convictions prior to the crime for which he is being tried. Isn’t that backwards?

The US criminal justice system has evolved to become so “enlightened” that the guilt or innocence of the defendant takes a back seat to whether the defendant’s growing number of rights have been protected.

Defendants are presumed innocent of the crime with which they are charged, but are not be entitled to be presumed to be an innocent. Jurors should know about the defendant’s past criminal history regardless of whether he testifies or not.

The criminal jJustice system is also a swamp that needs to be drained.

Published in Law
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 41 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    MichaelHenry:The Kate Steinle verdict last Thursday by an uninformed San Francisco jury was our criminal justice system’s latest affront to common sense.

    The most outrageous circumstance arising from the trial of Garcia Zarate, however, is that the jurors were not permitted to know the details of Zarate’s seven prior felony convictions, nor were they allowed to know about his five prior deportations.

    The Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, California and other state criminal statutes have codified the following irrationality emanating from Michelson v. United States, 335 US 469(1948): Unless a defendant takes the stand, the jury cannot know about his prior criminal convictions.

    Pharisaical law professors and legal apologists are experts on what the law says, but apparently have no sense. They say the defendant’s prior criminal record is not relevant to the charge on which he is being tried, or if relevant, it is outweighed by the resulting prejudice against him.

    Baloney.

    Imagine being prevented by law from inquiring about your contractor’s record as a builder before he starts on your house. Wouldn’t you like to know if he had built defective houses or declared bankruptcy?

    Prior acts and activities of your contractor is probably the best evidence of how he’s going to do building or renovating your house. But, current criminal law provides that if a person is on trial for burglarizing your house, the jury cannot know about his seven prior burglaries unless the evidence is offered to prove motive, system, or intent. In other words, unless the burglar used a distinctive “signature” in his prior burglaries that matched yours.

    I disagree with almost everything in this post.  I also disagree with the jury verdict.  More on that later.

    The number of times a person has been deported has no probative value on whether s crime was committed. Past felonies might make it easier to believe guilt in the current charge, but it is extremely prejudicial.  The problem is that guilt of any crime requires the government to prove guilt that the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.  It is the current crime charged that must be proved.  Proving past crimes has no place in a chain of proof of guilt of the currently charged crime.  the post advocates for conviction by emotion, not logic.

    The analogy about hiring a contractor does not work.  We are not trying to hire the accused.  We are trying to determine whether he is innocent of the specific crime charged.  Withholding from the jury the prior convictions and deportations was right on the law and morally right.

    As for the jury verdict, we do not know why the jury decided as it did.  Based upon what the accused said, he should have been convicted to involuntary manslaughter at least.  However, our system has what has been called “jury nullification” which means that a jury has the power to ignore its instruction on the law and do whatever that jury believes to be just.

    We don’t know why the jury ruled as it did.  Maybe it did not intelligently.  Maybe not.  That point is that one who did not sit through the presentation of evidence in the case has no adequate basis to pass judgment on the jury’s verdict.  Neither you nor I know everything that the jury heard.

    • #1
  2. TempTime Member
    TempTime
    @TempTime

    Good post!   Thanks.

     

    • #2
  3. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    Proving past crimes has no place in a chain of proof of guilt of the currently charged crime. the post advocates for conviction by emotion, not logic.

    This.  The first question put to the jury is whether or not the defendant committed this act, not something else.  “Prior bad acts” are never admitted to the guilt phase of a trial unless certain things occur, or at least they aren’t supposed to be.  If it happens, a mistrial should be declared.  There is a place for this information to be submitted.  That would be in the “guilt phase,” which follows the “penalty phase.”

    Were it otherwise, some people with felony records would live the rest of their lives under the cloud of being convicted, not because s/he did what was charged, but because members of a jury could convict based on the sole idea that “he’s so bad he deserves this.”

    There are other threads currently active on Ricochet, where some people are basically advocating this very thing: the idea that “I feel he’s so bad that he should be punished even if we aren’t sure he did this.”

