strength we ve drawn from kate, memory with us. good come from this. raised money in her memory for organizations kate was involved in. day kate died at 1:00 a.m., posted whatever is good for your soul, do that. dan simon is following the case. back with us. is the not guilty verdict a surprise? there was a lot of evidence stacked up against the accused. reporter: i think it was surprising he was not found guilty at least of involuntary manslaughter. i do think the defense did excellent job raising reasonable doubt. prosecution though said it was slam dunk case, defendant jose inez garcia zarate was especially playing real life version of russian roulette, at pier with full intention of killing somebody. brought on a witness who
think helped out the defense in very significant way. you had a gun specialist testify if it did not ricochet off the ground kate steinle would be alive. made the argument that not even best marksman in the world could make that kind of shot and seems like the jury essentially bought that version. and had made various statements to law enforcement when interrogated after being arrested. i assume the defense was able to raise enough questions about his understanding of what he was talking about or saying? reporter: the police interview was essentially meaningless, gave conflicting answers, sometimes implicated himself, sometimes said things that made no sense. at one point he thought he was
white house and president weigh in. joining me for legal perspective is jeffrey toobin. my understanding is prosecutors gave juries a number of potential murder, second degree murder or manslaughter. fact they didn t convict on any surprise you? it does but san francisco juries are unusually favorable to defendants, liberal city and more sympathetic to defendants than you might see in different cities. jury was specifically instructed not to consider anything regarding immigration law. policy. policy or fact he d been deported five times. that was not before the jury. now, who knows if they read the newspaper. obviously something that was much in the news. but the issue before them was entirely on the basis of shooting kate steinle, not anything about his immigration
the defendant had given several explanations to law enforcement is my understanding, not only idea of gun just going off but said at one point he stepped on it or kicked it, didn t he? reporter: he gave rambling and conflicting statements. doesn t have all his cognitive abilities, acknowledged. jury seemed to overlook it. at one point said he was aiming at sea lion. another point said just five feet away from kate steinle when the gun went off, when in reality, about 100 feet away. whatever he told the police, jury didn t put much credence in it. and it s interesting that prosecutors gave the jury a number of options. as you said, first, second degree murder and manslaughter and found him not guilty on all countries. reporter: certainly did. conventional wisdom was if not going to find him guilty of murder, at least of involuntary manslaughter. but that was not the case. one thing that we should point
minutes acquitted him of murder, first, and second and involuntary manslaughter. this is the case that brought the term sanctuary city to the forefront. person deported five times to mexico, would have been a sixth time but san francisco is sanctuary city and doesn t comply with federal immigration detentions and therefore let him go. many thought would be a slam dunk case for the prosecution, kate steinle, walking along this pier, this well-known pier in san francisco, july 1st, 2016. with her dad. gunshot rings out. within an hour police had their man. but defense did a very good job in poking holes in prosecution s theory. said it was intentional murder, that you had this person point a weapon at kate steinle and pull the trigger. but prosecution doing effective