Yesterday, a San Francisco jury defied common sense and acquitted Jose Zarate of any role in the shooting death of Kate Steinle. My front page colleagues have done a superb job of spelling out how it could happen. To me the missing part of the equation is why the jury, which considered lesser included charges down to involuntary manslaughter, failed to find any fault in Zarate’s actions? I guarantee you the same fact pattern in any other jurisdiction in the country would result in a prison sentence, and rightfully so. I have my suspicions as to why they acted in the way they did, but that is a story for another day.

President Trump wasn’t all that happy with the decision:

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!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 1, 2017

Trump caught a lot of flack but where we are required to respect jury decisions as a matter of law, and by respect I mean observe. We are never required to respect a jury decision as correct or even sane. Were that the case then we’d have to give the same respect to all-white juries who acquitted KKK murderers as is being demanded for the Zarate jury. That is nuts. But Trump was not alone:

I am disappointed and angry at the not guilty verdict for Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an illegal alien who had several felony convictions & was deported from the US five times. Justice must be served for Kate Steinle. https://t.co/IxiL9WCU50

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 1, 2017

Kate’s Law is a proposed law that increases penalties for multiple deportees, like Zarate.