    I do not understand this jury’s verdict, based on my very limited knowledge of the evidence.  It appears to me that this same approach to law is what led to the jury acquitting: ignoring the evidence based on an emotional response.  Based on what I know, they had to overlook a lot.  But they did.

    • #3
  4. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    The reason prior bad acts are excuses is because of their potential to unfairly bias the jury.  Juries aren’t supposed to decide whether someone is a dirtbag or not.  They’re supposed to make findings of fact as to whether someone did something and if they broke the law by doing it.

    We’ve heard all about how Garcia Zarate’s extensive criminal record.  Except that his extensive criminal record is for drugs and immigration violations.  As far as I know, it doesn’t include violence.

    Your post is a perfect example of why prior bad acts are excluded.  None of his criminal record had anything to do with the crimes he was charged with.  You mentioned how long he spent in jail, and how many prior felony convictions he had.  Those are nice pieces of information. It’s a great way to prejudice a jury.  But you totally failed to mention that they were non-violent crimes, which kinda freakin’ matters if a guy is charged with murder.

    You may have a point about excluding prior bad acts (I tend to disagree with you, but whatever), but you picked the wrong case to make your stand on.

    • #4
  5. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Our system of justice presumes innocence until proven guilty.  The specific crime charged has to have a fact pattern that proves guilt for that crime.  If past crimes can be used in determining guilt, then it would be far too easy to get a conviction even if the facts aren’t sufficient to prove the elements of the crime.

    This murder was settled the same way the jury found OJ Simpson not guilty.  They just wanted to ignore facts.  California schools do not teach logic to young citizens.  For decades all they is progressive advocacy.  Californians are indoctrinated to see everything as a political act and the preferred agenda is progressive.  That indoctrination is why this jury found this obviously guilty man to be not guilty.

    We don’t need to take away safeguards to protect defendants.  We need jurors that can look at facts and judge them accordingly.

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    However, our system has what has been called “jury nullification” which means that a jury has the power to ignore its instruction on the law and do whatever that jury believes to be just.

    I’m a big fan of jury nullification, assuming that the jurors can think logically and rationally to nullify an odious law.  Taking swipes at Trump, or in the case of OJ just acting purely as racists, is not a good reason for jury nullification.

    • #5
  6. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    I have to agree with David Carroll on this one, Michael. The contractor is a poor analogy. I am of the opinion that the prosecution ought to be able to mention that he had seven unrelated prior felonies, that he had been deported five times, and that he was in the US illegally, but I also understand how that prejudices the jury. The fact that the other convictions were unrelated makes me agree they should be excluded from the determination phase. These facts should certainly be available in the sentencing phase. I most thoroughly desire prejudice in sentencing against repeat offenders.

    The real problems here are in the laws and governmental officials that let this guy out on the street in the first place. He has committed seven felonies? I think sentences ought to be doubled each time you come back. You committed a felony and got a year in jail? Next time you commit a felony, whatever the sentence is ought to be doubled. A third felony, four times the standard sentence. And so forth. It’s not as bad as the three strikes and you’re out laws, but if you get up to seven, you have sixty-four times the standard sentence for the felony. Bye-bye!

    Then there are the local officials who knew this guy had seven priors and that he was illegal and knew that ICE wanted him back, and they let him off into the streets. The legislators who came up with the ordinances ought to be sued for everything they have by the Steinle Family and others who have lost to similar crimes. Then they should be barred from ever holding any public office or government job. Those who followed their orders should be fired and barred from public office or future governmental employment. These people are all putting the public at risk. They are negligent.

    I know. Good luck getting those ideas through the legal system.

    In the end in a case like this, it isn’t the criminal, but the officials who let him keep committing crimes who are the problems.

    • #6
  7. Michael C. Lukehart Inactive
    Michael C. Lukehart
    @MichaelLukehart

    I have handled, and tried to many juries, a lot of homicide cases in California.  In this state, mishandling a firearm in such a way that it leads to the death of a human being usually results in a manslaughter conviction of one kind or another.  Mishandling it with demonstrable, or inferable,  malice can, and often does, lead to a murder conviction, even without specific intent to kill.

