Jose Garcia-Zarate, the multi-time deported illegal immigrant who fatally shot Kate Steinle and was found guilty by a San Francisco court of felony gun possession and violating immigration laws, is now accusing President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions of “vindictive prosecution” and alleging that the administration “colluded” with local law enforcement against him.
In a ruling met with widespread outrage, a California court found Garcia-Zarate not guilty of murder or even manslaughter after fatally shooting Steinle. The court did, however, find him guilty of illegal possession of a firearm and violating federal immigration policies. But the criminal illegal immigrant’s day in court is not done, as Sessions’ Department of Justice has filed a federal lawsuit against him for “being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and for being an illegally present alien in possession of a firearm and ammunition,” an action allowed under the “dual sovereignty doctrine,” which allows dual charges for crimes that violate both state and federal law.
Citing Trump’s tweets slamming him and alleging “collusion,” Garcia-Zarate is now charging the federal government with “vindictive prosecution.”
In a motion filed in federal court in San Francisco Tuesday, Garcia-Zarate’s attorneys slammed Trump for repeatedly condemning his client on social media. “Almost immediately after the death of Ms. Steinle, then presidential candidate Donald Trump began to use Mr. Garcia-Zarate as the symbol of the dangers of illegal immigrants and the need for a wall between the United States and Mexico,” they wrote. The DOJ’s charges, they suggest, amount to double jeopardy. “Though broken up into two counts, these allegations address the exact same conduct as that for which he was convicted in San Francisco,” reads the motion. His attorneys demand that the federal government now provide all communications they conducted with local law enforcement in order to prove “collusion” against his client.
Below is an excerpt from the motion highlighting some of Trump and Sessions’ public statements about the case and its controversial outcome:
This case was highly publicized, both locally and nationally. Almost immediately after the death of Ms. Steinle, then presidential candidate Donald Trump began to use Mr. Garcia-Zarate as the symbol of the dangers of illegal immigrants and the need for a wall between the United States and Mexico. Immediately after Mr. Garcia-Zarate was acquitted of the murder and assault allegations, President Trump maligned the verdict on Twitter, stating:
“A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration.”
“The Kate Steinle killer came back and back over the weakly protected Obama border, always committing crimes and being violent, and yet this info was not used in court. His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!”
“The jury was not told the killer of Kate was a 7 time felon. The Schumer/Pelosi Democrats are so weak on Crime that they will pay a big price in the 2018 and 2020 Elections.”
United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions blamed Ms. Steinle’s death on San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy after the verdict. “While the State of California sought a murder charge for the man who caused Ms. Steinle’s death — a man who would not have been on the streets of San Francisco if the city simply honored an ICE detainer — the people ultimately convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm . . . When jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the streets rather than turning them over to federal immigration authorities, they put the public’s safety at risk. . .San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle.”
But as Jazz Shaw argues, an attempt to prove “prosecutorial vindictiveness” against Trump and Sessions is shaky at best. Below is the legal definition:
Prosecutorial vindictiveness is defined as vengeful prosecution for the recovery of damages to person, property, of reputation, shown to have approximately resulted from a previous civil or criminal proceeding, which was commenced or continued without probable cause, but with vengeance, and which has terminated unsuccessfully. Riegel v. Hygrade Seed Co., 47 F. Supp. 290, 293 (D.N.Y. 1942)
Meanwhile, the principle known as the “dual sovereignty doctrine” will likely squash any chance at the “double jeopardy” argument. For a helpful analysis, read Shaw’s discussion here.
For more on the Garcia-Zarate ruling, here’s Ben Shapiro’s analysis.