I think part of the problem was that the Judge did not allow the jury to hear anything about his past crimes. Nor were they allowed to know that the gun had been stolen just days before.
So the defense was allowed to present a man with no criminal background and that the gun went off accidentally.
My first thought when I heard the verdict was that the Prosecutor purposely presented a weak case. In other words the fix was in (similar to the way Democrats fixed trails in the South to get KKK members off).
But that is just an opinion with no facts. Maybe in time we will know the truth.
Past offenses are always off limits during a trial.
Even during sentencing (in states where the jury decides the sentence) a lot is not revealed.
But this was a show trial so San Francisco could show the world they are happy to sacrifice their own citizens on the altar of political correctness. They picked a jury of idiots who would deliver the verdict they wanted. That jury just became accessories to murder.
This still doesn't work. California law defines the conditions needed to claim accidental homicide. They are: No criminal intent, no negligence, and not otherwise engaged in criminal behavior. The jury found the guy guilty of felony illegal firearm possession. This means he was engaged in criminal behavior and ,by California law, the "it was an accident" defense is not possible.
or, at least that's the way I'm seeing it. I'm not a lawyer and I could be missing something.
That’s what I was thinking too. Who knows for sure, but the fix was in for OJ. The fix might have been in for this clown too.
Had the same thought myself. I think the entire San Fran political and legal system did not want to render a guilty verdict because that would also be an indictment of their sanctuary city policies.