    The only times I have seen complete acquittals regarding a homicide such as this one is when the prosecution obviously overplays the case, resulting in jury pushback.  I suspect that is the situation here.  From the press reports, a lot of speculative assertions were made by the prosecution.   For one example, trying to tease a first degree murder conviction out of a ricochet shot is problematic, to say the least.

    Any good defense lawyer knows that prosecution overreach is a gift to the defense, and treats it as such.

    • #7
  8. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    I agree with the author Michael Henry on this one.  The reason we don’t let juries know about the defendants prior history, as has been rightly pointed out by several members, is the fear that it will prejudice their decision.   However, a mature and wise adult should be able to discern his prejudices from his rational decisions.  I don’t think the jurors should be handicapped by being deprived of knowledge about the defendant.  I think this is an extremely poor way of trying to control jurors behavior.  This is  the way you would treat little children who have yet to develop critical thinking skills.  Decisions based on  knowledge are always better than those based on ignorance.  Can you imagine making your own life decisions by purposely denying yourself selected information?

    There are certainly cases where the prior history of the defendant is a factor in deciding what actually happened.  In the cases of serial killers, the knowledge that he is one of only a handful of human beings capable of committing heinous acts is a huge factor in deciding if it was he, or perhaps some Carmelite Nun, who stabbed a child fifty times.  This of course, is a very pronounced example, but just look at how police investigators develop suspects for ordinary crimes by looking into the criminal histories of known perpetrators.  Should we handicap police detectives too by denying them background information in the interests of fairness toward the suspect?  I don’t think anybody would agree with that.

    This idea of keeping information out of the courtroom reminds me of something that a Cleveland Municipal Court Bailiff told me nearly 40 years ago.  He said that the general trend in law is to make jurors less and less informed to the point where they don’t know who committed the crime.

    This makes the process less and less transparent.

    • #8
  9. Israel P. Inactive
    Israel P.
    @IsraelP

    If the jurors didn’t know about his record on their own, their civic unawareness alone should have disqualified them.

    The idea that juries have to be composed of ignorant people is absurd.

    • #9
  10. MichaelHenry Member
    MichaelHenry
    @MichaelHenry

    Israel P. (View Comment):

    Israel P.

    If the jurors didn’t know about his record on their own, their civic unawareness alone should have disqualified them.

    The idea that juries have to be composed of ignorant people is absurd.

    Excellent comment, Israel P. You would not want to be judged by today’s juries, because they are not your peers. In 13th Century England, where the jury system originated, “jurors” were locals who knew the defendant and his predilections. Defense lawyers today want the dumbest, least informed, and most gullible jurors they can find in the jury venire. Many jurors in criminal cases are tainted by the “CSI Effect”, which leads them to believe that a defendant leaves a trail of rich microscopic evidence by merely walking through a portion of a crime scene. Jury system and evidentiary rules need to be reformed.

    • #10
  11. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    I agree with @davidcarroll and disagree with the OP.  A string of past convictions is likely to persuade the jury to convict even if there is no evidence that the Defendant committed the crime for which he is being tried.  (That’s what lawyers call “prejudice.”)  But it’s even worse than that, because the first person the police will suspect is someone with a string of past convictions.  There are two safeguards for defendants in our system of criminal justice – the police are supposed to find the right guy, and the jury is supposed to insist on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  Displacing both of these safeguards by just grabbing someone with a past record and convicting him is not how I want the system to work.

    One more thing – When past convictions are relevant at all, it is usually because the identity of the criminal is in dispute.  Here there was no dispute about the identity of Zarate.  The only dispute was over whether the gun went off accidentally.  Unless Zarate has a past history of shooting random people on the street, his past crimes really aren’t very probative on the issue of whether the gun went off accidentally.

    Here’s what I don’t understand though.  If the Defendant testifies at the trial, then past convictions are admissible evidence (because they throw doubt on the Defendant’s credibility as a witness).  In this case, I would think that Zarate must have testified, because I can’t see any other way that the defense could have made the argument that the gun went off accidentally.  So, as usual, we need some decent journalism to tell us what went on.  And, as usual, we aren’t getting it.

