re: How did they justify the Steinle verdict?

it was an idiotic prosecutors fault.

The jury was to decide between Murder 1 and involuntary manslaughter.

California (no surprise here) has some bizarrely fricked up laws.

The following quote is not my opinion, it is from California Code and Findlaw:

quote:

---

quote:
In California, Homicide during the commission of a felony often results in a murder charge rather than a manslaughter charge. Murder 1 requires intent and malice.

When a killing occurred during the commission of a crime that is not a felony, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant had a criminal intent to commit the underlying unlawful act. If the defendant did not intend to engage in the crime that resulted in homicide, the state may be unable to prove involuntary manslaughter. The defendant may be able to establish a lack of intent by showing a reasonable mistake or lack of knowledge.

---

if my understanding of the law in California is correct, and the Prosecutor chose to give the jury murder 1 or involuntary manslaughter then that prosecutor is a fricking retard and deserves all of the hatred and blame, and I wouldn't bat an eye if he dies. He basically picked two charges that require intent for a case that had a defendant with an easily provable lack of intent.

The problem is murder 1 requires malice and intent. A good defense attorney can get him out of murder 1. Involuntary manslaughter in California can be taken off the table if the defendant can show "a lack of knowledge or reasonable mistake" however I find it unbelievable that that stupid fricking jury all agreed that firing a gun into a crowded pier is a reasonable mistake or you lack the knowledge that firing a gun into a crowd can kill someone.