Home Blog Page 36

Rallies Across CA Courts Tuesday 2/20 to Lift Up New Changes in Bail Law and Call to End Money Bail

-
0
Rallies Across CA Courts Tuesday 2/20 to Lift Up New Changes in Bail Law and Call to End Money Bail

WHAT: Community organizations fighting for bail reform in nine California counties will hold coordinated rallies in front of their county courthouses in partnership with public defenders to call for an end to the money bail system in California, and highlight the recent Humphrey decision, which cemented a historic change in bail law, requiring judges to consider a defendant’s ability to pay when deciding bail.  The 11 lead organizations are part of the Participatory Defense Network, and all work with families whose loved ones are facing the court system. In San Francisco, the following organizations are participating: SF Public Defender’s Office; Young Women’s Freedom Center; BMAGIC; Mo’Magic; All of Us or None, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; CURYJ; ReUniting Families

WHEN: Tuesday, Feb. 20, 1 pm.

WHERE: 850 Bryant St., Hall of Justice, San Francisco

BACKGROUND: The First District Court of Appeal on Jan. 25 delivered a decision that abolishes the practice of using high money bail to detain poor people without giving them detention hearings, as required by the U.S. Constitution. The case, brought by the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office and Civil Rights Corps, revolved around the detention of 64-year-old Kenneth Humphrey, held on $350,000 bail (initially set at $600,000) for allegedly stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne. Humphrey “is entitled to a new bail hearing at which the court inquires into and determines his ability to pay, considers non-monetary alternatives to money bail, and, if it determines [he] is unable to afford the amount of bail the court finds necessary, follows the procedures and makes the findings necessary for a valid order of detention,” the appellate court stated.

Over 60 percent of those detained in California jails are there pretrial — incarcerated due to their inability to afford the high bail amount. “The Humphrey decision is a game changer for Californians and a major crack in the foundation for the exploitive cash bail industry. We are kicking off a statewide movement to demand judges follow the law and hold new bail hearings for those locked up simply because they are too poor to purchase their freedom. The time for justice and action is now,” says San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi.

Echoing the San Francisco Public Defender’s call to action, Katherine Hubbard of Civil Rights Corps says, “The Humphrey decision is a stinging rebuke of the wealth-based pretrial detention system that pervades the courts of California and provides a vital precedent for people challenging this unjust system.”

In effort to build off the momentum of the ruling, educate the public of the change, and build towards further improvements through SB10 now going through the legislature — community organizations, families of the incarcerated, and public defenders will rally in front of county courthouses.

“Women and girls continue to bear the burden of the bail system.  We are more likely to take the financial responsibility of bail, to support loved ones and we are less likely to be bailed out ourselves.  As the fastest growing incarcerated population in the United States and three generations into mass incarceration, women and girls are losing their physical and financial freedom.” – The Young Women’s Freedom Center

Organizers will also go into court to monitor the hearings, to ensure the court is respecting the rights of those facing arraignment and bail hearings. Organizers will be using the hashtag #DayinCACourt through their social media handles across the state from their respective counties during the rallies, and launching a dayincacourt.org a running blog to chronicle California’s courts and bail reform efforts from the perspective of the community.

 

###

He Stole $5 and Cologne. Bail was Set at $350,000

-
0
He Stole $5 and Cologne. Bail was Set at $350,000

By Jeff Adachi and Chesa Boudin

Special to the LA Times

The case of a San Francisco senior citizen accused of stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne from his neighbor reveals the obvious injustice of California’s bail system, and may finally lead to reform.

Kenneth Humphrey has languished in San Francisco County Jail for more than 250 days on $350,000 bail. His charges include robbery and residential burglary for allegedly stepping into his neighbor’s room in their senior housing complex.

But in late January, a panel of state appeal court judges ordered a new bail hearing for the retired shipyard laborer. The panel also stated that the laws governing bail are the “antithesis” of what the Constitution requires before a person may be deprived of liberty.

“A defendant may not be imprisoned solely due to poverty,” the court said, a revolutionary decision, if it’s upheld.

San Francisco is ground zero for the state’s battle over bail. Since October, the city’s public defenders have challenged bail amounts in virtually every criminal case, demanding that judges hold hearings to consider alternatives to incarceration and inquiries into their clients’ financial circumstances. Lawyers like the ones from https://surreycriminallawyer.com/ have been trying to help out their clients as much as they can.