    Oh, by the way, I blame the prosecution for overreaching by going for murder rather than manslaughter.  The absence of motive is a real problem in going for a murder charge.  On the other hand, it is entirely possible that a San Francisco jury doesn’t think that killing someone is any big deal, but having possession of an illegal firearm is horrible, horrible!  If the jury is nuts, then all of this post mortem is kind of besides the point.

    • #11
  12. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    I hear and appreciate both sides on the relevance of the defendant’s past.  There has to be some middle ground here.  A person’s past is not irrelevant to his behavior.  Clearly if a person has been convicted of robbing ten people on the street and is caught on vidoe on the eleventh one, and the video quality is a bit murky and ambiguous, then I would say the evidence leans in the guilty side.  No justice is perfect.  We should be looking for the highest probability.  Letting a guilty person go is not justice.

    • #12
  13. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    MichaelHenry (View Comment):
    Defense lawyers today want the dumbest, least informed, and most gullible jurors they can find in the jury venire.

    I firmly believe that jury selection should be extremely limited.  Jurors should be asked if they have family or business relations with the accused, and that’s it.  Jurors should not be allowed to get out of jury duty, and no trial should ever take more than two weeks.  Jurors should have their normal salary paid by the government when empaneled.

    • #13
  14. Michael C. Lukehart Inactive
    Michael C. Lukehart
    @MichaelLukehart

    Skyler (View Comment):

    MichaelHenry (View Comment):
    Defense lawyers today want the dumbest, least informed, and most gullible jurors they can find in the jury venire.

    I firmly believe that jury selection should be extremely limited. Jurors should be asked if they have family or business relations with the accused, and that’s it. Jurors should not be allowed to get out of jury duty, and no trial should ever take more than two weeks. Jurors should have their normal salary paid by the government when empaneled.

    After 285 felony jury trials, including multiple death-penalty defenses and dozens of murder trials, I am firmly convinced that it is the prosecutors who like the dumb ones.  Who else would buy their pet experts citing non-peer reviewed articles?  (“Criminalists” – what exactly are they, anyway? What qualifies one to be a criminalist?  In my jurisdiction, taking a paycheck from the DA is enough.) Who else would get overwhelmed by the emotions of the case?  Who else would buy that line that they are really there to “do something for the victims?”  I prefer educated jurors who can read and understand first level abstract concepts like, say, presumption of innocence, burden of proof, rights of the accused, power of the state.  Crazy, radical ideas like that.

    You want to shorten jury selection?  Every high-stakes defense lawyer I know would be perfectly happy to end the longest part of voir dire – death qualification.  That’s the part of the trial where the prosecution gets to sniff out and excuse for cause each and every juror who has the slightest qualms about giving a death penalty.  In that stage they usually manage to exclude about sixty percent of the jury pool, and it can take months.  Just line me up twelve who really (and I mean “really”) represent the community and I’d be happy.  In just about every murder case I have made the motion to prohibit voir dire by both the DA and myself, and just let the judge ask the statutory questions for cause.  Funny, the DAs who publicly scream the most about delays always oppose this the most vociferously.

    • #14
  15. Randal H Member
    Randal H
    @RandalH

    I was on a local grand jury once. We were able to see the entire criminal history of the person being indicted, and it often seemed pertinent to me. I know the arguments for withholding information from the trial jury, and they may make sense in some situations. In others, I think you have to look at the totality of a person’s behavior otherwise you’re making decisions in a vacuum.

    • #15
  16. Michael C. Lukehart Inactive
    Michael C. Lukehart
    @MichaelLukehart

    Manny (View Comment):
    I hear and appreciate both sides on the relevance of the defendant’s past. There has to be some middle ground here. A person’s past is not irrelevant to his behavior. Clearly if a person has been convicted of robbing ten people on the street and is caught on vidoe on the eleventh one, and the video quality is a bit murky and ambiguous, then I would say the evidence leans in the guilty side. No justice is perfect. We should be looking for the highest probability. Letting a guilty person go is not justice.

    Manny, if the prosecutor can show that the past actions have some relevance to the current charges, such as evidencing a common scheme or plan, or showing a specific intent, etc., then the judge has discretion to allow those acts to be presented to the jury.  Happens on a daily basis in most courthouses.

