Some pertinent information from the trial:

* The gun was fired from a low position ( lap-level ), struck the pavement 12 ft from Zarate, and traveled another 78 ft whereupon it hit Steinle.

* There is no evidence that Zarate was "brandishing" the weapon, waving it around irresponsibly, pointing it at anyone in a deliberate manner, or even gripping the weapon in a firing position / manner.

* security camera video shows the gun go off in "less than two seconds. maybe less than one second", according to the alternate jurist who saw the video, after Zarate picked up the wrapped bundle containing the gun. He wasn't brandishing it, playing with it, or pointing it at anyone.

* the amount of gunpowder residue on Zarate's hand was minuscule, in the range of the lowest amount detectable. Thus indicating that he wasn't gripping the gun as one grips a handgun to shoot it. And also indicating that the weapon was to some extent still wrapped in the cloth when it fired.

* evidence suggests that Zarate wasn't aware that anyone was struck by the bullet. As he throws the gun into the bay Zarate never looks in Steinle's direction ( Steinle is 30 yards away on what has been characterized as a "crowded" pier ) and 15 minutes later he is seen on security camera footage calmly digging through garbage cans nearby. The behavior suggests that:

A) he was unaware that anyone was struck as a result of the weapon discharging

B) it was routine for Zarate, being homeless, to pick up and investigate litter / items discarded by others. He would regularly unwrap found refuse / items as the homeless typically do.

* video shows a group of 6 individuals hanging out on the same bench for 30 minutes prior to Zarate, picking up items and placing items on the ground near the feet of the bench. The event raising the possibility that one of those individuals deposited the firearm there and Zarate then "found" it when he sat on the bench, as he claims, and he didn't bring the firearm to the location. It undermines the narrative that Zarate went to the pier looking to shoot someone or, as some have suggested, went there "to kill Americans". This going to forethought of malice.

* The prosecution was unable to establish any motive on the part of Zarate and Zarate no recorded history of violence.

* the prosecution was unable to establish that the firing of the weapon was intentional.

* The prosecution was unable to establish reckless disregard.

The alternate jurist said that the evidence / video evidence suggests to him that Zarate was surprised when the weapon discharged, had no idea that anyone was injured as a result of the discharge, and rather calmly threw the weapon into the water and continued on his routine of rummaging through garbage cans / investigating discarded items. Zarate told police that he threw the firearm into the water so that no one would be hurt by the firearm- and he told police this before he was made aware that Steinle had been shot. This supports the defense's position that Zarate was not attempting to get rid of the evidence of his crime because he was unaware that anyone was struck by the bullet and his intent in throwing the gun into the water was to prevent injury to any innocent.

The editorial from the alternate jurist:

I Saw the Kate Steinle Murder Trial Up Close. The Jury Didn't Botch It.