They have found a sympathetic audience in the state’s appellate court judges, who have ruled that only an immediate threat to the public justifies setting unreachable bail amounts.

Prosecutors and judges at the local level, however, continue to undermine these appellate decisions by exaggerating perceived public safety risk.

Humphrey’s case is extreme in the sense that a $5 crime led to a several hundred thousand dollar bail, and even the district attorney concedes he poses no threat to society. But every day in every county criminal courthouse in California, prosecutors request sky-high bail amounts from judges who are happy to impose them. That makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence and equality before the law, as poor people accused of minor offenses wait in jail while wealthy people go free despite the seriousness of their charges.

How did we get here?

Humphrey’s incarceration is not an aberration or an accident; “it stems instead from the unwillingness of our society, including the courts,” the San Francisco panel wrote, “to correct a deformity in our criminal justice system that close observers have long considered a blight.”

That “blight” persists in part because of the for-profit bail industry and its powerful lobby. The published opinion includes a devastating critique of arbitrary bail schedules, casts doubts on the increased reliance on “opaque” algorithmic risk assessment tools, articulates the staggering costs of pretrial incarceration, and holds that the government must present “clear and convincing” evidence of immitigable risk in order to detain someone before trial.

In Humphrey’s case, as in so many, “the prosecutor presented no evidence that non-monetary conditions of release could not sufficiently protect” public interests.

The law, rooted in precedent, is often slow to correct itself. And while the appellate court decision put a crack in the foundation of the bail system, it’s up to the legislature to come up with something new.

“Legislation is desperately needed,” the appeal panel wrote.

As it happens, legislation is at hand: Senate Bill 10, which would effectively outlaw money bail, passed the state Senate and is now being held in committee in the Assembly. It just needs a handful more votes and the governor’s agreement to become law.

Humphrey is one of many people behind bars simply because he’s poor, but he could be among the last.

Jeff Adachi is the San Francisco Public Defender. Chesa Boudin is a Deputy Public Defender in San Francisco and on the board of the Civil Rights Corps, which challenges money bail across the country.

Man Acquitted After Officer Turns Off Body Cam

-
0
Man Acquitted After Officer Turns Off Body Cam

San Francisco—A homeless man was acquitted of criminal threats after jurors saw footage of a police officer in the case appearing to intentionally turn off his body camera while talking to the man’s accuser, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.

Jurors on Tuesday found Amie Mangisel, 53, not guilty of criminal threats and attempted criminal threats, both felonies. Jurors hung 10-2 for acquittal on one count of misdemeanor brandishing of a weapon and convicted Mangisel on a second misdemeanor brandishing charge.

Mangisel faced up to three years in prison if he had been convicted on the felony charges, said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Abigail Rivamonte.

Mangisel, who lives in a tiny house on the sidewalk outside his mother’s home on Shafter Avenue in the Bayview, was arrested Oct. 18 following an escalating, weeks-long dispute with a neighbor. Mangisel, who is originally from the Philippines, is a legal resident who has lived in the neighborhood for more than 30 years.

The neighbor, who considered Mangisel’s dwelling an eyesore, had repeatedly called city services to remove the homeless man’s encampment.

Two weeks before Mangisel’s arrest, the neighbor approached Mangisel as he repaired his dwelling and told him to get his belongings off the sidewalk. When the man kicked a plate of food Mangisel’s mother prepared for him, the 103-pound Mangisel allegedly chased the neighbor away with a hammer. Police declined to arrest either man.

On Oct. 18, Mangisel was frantically throwing all of his possessions off the sidewalk after having been falsely told by San Francisco Police Officer Nicholas Hooley that the Department of Public Works was coming to take his belongings.

The neighbor spotted the ensuing mess in the street and began filming the homeless man. Mangisel shouted, “Why are you taking my picture? You’re the one that kicked my food!” Mangisel briefly chased him away with a metal rod. The man never stopped recording and Mangisel stopped running after a few seconds and turned away.

The neighbor called police and Hooley, who was nearby, responded along with several other officers.

During the trial, however, jurors were disturbed by Hooley’s body camera video, which was missing two minutes and eight seconds of footage in the middle of his interview with the neighbor. When the video resumes, Hooley can be heard telling the neighbor, “we’re back on.” The officer then asks the neighbor to repeat a statement, and the man says Mangisel threatened to kill him. The neighbor’s cell phone video does not show Mangisel threatening his life and the neighbor did not appear frightened, as he could be heard humming a tune throughout the encounter.