    I suspect that in the Zarate case the judge ruled that prior drug convictions don’t have a lot of relevance to shooting charges.

    • #16
  17. Jason Rudert Inactive
    Jason Rudert
    @JasonRudert

    This post reads a lot like the left side of my Facebook feed when a policeman is acquitted of killing a black man. The jury’s verdict is reasonable here—the defense and the prosecution present their theories and their evidence, and unless the State has some evidence that Zarate Garcia killed her recklessly or intentionally, the jury has to say it’s a reasonable doubt. His prior record has nothing to do with whether he did this specific thing.

    Otherwise the defendant’s role in the trial changes from answering for his actions, to being a ceremonial sacrifice in our national arguments. It matters what he did, not who he is.

    • #17
  18. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    Michael C. Lukehart (View Comment):
    I have handled, and tried to many juries, a lot of homicide cases in California. In this state, mishandling a firearm in such a way that it leads to the death of a human being usually results in a manslaughter conviction of one kind or another. Mishandling it with demonstrable, or inferable, malice can, and often does, lead to a murder conviction, even without specific intent to kill.

    The only times I have seen complete acquittals regarding a homicide such as this one is when the prosecution obviously overplays the case, resulting in jury pushback. I suspect that is the situation here. From the press reports, a lot of speculative assertions were made by the prosecution. For one example, trying to tease a first degree murder conviction out of a ricochet shot is problematic, to say the least.

    Any good defense lawyer knows that prosecution overreach is a gift to the defense, and treats it as such.

    I was wondering why the court instructed the jury on 1st deg. murder, as from what I have read, there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find premeditation. As I read the coverage it seemed to boil down to a question whether there was intent at all or mere recklessness in how the defendant played with and discharged the weapon, so voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. For the jury not to convict on that last one baffles me.

    • #18
  19. Michael C. Lukehart Inactive
    Michael C. Lukehart
    @MichaelLukehart

    @Fritz: In California, the definition of premeditation is rather elastic.  Under some interpretations of the law, it can be formed in a very short period of time.

    • #19
  20. Jason Rudert Inactive
    Jason Rudert
    @JasonRudert

    I read somewhere that the jury was left free in this case to choose any degree of homicide, from first down to negligent.

    That they didn’t makes me think they considered this a “tie goes to the runner” type of decision. If the accidental discharge explanation and the depraved heart explanation have about equal amounts of evidence backing them up, in our system the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt.

    • #20
  21. Mark Wilson Inactive
    Mark Wilson
    @MarkWilson

    Skyler (View Comment):
    If past crimes can be used in determining guilt, then it would be far too easy to get a conviction even if the facts aren’t sufficient to prove the elements of the crime.

    This is the key point.  A criminal record makes it much more likely that a given defendant committed a subsequent crime.  But it does not make it more likely that a given defendant committed this specific crime.  The problem is that most people conflate the two, leading to jury prejudice.

    • #21
  22. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Michael C. Lukehart (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    If past crimes can be used in determining guilt, then it would be far too easy to get a conviction even if the facts aren’t sufficient to prove the elements of the crime.

    This is the key point. A criminal record makes it much more likely that a given defendant committed a subsequent crime. But it does not make it more likely that a given defendant committed this specific crime. The problem is that most people conflate the two, leading to jury prejudice.

    That’s pretty much the law in all the common law countries.

    • #22
  23. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Michael C. Lukehart (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    I hear and appreciate both sides on the relevance of the defendant’s past. There has to be some middle ground here. A person’s past is not irrelevant to his behavior. Clearly if a person has been convicted of robbing ten people on the street and is caught on vidoe on the eleventh one, and the video quality is a bit murky and ambiguous, then I would say the evidence leans in the guilty side. No justice is perfect. We should be looking for the highest probability. Letting a guilty person go is not justice.

    Manny, if the prosecutor can show that the past actions have some relevance to the current charges, such as evidencing a common scheme or plan, or showing a specific intent, etc., then the judge has discretion to allow those acts to be presented to the jury. Happens on a daily basis in most courthouses.

