Illegal Alien Crime: Steinle Trial Prosecutor George Gascon “Purposely Wanted To Lose “

 

By Don Rosenberg In A Letter To Greg Aprahamian

I wanted to share with you a very insightful letter about the Steinle murder trial that I received from  Angel Father Don Rosenberg.  Don sent me his thoughts as a reply to my observations on the Steinle Family’s lukewarm support for ending sanctuary protections for illegal aliens .  Don Rosenberg is a member of AVIAC, (Advocates For Victims Of Illegal Alien Crime). Don was kind enough to let me share his thoughts on this trial.

Background:  Don Rosenberg’s Son Drew Rosenberg was killed by an illegal alien in San Francisco in 2010.  Drew Rosenberg was killed when an illegal alien hit Drew with his car while Drew was on his motorcycle, the killer then proceeded to further run over Drew three more times in an attempt to get away.  

Drew Rosenberg, Killed in 2010 by an Illegal Alien

Don’s observations are particularly relevant because  Don has already personally witnessed first hand, the trial of an illegal alien (who killed his son)  in San Francisco by the same District Attorney’s office, and by a San Francisco jury.  

Below are Don’s Thoughts on the Steinle trial and his comparison between the trial of his son’s killer and Kate Steinle’s killer.


“As I was listening to the news coverage of the verdict late Thursday afternoon I kept hearing one person after another call the verdict “shocking” I wasn’t shocked at all. A little surprised at the lack of a conviction on the involuntary manslaughter charge but not the least bit shocked. I’ve already been through this with my son’s killing. Same DA’s office, same jury of San Franciscans.

While the DA’s office and the District attorney George Gascόn hasn’t changed, Trump wasn’t the president at the time and his inarticulate comments about illegal aliens definitely tainted the jury.

From the moment the DA’s office filed first degree murder charges I thought they either have some evidence they haven’t made us aware of or – and more likely –they (Gascόn) wanted to lose. Clearly based on the case they presented the only charge should have been involuntary manslaughter and the gun charge. That however, would have been met with tremendous criticism from most of the readers on this email chain and so many others and would have opened the door for an easy plea bargain or conviction. Overcharge and the blame for an acquittal mostly lands on the jury and that same overcharging just might result in a nullification by the jury on all the lesser charges.

In my son’s case the DA’s office kept screwing up one thing after another starting with the preliminary hearing. I quickly believed they were “screwing up” on purpose. It wasn’t until the appeal they filed on the reduction of one of the charges during the preliminary hearing was tossed because they filed in the wrong court that I was convinced I was correct. First, we had to demand the appeal of the reduction of the charges from a felony vehicular homicide (hit and run) to a vehicular manslaughter charge. That took place in a three-hour fight with them when all they did was agree to “look into it”. When they agreed to file an appeal, they gave us incorrect information on the process and then filed the appeal in the wrong court. But it actually gets worse.

After they filed the public defender’s response was simply that they filed it in the wrong court. A law professor from my son’s law school who was helping us concurred. When we pointed that out to Chief of the Criminal Division Sharon Woo, her response was everyone was wrong, and they knew what they were doing.

We had even been introduced to their 22-year veteran “expert” on writs (her name escapes me now) that she knew what they were doing. A month or two later the court tossed the appeal for being filed in the wrong jurisdiction. The notice from the court just cites statute numbers but a simple look-up on Lexus Nexus states wrong jurisdiction but the DA’s office would only say it was a procedural error. Despite having the ability to ask to refile they refused.

At one hearing prior to the appeal, when they screwed up, in a recess in the hallway we went after the ADA for her incompetence. (This was incompetence as she didn’t even know who was in the car when it hit our son). Before we walked back into the court I overheard our ADA and her boss talking. The boss said to the ADA,“I really hate these people”. Of course, I can’t prove it but I heard it.

So, I have no doubt in my mind that they wanted acquittals on all charges. George Gascόn should be the head of the public defender’s office. He has no business being the DA when he believes it is his job to never prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Tough charge but plenty of evidence to back it up. Remember this is the guy who was one of the authors of Proposition 47.

As I’ve said I wasn’t shocked and I agree with acquittals on the two murder charges. But the involuntary manslaughter acquittal was jury nullification. Without using those words that was the defense’s strategy. Essentially stipulate to involuntary manslaughter without officially doing so. No reason to actually stipulate because they know they had a jury that might just acquit on that charge as well, but they would have considered it a victory even if he was convicted on involuntary manslaughter.

Personally, for our fight it was the best decision. The public which is already against sanctuary cities is up in arms. Instead of a minor conviction that would have made this case fade into oblivion in a few weeks the danger of sanctuary cities (and now a state) lives on.

As to the Steinle’s of course I feel for them as they have joined the club no one wants to be part of. I and some of my comrades only met them once as they decided they did not want to learn from our experiences. That was certainly their choice, but had they spoken to many of us they could have avoided all the additional pain they have endured and been educated on the truth about illegal immigration that from their recent comments they are still woefully uninformed.

Where most of the media avoids the victims like the plague they could have helped educate much of the public on this issue. Their almost exclusive appearances with Bill O’Reilly helped his ratings but did the cause no good.

Despite that I wish them peace and tranquility that I know all too well they will never experience”.


After receiving Don’s letter I called Don, and during our talk I asked Don: “why do you think the San Francisco District Attorney purposely positioned the prosecution to lose?”

Don’s answer:  “The political agenda to protect illegal immigrants and for George Gascon to better position himself politically in the Hispanic community”.


Greg Aprahamian is a Santa Clarita resident who is concerned about illegal immigration


Don Rosenberg is a member of AVIAC, Advocates For Victims Of Illegal Alien Crime. To read an account of his son Drew’s death caused by an illegal alien and the subsequent judicial outcome, click here.


Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

2 Responses to Illegal Alien Crime: Steinle Trial Prosecutor George Gascon “Purposely Wanted To Lose “

  1. Jamiel Shaw December 6, 2017 at 7:07 pm

    I am with you Don, Gascon is an illegal alien lover and he did not want a guilty verdict. He was in Los Angeles when my son was murdered, he did not give a damn about us. Cuban immigrant on a mission for la raza.

    Reply
    • Citizen Reporter December 6, 2017 at 11:10 pm

      Nice to hear from you, Mr. Shaw. You are an American hero to many of us and a huge help to help make needed changes.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 + 6 =