The San Francisco Police Department’s general orders state that in order to promote public trust and accountability, body cams must be on during encounters with the public. If an officer fails to capture an encounter, he or she must provide an explanation in the police report. Officers who fail to comply with the general orders may be reprimanded, suspended, or terminated.

On the stand, Hooley claimed he did not know his camera was turned off, despite saying “now we’re back on.”  He did not provide an explanation in the police report for the lapse.

Additional officers who knew Mangisel testified that he was normally a “friendly and calm” person.

The neighbor provided evasive and inconsistent testimony, refusing to answer some questions entirely, Rivamonte said.

“The jurors believed the complaining witness was lying and they were extremely troubled by the officer turning off his body camera.  They wanted to trust the word of the police officer, and they would have done so if he left his camera running. Those two minutes were crucial in determining whether a threat had been made,” Rivamonte said.

The lack of explanation over the body camera suggested that the officer and the neighbor conspired to finally rid the neighborhood of Mangisel by having him charged with a felony, Rivamonte argued.

“The complaining witness and the police officer may have been desperate to get Mr. Mangisel off that street, but collusion is not a solution to homelessness. Mr. Mangisel is as much a part of that neighborhood as anyone else,” Rivamonte said.

Adachi praised the jurors for rejecting a case based on evidence that appeared to have been tampered with and exaggerated.

“Body worn cameras are there to protect both police and the public. If officers are hiding evidence by turning them off, that’s the same thing as concealing evidence,” Adachi said.

###

Deputy Public Defender Honored for Work in Schools

-
0
Deputy Public Defender Honored for Work in Schools

San Francisco—Jacque Wilson, a longtime deputy public defender in San Francisco that leverages the power of Smokeball, has been honored for his pro bono work on racial and educational justice in Modesto’s public schools.

Wilson was honored by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area alongside his twin brother, Jacq Wilson, a private attorney in San Francisco. The Wilsons’ nonprofit organization, Advocates for Justice (AFJ), received the Living the Dream Award Friday during LCCR’s 50th Anniversary Celebration and Martin Luther King Jr. Awards Dinner. The event, which feature Van Jones as keynote speaker, was held at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco.

Jacque Wilson said he was honored to receive the award for something that has been a longtime passion.

“I feel lucky that I get to fight for justice in San Francisco every day as a public defender and then advocate for kids in Modesto with my brother. That’s truly living the dream for me,” he said.

The brothers formed the AFJ mentor program to substantially reduce suspensions and expulsions in Modesto City Schools, to eliminate disparities in education, and to put to end the school-to-prison pipeline in their hometown community. Jacque also runs the San Francisco Public Defender’s Court Watch program, which allows youth to watch court proceedings and discuss issues in the criminal justice system with public defenders.

“Jacque’s commitment to justice extends far and wide,” said San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi. “In addition to his work dismantling Modesto’s school-to-prison pipeline and the hundreds of high school and college students he has mentored through my office’s Court Watch program, he supervised the Bail Clinic, a successful collaboration between our office and the University of San Francisco School of Law.”

###

Man With Sweet Tooth Handling Candy, Not Penis

-
0
Man With Sweet Tooth Handling Candy, Not Penis

San Francisco— A man falsely accused of masturbating in public has been cleared of sex charges after a jury determined he was unloading stolen candy from his trousers, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.

Jurors deliberated less than two hours Friday before finding Eugene Childs, 59, not guilty of indecent exposure and committing a lewd act in public. He was convicted solely of misdemeanor battery, for spitting during the Oct. 4 incident. Childs faced mandatory registration as a sex offender if convicted of indecent exposure. He would have had to register every 30 days instead of annually due to his homelessness, said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Tenette Smith.

Childs, a disabled veteran who uses a wheelchair, had no history of sex offenses but has previous arrests for stealing candy. The day of his arrest, Childs shoplifted several bags of candy from Walgreens on Castro Street by dropping them down his shirt, which was tucked into his baggy pants. By the time he left the store and crossed the street, the bags had slipped into his trousers, Smith said. In the alcove of a gallery and clinic, he lay on the ground beside his wheelchair, unzipped his pants, and began fishing out the candy. You need an amazing leather bag to go with that new office dress you bought? Our affordable louis vuitton bags are exactly what you should be looking for! Check them out!