    I suspect that in the Zarate case the judge ruled that prior drug convictions don’t have a lot of relevance to shooting charges.

    OK, I understand.  One gets frustrated with criminals getting away with things.  I don’t know the specifics of the court procedures in this case, but it strikes me as an open and shut case, and yet he got away with it.  How is the poor Steinle family supposed to feel?

    • #23
  24. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    It is clear that under the law, past felony convictions are not relevant in proving guilt without showing a common scheme.  It occurs to me that @michaelhenry‘s belief that the past felony convictions are relevant demonstrates why they should not be disclosed to the jury for that purpose.

    I suspect the most jurors, like Michael, would think past convictions are probative on the current charge, even though they clearly are not logically related to the specific crime charged.  Thus the OP shows me that the law of evidence has it right.  Typical jurors would assume that the irrelevant past convictions are relevant to the accused’s character as a bad guy or gal and therefore tends to prove him or her guilty.

    • #24
  25. Michael C. Lukehart Inactive
    Michael C. Lukehart
    @MichaelLukehart

    @Manny: At the end of your comment you put your finger on one real issue.  The criminal justice system is designed to impose penal sanctions on people who behave badly, in violation of our laws.  It is not competent to do anything more than that.  In a sense the whole Victim’s Rights movement is based upon a fraud, the idea that somehow, somewhere, in some courtroom, some result is going to make it all better.  The thought that people who have suffered horrible wrongs can find solace and “closure” through peripheral participation in, and observation of, court proceedings, rather than through faith, family, and community, is profoundly mistaken and harmful.  No matter what the sentence, what the punishment, the next day that horrible void will still be in their lives.

    Some years ago, when my younger brother was killed I deliberately distanced myself from all court proceedings.  My parents didn’t.  I made the better choice.

    I notice that the people who proclaim the loudest that they have found that closure in the courts are the ones still hanging around courts, often in the guise of “Victim’s Rights Advocates,” fifteen and twenty years later.

    • #25
  26. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    I think lost in a lot of this conversation is also the fact that the criminal process is slanted very very heavily for the government. Just look at General Flynn. He didn’t even break a law, except to talk to the FBI. If they want you, they will almost certainly get you. I don’t think we need to make it any easier to get a conviction than it already is.

    This result with the illegal immigrant killer is a political act and bears little relevance to the vast majority of criminal trials.

    • #26
  27. Mark Wilson Inactive
    Mark Wilson
    @MarkWilson

    Skyler (View Comment):
    Just look at General Flynn. He didn’t even break a law, except to talk to the FBI.

    Another example is Scooter Libby.  If the special counsel can’t find a crime, the investigation will surely generate one for him.

    • #27
  28. JimGoneWild Coolidge
    JimGoneWild
    @JimGoneWild

    I think if that defendant had shot or killed someone before and was found guilty, that would be relevant and could be used in court. So I disagree with Henry — first time.

    That said, he should face other charges, but won’t. The possession charge alone should get him 10 years.

    It’s sad that California is trying to prove a point with good citizens lives.

    • #28
  29. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    So while I don’t think the specifics in evidence are significant for this discussion, curiosity has got hold of me.  Was the bullet recovered?

    • #29
  30. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Mark Wilson (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    If past crimes can be used in determining guilt, then it would be far too easy to get a conviction even if the facts aren’t sufficient to prove the elements of the crime.

    This is the key point. A criminal record makes it much more likely that a given defendant committed a subsequent crime. But it does not make it more likely that a given defendant committed this specific crime. The problem is that most people conflate the two, leading to jury prejudice.

    I dispute this idea that “most people” will be misled by the defendants prior criminal history.  Are you just saying that “other people” will be misled by this, or do you think that you yourself are not capable of sorting out the criminal history from the specific crime.  I still say that jurors should be given more information, not less, in order to make a more informed decision.

    In many cases the commission of previous crimes absolutely does mean that the defendant was most likely guilty of the current crime.  I find the whole idea of keeping information from jurors to be absurd, and almost Orwellian.

     

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.