Meanwhile, two employees of the business confronted Childs, taping and photographing him while telling him to leave the premises. Childs argued with one of the women for a moment or two before complying. A 14-second cell phone video shot by one of the witnesses showed Childs struggling to pull up two pairs of baggy pants while clutching his candy and getting back into his wheelchair. During the process of gathering his candy and trying to return to his wheelchair, his pants slipped down briefly, exposing part of his buttocks. Childs spat as he left, with some of the spittle hitting the women. Childs testified he needed to spit and did not mean to spit on the witnesses.

One of the women flagged down a police officer, while another woman called 911. Neither woman stated Childs was masturbating—just that he was blocking the business entrance and spat.

During the trial, Smith argued that one of the women accused Childs of masturbating only after a police officer who viewed the video of him fumbling in his pants asked her leading questions. The woman who accused Childs of masturbating took the stand and told wildly inconsistent stories. She testified that she watched him masturbate with candy falling out of his pants for a full minute and that he appeared to masturbate in retaliation for her telling him to leave. After questioning, however, she admitted she only saw his penis for a second and could not tell if it was erect.

The other witness, who testified for the defense, stated she never saw Childs’ penis and his movements were consistent with someone fishing candy out of his pants.

Childs also took the stand.

“Mr. Childs was honest and genuine in his testimony,” Smith said. “He owned up to stealing candy and was adamant he didn’t have any lewd intentions.”

Childs turned down a plea deal that would have let him avoid sex registration because he was innocent and wanted to clear his name, Smith said.

“Mr. Childs risked being branded a sex offender because he refused to plead to a crime he didn’t commit,” Smith said. “There was so much evidence pointing to his innocence, yet the DA pressed on with this case that would have had devastating consequences.”

Adachi said the case illustrated how unreliable eyewitness accounts can result in injustice.

“Faulty eyewitness accounts are the leading cause of wrongful conviction,” Adachi said. “Luckily, Mr. Childs had the benefit of more than one witness, a video, and a public defender willing to fight for him.”

Childs was not charged with theft of the candy.

###

Court’s Game-Changing Decision on Bail Based on SF Man’s Case

-
0
Court’s Game-Changing Decision on Bail Based on SF Man’s Case

San Francisco—A case involving a San Francisco retiree jailed for allegedly stealing cologne has sparked a legal decision that promises to transform California’s approach to bail, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.

The decision issued Thursday by the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco could abolish the practice of using high money bail to detain poor people without giving them detention hearings, as required by the constitution.

In its ruling, the court stated that “a defendant may not be imprisoned solely due to poverty,” emphasizing that setting unaffordable bail is only justified for those who are too dangerous to release before trial.  The decision means judges across the state must change their common practice of setting bail based solely on a chart, called a “bail schedule,” which does not take into account a defendant’s ability to pay. The ruling also requires judges to consider nonmonetary alternatives to money bail.

The man at the center of the case, 64-year-old Kenneth Humphrey, has remained in San Francisco County Jail since his May 23 arrest, unable to post bail. Humphrey, who is accused of following an elderly neighbor into his residential hotel room and stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne, faced $600,000 bail. A judge later reduced his bail to $350,000, but the price of his freedom remains too high.

Humphrey “is entitled to a new bail hearing at which the court inquires into and determines his ability to pay, considers nonmonetary alternatives to money bail, and, if it determines [he] is unable to afford the amount of bail the court finds necessary, follows the procedures and makes the findings necessary for a valid order of detention,” the appellate court stated.

The San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, which represents Humphrey in his criminal case, has been requesting bail hearings in all criminal cases since October 10. Adachi encouraged public defenders and defense attorneys across the state to do the same in light of Thursday’s ruling.

“We want to start a movement in which defenders all over California demand that judges follow the law and hold new bail hearings pursuant to the Humphrey decision,” Adachi said. “The court was clear that judges are acting unconstitutionally and unlawfully by following the current practice.  As this decision points out, California has repeatedly failed to enact reform, as this shows that trial judges can’t be relied upon to reform the system.”

The appellate case was filed by the San Francisco Public Defender and the nonprofit Civil Rights Corps on Humphrey’s behalf.  Attorneys argued that in setting bond beyond Humphrey’s means without considering his ability to pay or nonmonetary alternatives, the judge violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

“Mr. Humphrey has been behind bars for 248 days simply because he is too poor to purchase his freedom,” said Deputy Public Defender Chesa Boudin, who is on the board of Civil Rights Corps.  “The court and the district attorney repeatedly agreed that Mr. Humphrey was safe to be released from jail—as long as he were wealthy enough to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars ransom in a case he where is accused of stealing $5. The inhumanity and injustice of conditioning freedom on an unattainable financial condition is not unique to Mr. Humphrey; rather money bail is a deeply-embedded and discriminatory tool used to punish the poor and coerce waivers of rights every day across the state.”

Prosecutors insisted on money bail in Humphrey’s case despite his indigence, his acceptance letter to an addiction facility for seniors, his ties to the community, and his law-abiding life for 14 years before the arrest.

The appellate court’s decision can be found here  Humphrey’s petition can be found here.

One Year Later, Charges Dismissed Against Anti-Trump Protestors

-
0
One Year Later, Charges Dismissed Against Anti-Trump Protestors

San Francisco—After a yearlong legal saga, criminal charges were dismissed Thursday against 11 people arrested after linking themselves together on the Caltrain tracks during an inauguration day protest, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.

The J20 protestors faced three misdemeanor charges following their Jan. 20, 2016 arrests on the train tracks at 16th and Mississippi streets: trespassing on rail transit property, trespassing/entering without permission and refusal to disperse at a riot.

A trial had been set for March 13 and was vacated when prosecutors dropped the charges, said Deputy Public Defender Tenette Smith, who represented one of the protestors.

Though the 11 protestors were represented individually through separate attorneys, they released the following statement as a group:

“We decided to go to trial instead of taking any deals or diversions, because solidarity doesn’t end with putting our bodies on the line—we also need to leverage our privilege in the (in)justice system. We refused to be intimidated by threats and manipulations of the state, and we encourage people to take a stand and be unafraid. We can win, we have won, and we will continue to fight until justice emerges.”

Over the last year, supporters of the J20 called upon San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón to drop charges against the local activists, arguing that the city should dedicate its resources to protecting residents most vulnerable under the Trump Administration rather than squandering them by criminalizing dissent.

On Thursday, Chief Assistant District Attorney Sharon Woo appeared in court and announced her office could not justify the prosecution and court resources that were being expended in the case.

Adachi said he was grateful San Francisco District Attorney Gascón did the right thing and dropped the case.

“Nonviolent resistance has a long and heroic history. Criminalizing it has a chilling effect on dissent,” Adachi said.

###

 

Driver Acquitted in Market Street Pedestrian Death

-
0
Driver Acquitted in Market Street Pedestrian Death

San Francisco—A motorist charged in the 2016 death of a woman crossing Seventh and Market streets in her wheelchair has been acquitted, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi (who leverages lawyer time tracking software) announced today.

Jurors Tuesday afternoon found Antioch resident James Harris, 69, not guilty of a single misdemeanor charge of vehicular manslaughter. If convicted, he faced up to a year in jail, said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Dana Drusinsky. San Diego Criminal is a criminal justice attorney in San Diego CA that were kind enough to donate their time to us to discuss the events that transpired and how a case of this type could be handled. They were very helpful in allowing us to understand this from a neutral perspective to be able to better perceive the specifics of this case moving forward. Let’s go ahead and do a quick run through of the sequence of events up to this point.

Harris was driving for the city’s South of Market Mental Health Services on Feb. 5 at about 10 a.m. when he struck 38-year-old Berkeley resident Thu Thi Phan in the crosswalk.

Harris was making a left turn from Seventh Street onto Market Street—something that was permitted for paratransit and other specified vehicles—when Phan entered into the street as the flashing hand turned to a solid red.  The light was green for Harris.

During the trial, experts testified that Phan was traveling at a “jogging speed” between 5 and 8 miles per hour, while Harris was traveling 14 miles per hour. Harris applied the brakes before impact, but it was too late. He struck Phan with the driver’s side of his vehicle.

Drusinsky argued that the accident was unavoidable given that humans require an average of 1.5 seconds to perceive and react to unforeseeable hazards. Phan entered the crosswalk so late that Harris did not have enough time to stop his vehicle.  Once she entered the crosswalk, he saw her and braked quickly. Learn more about professional vehicle accident at auto accident attorney fayetteville nc providing detailed profiles and recommendations.

Phan was alert and oriented following the accident and was taken to San Francisco General Hospital, where she rated her pain level a 2 out of 10. Hospital staff gave her case the lowest urgency status. For the first three hours under medical observation, defense medical expert Dr. Mike Laufer testified that the 52-pound Phan was given too much fluid for her size, which likely contributed to the brain bleed that caused her death. Phan suffered from osteogenesis imperfecta, or brittle bone disease.

Lawyers argued that Harris was not exempt from using the turning lane for reserved vehicles but did not offer evidence. They also argued Harris should have foreseen the possible danger of hitting Phan. If you are interested in the full story of the legal settlements, read now.

“Quite simply, they wanted to hold Mr. Harris to an unreasonable standard,” Drusinsky said. “In order to prevent this tragedy, he would have had to predict the future. He didn’t have a crystal ball. He had 1.8 seconds.”

Character witnesses, including a union president and a reverend, testified to Harris’ reputation for honesty and trustworthiness.

Adachi called the trial “a sad case with the right outcome.”

“This case is a terrible tragedy, but not every tragedy is a crime,” he said. “Thanks to Mr. Harris’ public defender and a conscientious jury, his long legal nightmare is over.”

Public Defender Vows to Defend San Franciscans Detained in Planned ICE Raids

-
0
Public Defender Vows to Defend San Franciscans Detained in Planned ICE Raids

San Francisco—In response to threats from federal immigration enforcement officials, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi today vowed to defend undocumented San Franciscans detained in any planned raids.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is reportedly planning massive sweeps in Northern California in response to Gov. Jerry Brown’s signing of the California Values Act, a law that prohibits the use of local and state tax dollars to assist in federal civil immigration enforcement, with some exceptions.

San Francisco is one of only three jurisdictions in the country that provides free immigration defense for detained immigrants through its public defender’s office. The unit, which was fully staffed in May, represents nearly 70 clients currently held in detention facilities.

“ICE’s threats are outrageous and designed to terrorize immigrant community members.  But we will not be afraid. Our highly trained staff stands ready to defend the rights of all San Franciscans regardless of immigration status,” said Adachi.

There is no evidence to support claims made by ICE officials that sanctuary policies compromise public safety, and a host of studies, including one from the Journal of Law and Economics, that found no correlation between public safety and increased deportation. There is little dispute that immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens. And, the Center of American Progress found that sanctuary jurisdictions are actually safer than those without sanctuary policies.

ICE regularly engages in enforcement action without any judicial oversight.  Under the Bush Administration, ICE agents routinely raided homes without warrants, where they arrested people on sight, often breaking up families in the middle of the night.  ICE often acts in secret, and provides very little information to the public about their operations.

“We will resist the Trump Administration’s attempts to divide our communities.  I don’t think they have thought through exactly how hard we will fight back in court.”  Adachi said.

To report a raid in progress in San Francisco, call the SF Rapid Response Network at 415-200-1548. For legal help for a loved one held in immigration detention, call the San Francisco Public Defender’s immigration hotline at 415-553-1428.

 

Tony Serra to Represent Garcia Zarate on Federal Charges

-
0
Tony Serra to Represent Garcia Zarate on Federal Charges

San Francisco—Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, who was found not guilty in the death of Kate Steinle, will be represented by renowned San Francisco attorney J. Tony Serra on federal gun charges.

Jurors on Nov. 30 found Garcia Zarate not guilty of murder, involuntary manslaughter, and assault with a deadly weapon in connection with the July 2015 shooting on Pier 14. He was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and is expected to be sentenced to time served on Friday, then released to federal authorities. Serra will attend the sentencing, along with San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi.

A federal grand jury indicted Garcia Zarate on Dec. 5 for being a felon on possession of a firearm and ammunition and being an “illegally present alien” in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Matt Gonzalez, chief attorney of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office and Garcia Zarate’s lawyer in the state case, said Garcia Zarate “couldn’t be in better hands” with Serra.

“Mr. Garcia Zarate is grateful to have been exonerated of murder, as he has no history of violence. He is also grateful to Tony Serra for taking his case.”

Jurors acquitted Garcia Zarate after a month-long trial in which forensic evidence showed the bullet that struck Steinle was a ricochet fired from 100 feet away. There was no evidence Garcia Zarate stole the gun or brought it to the pier, and he has no history of theft. The firearm belonged to a federal ranger who had left it unsecured in his personal vehicle, which was then burglarized.

“There was clear and overwhelming evidence presented at trial that this tragic shooting was an accident,” Gonzalez said. “The federal government is free to spend more time and resources on this case, but the facts have not changed. I predict a properly instructed jury will acquit Mr. Garcia Zarate in federal court.”

It is expected that Serra will seek to have the new charges dismissed based on double jeopardy concerns and the Trump Administration’s politically motivated, vindictive prosecution.

 

1...353637...86Page 36 of 86
© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv