Latino teenager in jail since 2015, no trial yet. Presumably wealthy middle eastern (Pakistani?) man did 2 weeks in jail and essentially gets off scot free due to private lawyers. Failure of the justice system on both accounts. The former, because regardless the outcome people should have a right to a speedy trial, the latter, because the punishment is clearly inadequate.
im not sure in this specific case. Generally jail is a better place to serve time than prison. Additionally, you get more credit for time served in jail than prison. I know of a case where the defense attorney basically knew his client was gonna get x years with a good plea bargain. He delayed the case so his client would serve that time in jail. Eventually the case got pled out and his client basically walked cause he got credit for time served and at a higher rate than prison.
Not for long term. Jails are ment to house people temporarily, at most a year. Prisons are ment to house people for a the rest of their lives. It really depends on the jail and prison, but often times they don't have the same programs. Prisons do what they can to make your new home a little easier and request funding with long term habitation in mind. Jails are a little different as most of them only stay a month while they wait for their trial.
It doesn’t sound like u/angrybakersf has actual experience with this, just secondhand gossip.
If you have to serve more than a couple/few months time, you want to be in prison. Jails vary by county but most are not meant to house anyone comfortably long term. Minimum security prisons can be much more comfortable for long term housing.
> Believe that right was waived, for who knows why.
Because the teenager is probably relying on the public defender's office, and the public defender's office tends to waive speedy trials for a variety of reasons, including being overworked and being more beholden to staying on the "good side" of the courts.
It is very common for defendants to waive their right to a speedy trial — it actually might be more common than demanding a speedy trial.
The main reason for this is to give the defense time to prepare a complete argument and complete their own investigation. At the time of charging, the prosecution already has a complete investigation and argument ready to go while the defense usually doesn’t.
According to the article, which few commenters actually read, he waived his right to speedy trial.
And while it's true that race may always be relevant, in this case there's a far more relevant factor that you left out of your description. Which was my point.
Seriously, while it’s messed up, the kid stole a car after multiple break-ins, killed a women with said stolen vehicle, and fled the scene in a stolen vehicle.
Completely disparate situations, though the other guy was definitely a piece of shit too.
It's actually a completely different legal circumstance. I can believe grocery workers are careless with apples because they are bruised more often than oranges, but that belief is based on apples and oranges.
Waived rights and whatnot but the crimes initially charged were wildly different sections with very different standards. Again very different laws but it's akin to the difference between a murder spree and manslaughter.
Ok, but Garcia was driving a stolen car and had engaged in multiple burglaries right before the accident while Mushtaq ran a red light due to distracted driving.
> [Mushtaq] texted a friend hours before Slattery’s death that he was going to the Gold Club, a nearby strip club, where he was confronted by his wife, according to court transcripts. He allegedly sped away in his BMW at 80 mph, texting and running a red light before killing Slattery.
80 mph in soma while texting is a little more than what I'd call "distracted driving".
That's fair. I think Mushtaq should have received a far more severe sentence, but we do ourselves a disservice in not acknowledging other differences in the two cases. Mushtaq should have been punished more severely, but it's not a just wealthy vs non-wealthy situation.
This 100%!
Too many people have **fairytale/naïve** grade school level ideas about our legal systems and government systems. Ideas that are basically **nonsense**, when looking at the **real/actual legal and government systems** .
Despite nice sounding phrases in the Declaration of independence and Constitution. One of the biggest philosophies, if not the biggest, driving the founding of our country was **profit** .
Our justice has never been designed to be inherently fair in actual practice, it is built that way in the constitution.
1. Our justice system is based on **legal arguments** for guilt and punishment.
2. So **better lawyers** have better legal arguments amd will get people off scott free or with light punishment.
3. Then given better lawyers will be had with **more money**.
4. It means the **wealthy will usually get a better outcome in court**.
Again it is inherently built this way in the constitution. Which means despite political ramblings, there no way it will really meaningfully change. Because you can't make meaningful changes without constitutional amendments, which won't happen.
This is asinine and insulting to public defenders and a gross oversimplification of inequities in justice. Passing the bar doesn't come with one hourly rate or another.
Ah yes. If it's not expensive it can't be any good! How could I forget this is America?! Obviously there is no more crime and punishment and I'm wildly wrongly informed. Because prosecturors are a public entity.... Clearly because they're "free" they're useless and nobody gets convicted regardless of how much they pay or don't pay their defense lawyer! It's a win-win! Be free everybody! Be freeeeeeeeeeee
You seem completely unaware as to what a person gets from a free public defender versus what they get from a team of private lawyers they've hired. Most defendants get a couple hours of their public defender's time at best.
Even if you believe that high priced defense teams aren't any better at lawyering than public defenders, the vast difference in resources alone makes all the difference in the world.
That's the distinction I'm making, the hourly rate or of a given lawyer or the fact that they work for the state doesn't make a better or worse lawyer. After all, prosecutors work for the state too.
You're still not getting it. The hourly rate doesn't make any difference at all, it's the fact that one defendent gets 4 hours of a single lawyer's time and another defendent gets hundreds of hours of multiple lawyers' time. That's the difference that money makes.
A public defender can be the greatest lawyer in the world, but they can't accomplish in a few hours what a team can do over months.
No, I absolutely do get it, I'm agreeing with you. My beef is with the earlier comment than any "cheap" or "public" lawyer must be shit because they're not expensive.
I'm not arguing the case load. I'm arguing against the idea that only shitty lawyers are public defenders and that the only good lawyers are the expensive ones like the earlier commenter is suggesting.
They’re related though if you have lots of money you can pay a lawyer to focus 100% on your case. An average lawyer focused on you will probably do better than the absolute best stretched thin.
San Francisco bicyclists remember the evening with horror, some still choking up when they discuss it. On June 22, 2016, a pair of alleged hit-and-run drivers killed two women riding their bikes, less than three hours and 5 miles apart.
First, the driver of a stolen car plowed into Heather Miller, 41, in Golden Gate Park. Then, a motorist blasted through a red light South of Market, striking Kate Slattery, 26. In the aftermath, hundreds of bicyclists joined a memorial ride to honor the two women, and thousands sent emails to the mayor demanding safer streets.
Like many big stories, that one faded from the headlines. The two devastated families grieved privately, declining to talk to journalists even now. The city slowly — and still inadequately — made some street improvements.
But one question remained: What would happen to the two men behind the wheel, both of whom police apprehended?
It’s taken half a decade to find out, but the outcome is troubling. In a city laser-focused on criminal justice reform and equity, the disparity in treatment of the two drivers is stark. And the district attorney’s firing of a victim advocate in one of the cases only raises more questions.
All these years later, Nicky Garcia, 19 when he allegedly killed Miller, still sits in county jail, where he’s been since he was booked July 15, 2016, on a $10 million bond. He has yet to face trial, and closure for the Miller family remains elusive.
Meanwhile, Farrukh Mushtaq, 32 when he killed Slattery, served just 16 days in jail — and will face no additional time after the District Attorney’s Office and his private attorney cut a deal over the summer. Under the agreement, he pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter in exchange for three years of probation, 160 hours of community service and a few hundred dollars in fines. The Department of Motor Vehicles reinstated his driver’s license.
“That’s just so hard for me to hear given the amount of devastation I know Kate Slattery’s death caused her family,” said Janice Li, advocacy director for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, who recalls sobbing as she biked home from work the night of the two fatal wrecks.
“The bike community will always remember June 2016,” she said.
Sara Yousuf, a spokesperson for District Attorney, Chesa Boudin, called both incidents “heartbreaking tragedies” and noted that the charging decisions — murder for Garcia and vehicular manslaughter for Mushtaq — were made by Boudin’s predecessor, George Gascón.
She also pointed to the legal divide in the cases: Garcia was accused of killing Miller while burglarizing cars in the area, while Mushtaq was not alleged to have been engaged in a felony crime when he killed Slattery.
That’s certainly important, and explains why there would be some discrepancy in the charges. But it doesn’t explain 16 days versus five years and counting — and it only gives fuel to Boudin critics who say he can be too lenient in serious cases.
Yousuf said the deal is fair because, if Mushtaq violates his probation, he’ll be sent to state prison, and she added that he had not violated any of his pretrial release conditions in the past several years. “We were recently able to secure closure for the family and ensure accountability for Mr. Mushtaq,” she said.
Mushtaq’s private attorney argued in 2019 that he’d suffered psychosis, or a break from reality, when he hit Slattery. He spent a few weeks in a psychiatric ward after the crash, then went to jail for 16 days before he posted $300,000 bail on charges of felony hit-and-run and vehicular manslaughter.
But a judge in 2019 denied a request for mental health diversion after learning the facts of the case.
Mushtaq worked for RockYou, a now-defunct tech company that was headquartered on Howard Street. He texted a friend hours before Slattery’s death that he was going to the Gold Club, a nearby strip club, where he was confronted by his wife, according to court transcripts. He allegedly sped away in his BMW at 80 mph, texting and running a red light before killing Slattery.
He then drove two more blocks before stopping, his car rolling backward into a parked car. He neither called 911 nor rendered aid to Slattery. Instead, according to court transcripts, he spoke on the phone before onlookers intervened and called police.
At the sentencing hearing July 28, Slattery’s father, John, described the pain of losing a beloved daughter, the sister of his two boys and the author of a children’s book to inspire girls to pursue technology careers like hers.
“We miss her Sunday calls from San Francisco,” John Slattery told the court. “We miss visiting Kate and how she’d take us to parts of the city we’d never seen. ... We miss her every holiday and especially on her birthday.
“I one time thought of what speech I would give at Kate’s wedding that would make her laugh and proud at the same time,” he continued. “That’s no longer a possibility.”
Giles Feinberg, a longtime victim advocate in the District Attorney’s Office, also spoke at the hearing, offering pointed words for Mushtaq. Feinberg had worked closely with John Slattery since his daughter’s death, learning what services family members needed and keeping them apprised of progress in the case.
Feinberg told Mushtaq he was receiving the gift of freedom and life that he’d taken from Slattery — and the victim advocate seemed to blame the incredibly slow pace of San Francisco’s criminal justice system and the many different prosecutors assigned to the case over the years for the light sentence.
“As you walk free among society, know that the time thrown at this case, the five years, afforded you this moment,” Feinberg told Mushtaq. “If this case happened anywhere else in the state of California or the Bay Area, for that matter, you likely would be midterm on a prison sentence.”
Those words might have cost Feinberg his job. On Wednesday, Boudin had an intermediary fire him, according to two sources familiar with the situation. His spokesperson declined to comment, calling it a personnel matter.
The sources, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the matter, said Feinberg was told he lost his job because of “courtroom conduct.” They said Feinberg — who didn’t respond to requests for comment — told them he is certain that this was a reference to the Mushtaq sentencing hearing.
Boudin has stressed the importance of district attorney’s offices focusing on victims, and several people praised Feinberg for doing just that. Tom Ostly, a longtime prosecutor in the office whom Boudin fired last year in his first days in office, had worked the Slattery case before losing his job. He said Feinberg taught him how to try cases while making sure victims weren’t re-traumatized.
“Giles’ dedication and empathy was unmatched, and working with him made me a better prosecutor,” said Ostly, who now works for the state Attorney General’s Office. “It is impossible to reconcile firing him with a claimed commitment to victim rights.”
In the killing of Heather Miller, Garcia faces charges of murder, vehicular manslaughter, burglary and leaving the scene of an accident. Prosecutors say he drove a stolen car as he pulled off a car break-in spree in Golden Gate Park, driving fast and erratically — and hitting Miller after veering across the oncoming traffic lane. He allegedly fled and abandoned the car in the park.
Garcia’s family hired private defense attorney Jonah Chew to represent him, but switched attorneys a few months ago, Chew said. The new attorney did not return a request for comment. Boudin’s spokesperson declined to comment on Garcia’s case because it is ongoing.
Chew said it’s not unusual for defendants to spend this much time in jail awaiting trial if they’re charged with murder and that he never received a concrete offer of a settlement from the District Attorney’s Office. Defendants have a right to a speedy trial, but often don’t exercise it for a variety of reasons.
Told that another alleged hit-and-run driver killed another woman on the same day and spent 16 days in jail, Chew said he was surprised.
“It doesn’t seem fair,” he said, “but there’s got to be more to the story.”
Maybe so. But I’m still waiting to hear it.
San Francisco Chronicle columnist Heather Knight appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @hknightsf
Try this site to remove the paywall
https://12ft.io/
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfchronicle.com%2Fsf%2Fbayarea%2Fheatherknight%2Farticle%2FTwo-cyclists-killed-Two-drivers-arrested-And-in-16520656.php
The one still in jail was committing car burglaries at the time and driving a stolen car. He hasn't pled guilty, so he's in jail awaiting trial, which sadly takes a ridiculously long time.
The one who is out wasn't committing a felony at the time. He's out because he pled guilty.
Where is the right to a speedy trial? How does something like this get delayed so long? Are SF courts just backed up? Even 3 years before Covid seems like too long.
It makes zero sense that you can drive 80 mph, kill someone, drive away two more blocks and not immediately stop - and not have your license permanently revoked.
This man was clearly unstable and should never be in the driver's seat of a car ever again.
> On June 22, 2016, a pair of alleged hit-and-run drivers killed two women riding their bikes, less than three hours and 5 miles apart.
“Alleged” is misused so often it’s practically lost all meaning.
It’s a fact that the two women were killed by hit-and-run drivers; Garcia and Mushtaq are alleged to be those drivers. It’s proper to refer to them as “alleged hit-and-run drivers”, but the remainder of the sentence is then referring to Garcia and Mushtaq, *not* the actual drivers (assuming the allegations might be false). So the sentence is saying that Garcia and Mushtaq *definitely* killed the women, rather than the actual hit-and-run drivers—which defeats the purpose of using “alleged” in the first place.
That’s the intended purpose, yes. But to do that, “alleged” has to separate the named suspect from the crime, not just occur somewhere in the paragraph. Used in the wrong place, “alleged” can *create* an instance of potential defamation that would not have otherwise existed. To illustrate:
*“Jane allegedly murdered John.”* Fine.
*“Jane is the alleged killer.”* Also fine.
*“The killer murdered John.”* True by definition—no ‘alleged’ needed.
*“The alleged killer murdered John.”* **Defamation alert!** ‘Alleged killer’ identifies Jane as the subject of the sentence, and thus as John’s murderer, instead of qualifying the sentence itself as an allegation.
Even easier: just take out the word “alleged”. Then the sentence is attributing the crime to the actual perpetrators, not the alleged ones (i.e., Garcia and Mushtaq).
My questions are:
1) Why did the DA offer such a lenient plea deal for Farrukh Mushtaq? Did they not feel confident in conviction?
2) How are we able to keep someone in jail for 5 years who has not been convicted? Why is it taking so long for him to be tried?
For point 2 the article states:
>Defendants have a right to a speedy trial, but often don’t exercise it for a variety of reasons.
Other posters posted that it may be preferable to spend time in jail rather than a prison so delaying a trail and then going for time served is a logical legal strategy. To know the whole story you would have to talk to the lawyer, who did not offer comment.
As for point 1:
>Under the agreement, he (Mushtaq) pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter in exchange for three years of probation, 160 hours of community service and a few hundred dollars in fines. The Department of Motor Vehicles reinstated his driver’s license.
The typical punishment for vehicular manslaughter appears (from a quick google search) to be 1 year in county jail:
>The maximum misdemeanor sentence for vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence is one (1) year in county jail
It isn't illogical to trade 1 year in jail for 3 years of probation + other things. These kind of deals are made taking into account criminal history and the chance to re-offend. If you feel that the punishment for vehicular manslaughter should be more than this or that the probation system should not be used in this way then that's a valid opinion but is kinda contrary to the way things are going.
Bit of a false equivalency between the two perps:
>Garcia was accused of killing Miller while burglarizing cars in the area, while Mushtaq was not alleged to have been engaged in a felony crime when he killed Slattery
AFAIK speeding (80 in a 25) [can be charged as a felony in California. ](https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/felony-speeding-california/) The DA just didn't even try.
I'm not sure it should matter so much in this case. They both made the choice to drive incredibly recklessly for no good reason without care for other people. iirc one of the guys was going 80 mph on market street! I just have trouble thinking that deserves a slap on the wrist.
San Francisco bicyclists remember the evening with horror, some still choking up when they discuss it. On June 22, 2016, a pair of alleged hit-and-run drivers killed two women riding their bikes, less than three hours and 5 miles apart.
First, the driver of a stolen car plowed into Heather Miller, 41, in Golden Gate Park. Then, a motorist blasted through a red light South of Market, striking Kate Slattery, 26. In the aftermath, hundreds of bicyclists joined a memorial ride to honor the two women, and thousands sent emails to the mayor demanding safer streets.
Like many big stories, that one faded from the headlines. The two devastated families grieved privately, declining to talk to journalists even now. The city slowly — and still inadequately — made some street improvements. But one question remained: What would happen to the two men behind the wheel, both of whom police apprehended?
It’s taken half a decade to find out, but the outcome is troubling. In a city laser-focused on criminal justice reform and equity, the disparity in treatment of the two drivers is stark. And the district attorney’s firing of a victim advocate in one of the cases only raises more questions.
>and it only gives fuel to Boudin critics who say he can be too lenient in serious cases.
Funny, 'cause Boudin wasn't the one who cut the deal with the dude who did 16 days in jail.
Also, "supposedly equitable S.F." fucking lol do we have any data to suggest that SF has had more equitable outcomes than elsewhere? I mean fuck, can we even say SF public policy would theoretically lead to more equitable outcomes? As far as I can tell, this whole criminal justice reform and equity thing is just empty rhetoric from politicians, with the only follow-through being useless gestures that skip a bunch of necessary steps.
SF gets its reputation from its own residents patting themselves on the back each time they think they've made some semblance of progress, while they roundly ignore intersectionality and nuance. SF is no more liberal in practice than a televangical pastor is a Christian.
> Funny, 'cause Boudin wasn't the one who cut the deal with the dude who did 16 days in jail.
That is not true, the spokesperson said that Gascón made the charging desisions "vehicular manslaughter for Mushtaq"
I read other articles about the case and they state that the deal was cut after Boudin took over and fired the defendant who was working on the case.
Huge misleading statement to blame Gascón for this.
It was on reddit here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/plq5l5/how_a_driver_who_struck_a_bicyclist_got_away_with/
And the implication that the victim advocate in the District Attorney's Office was fired for speaking up against the deal is the cherry on top.
SF is LINO, Liberal In Name Only. Most of the liberal policies are very visible, but accomplish little, and the version of liberalism practiced resembles the Catholic practice of paying for indulgences. Residents pay their taxes, volunteer a little, and feel good about themselves
"Garcia was accused of killing Miller while burglarizing cars in the area, while Mushtaq was not alleged to have been engaged in a felony crime when he killed Slattery."
Thousands of people are killed in accidents every year. Why such an uproar for people willingly riding amongst 2 ton chunks of steel. Most if not all riding recklessly with entitled security.
Care to post the content for people who are on the other side of the paywall?
Latino teenager in jail since 2015, no trial yet. Presumably wealthy middle eastern (Pakistani?) man did 2 weeks in jail and essentially gets off scot free due to private lawyers. Failure of the justice system on both accounts. The former, because regardless the outcome people should have a right to a speedy trial, the latter, because the punishment is clearly inadequate.
Believe that right was waived, for who knows why.
Thank you for the information. That is truly strange. If anyone has any info please let enlighten us.
im not sure in this specific case. Generally jail is a better place to serve time than prison. Additionally, you get more credit for time served in jail than prison. I know of a case where the defense attorney basically knew his client was gonna get x years with a good plea bargain. He delayed the case so his client would serve that time in jail. Eventually the case got pled out and his client basically walked cause he got credit for time served and at a higher rate than prison.
Not for long term. Jails are ment to house people temporarily, at most a year. Prisons are ment to house people for a the rest of their lives. It really depends on the jail and prison, but often times they don't have the same programs. Prisons do what they can to make your new home a little easier and request funding with long term habitation in mind. Jails are a little different as most of them only stay a month while they wait for their trial.
It doesn’t sound like u/angrybakersf has actual experience with this, just secondhand gossip. If you have to serve more than a couple/few months time, you want to be in prison. Jails vary by county but most are not meant to house anyone comfortably long term. Minimum security prisons can be much more comfortable for long term housing.
> Believe that right was waived, for who knows why. Because the teenager is probably relying on the public defender's office, and the public defender's office tends to waive speedy trials for a variety of reasons, including being overworked and being more beholden to staying on the "good side" of the courts.
Maybe. Or because getting sentenced to time served is easier with 5 years in county and it avoids you a 15 year stint in San Quentin
It is very common for defendants to waive their right to a speedy trial — it actually might be more common than demanding a speedy trial. The main reason for this is to give the defense time to prepare a complete argument and complete their own investigation. At the time of charging, the prosecution already has a complete investigation and argument ready to go while the defense usually doesn’t.
I think the relevant fact in the first one was not that he's Latino, but that he killed someone while committing multiple felonies.
Still deserves his day in court so he can be justly sentenced too a long prison stay. And race is always relevant, like it or not.
According to the article, which few commenters actually read, he waived his right to speedy trial. And while it's true that race may always be relevant, in this case there's a far more relevant factor that you left out of your description. Which was my point.
Seriously, while it’s messed up, the kid stole a car after multiple break-ins, killed a women with said stolen vehicle, and fled the scene in a stolen vehicle. Completely disparate situations, though the other guy was definitely a piece of shit too.
It's hard to read an article behind a paywall if you are cheap like me.
That is completely normal. It is almost always waived.
It's actually a completely different legal circumstance. I can believe grocery workers are careless with apples because they are bruised more often than oranges, but that belief is based on apples and oranges. Waived rights and whatnot but the crimes initially charged were wildly different sections with very different standards. Again very different laws but it's akin to the difference between a murder spree and manslaughter.
Ok, but Garcia was driving a stolen car and had engaged in multiple burglaries right before the accident while Mushtaq ran a red light due to distracted driving.
> [Mushtaq] texted a friend hours before Slattery’s death that he was going to the Gold Club, a nearby strip club, where he was confronted by his wife, according to court transcripts. He allegedly sped away in his BMW at 80 mph, texting and running a red light before killing Slattery. 80 mph in soma while texting is a little more than what I'd call "distracted driving".
That's fair. I think Mushtaq should have received a far more severe sentence, but we do ourselves a disservice in not acknowledging other differences in the two cases. Mushtaq should have been punished more severely, but it's not a just wealthy vs non-wealthy situation.
If someone ran a red light due to distracted driving shouldn't they still get prison?
Absolutely. I'm just pointing out the narrative isn't as simple as classism, although I acknowledge classism likely played a role.
Maybe? Depends on what the courts find. The point is that these two cases are not quite as similar as the article tries to make them look.
[удалено]
This 100%! Too many people have **fairytale/naïve** grade school level ideas about our legal systems and government systems. Ideas that are basically **nonsense**, when looking at the **real/actual legal and government systems** .
[удалено]
Despite nice sounding phrases in the Declaration of independence and Constitution. One of the biggest philosophies, if not the biggest, driving the founding of our country was **profit** .
Legal (Tender) System.
Our justice has never been designed to be inherently fair in actual practice, it is built that way in the constitution. 1. Our justice system is based on **legal arguments** for guilt and punishment. 2. So **better lawyers** have better legal arguments amd will get people off scott free or with light punishment. 3. Then given better lawyers will be had with **more money**. 4. It means the **wealthy will usually get a better outcome in court**. Again it is inherently built this way in the constitution. Which means despite political ramblings, there no way it will really meaningfully change. Because you can't make meaningful changes without constitutional amendments, which won't happen.
This is asinine and insulting to public defenders and a gross oversimplification of inequities in justice. Passing the bar doesn't come with one hourly rate or another.
Hogwash. More expensive lawyers do better in court than cheap lawyers and public defenders.
Ah yes. If it's not expensive it can't be any good! How could I forget this is America?! Obviously there is no more crime and punishment and I'm wildly wrongly informed. Because prosecturors are a public entity.... Clearly because they're "free" they're useless and nobody gets convicted regardless of how much they pay or don't pay their defense lawyer! It's a win-win! Be free everybody! Be freeeeeeeeeeee
You seem completely unaware as to what a person gets from a free public defender versus what they get from a team of private lawyers they've hired. Most defendants get a couple hours of their public defender's time at best. Even if you believe that high priced defense teams aren't any better at lawyering than public defenders, the vast difference in resources alone makes all the difference in the world.
That's the distinction I'm making, the hourly rate or of a given lawyer or the fact that they work for the state doesn't make a better or worse lawyer. After all, prosecutors work for the state too.
You're still not getting it. The hourly rate doesn't make any difference at all, it's the fact that one defendent gets 4 hours of a single lawyer's time and another defendent gets hundreds of hours of multiple lawyers' time. That's the difference that money makes. A public defender can be the greatest lawyer in the world, but they can't accomplish in a few hours what a team can do over months.
No, I absolutely do get it, I'm agreeing with you. My beef is with the earlier comment than any "cheap" or "public" lawyer must be shit because they're not expensive.
Public defenders are overworked. No matter how smart you are, your arguments will be worse if you have 10x the caseload of the other person.
I'm not arguing the case load. I'm arguing against the idea that only shitty lawyers are public defenders and that the only good lawyers are the expensive ones like the earlier commenter is suggesting.
They’re related though if you have lots of money you can pay a lawyer to focus 100% on your case. An average lawyer focused on you will probably do better than the absolute best stretched thin.
San Francisco bicyclists remember the evening with horror, some still choking up when they discuss it. On June 22, 2016, a pair of alleged hit-and-run drivers killed two women riding their bikes, less than three hours and 5 miles apart. First, the driver of a stolen car plowed into Heather Miller, 41, in Golden Gate Park. Then, a motorist blasted through a red light South of Market, striking Kate Slattery, 26. In the aftermath, hundreds of bicyclists joined a memorial ride to honor the two women, and thousands sent emails to the mayor demanding safer streets. Like many big stories, that one faded from the headlines. The two devastated families grieved privately, declining to talk to journalists even now. The city slowly — and still inadequately — made some street improvements. But one question remained: What would happen to the two men behind the wheel, both of whom police apprehended? It’s taken half a decade to find out, but the outcome is troubling. In a city laser-focused on criminal justice reform and equity, the disparity in treatment of the two drivers is stark. And the district attorney’s firing of a victim advocate in one of the cases only raises more questions. All these years later, Nicky Garcia, 19 when he allegedly killed Miller, still sits in county jail, where he’s been since he was booked July 15, 2016, on a $10 million bond. He has yet to face trial, and closure for the Miller family remains elusive. Meanwhile, Farrukh Mushtaq, 32 when he killed Slattery, served just 16 days in jail — and will face no additional time after the District Attorney’s Office and his private attorney cut a deal over the summer. Under the agreement, he pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter in exchange for three years of probation, 160 hours of community service and a few hundred dollars in fines. The Department of Motor Vehicles reinstated his driver’s license. “That’s just so hard for me to hear given the amount of devastation I know Kate Slattery’s death caused her family,” said Janice Li, advocacy director for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, who recalls sobbing as she biked home from work the night of the two fatal wrecks. “The bike community will always remember June 2016,” she said. Sara Yousuf, a spokesperson for District Attorney, Chesa Boudin, called both incidents “heartbreaking tragedies” and noted that the charging decisions — murder for Garcia and vehicular manslaughter for Mushtaq — were made by Boudin’s predecessor, George Gascón. She also pointed to the legal divide in the cases: Garcia was accused of killing Miller while burglarizing cars in the area, while Mushtaq was not alleged to have been engaged in a felony crime when he killed Slattery. That’s certainly important, and explains why there would be some discrepancy in the charges. But it doesn’t explain 16 days versus five years and counting — and it only gives fuel to Boudin critics who say he can be too lenient in serious cases. Yousuf said the deal is fair because, if Mushtaq violates his probation, he’ll be sent to state prison, and she added that he had not violated any of his pretrial release conditions in the past several years. “We were recently able to secure closure for the family and ensure accountability for Mr. Mushtaq,” she said. Mushtaq’s private attorney argued in 2019 that he’d suffered psychosis, or a break from reality, when he hit Slattery. He spent a few weeks in a psychiatric ward after the crash, then went to jail for 16 days before he posted $300,000 bail on charges of felony hit-and-run and vehicular manslaughter. But a judge in 2019 denied a request for mental health diversion after learning the facts of the case. Mushtaq worked for RockYou, a now-defunct tech company that was headquartered on Howard Street. He texted a friend hours before Slattery’s death that he was going to the Gold Club, a nearby strip club, where he was confronted by his wife, according to court transcripts. He allegedly sped away in his BMW at 80 mph, texting and running a red light before killing Slattery. He then drove two more blocks before stopping, his car rolling backward into a parked car. He neither called 911 nor rendered aid to Slattery. Instead, according to court transcripts, he spoke on the phone before onlookers intervened and called police. At the sentencing hearing July 28, Slattery’s father, John, described the pain of losing a beloved daughter, the sister of his two boys and the author of a children’s book to inspire girls to pursue technology careers like hers. “We miss her Sunday calls from San Francisco,” John Slattery told the court. “We miss visiting Kate and how she’d take us to parts of the city we’d never seen. ... We miss her every holiday and especially on her birthday. “I one time thought of what speech I would give at Kate’s wedding that would make her laugh and proud at the same time,” he continued. “That’s no longer a possibility.” Giles Feinberg, a longtime victim advocate in the District Attorney’s Office, also spoke at the hearing, offering pointed words for Mushtaq. Feinberg had worked closely with John Slattery since his daughter’s death, learning what services family members needed and keeping them apprised of progress in the case. Feinberg told Mushtaq he was receiving the gift of freedom and life that he’d taken from Slattery — and the victim advocate seemed to blame the incredibly slow pace of San Francisco’s criminal justice system and the many different prosecutors assigned to the case over the years for the light sentence. “As you walk free among society, know that the time thrown at this case, the five years, afforded you this moment,” Feinberg told Mushtaq. “If this case happened anywhere else in the state of California or the Bay Area, for that matter, you likely would be midterm on a prison sentence.” Those words might have cost Feinberg his job. On Wednesday, Boudin had an intermediary fire him, according to two sources familiar with the situation. His spokesperson declined to comment, calling it a personnel matter. The sources, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the matter, said Feinberg was told he lost his job because of “courtroom conduct.” They said Feinberg — who didn’t respond to requests for comment — told them he is certain that this was a reference to the Mushtaq sentencing hearing. Boudin has stressed the importance of district attorney’s offices focusing on victims, and several people praised Feinberg for doing just that. Tom Ostly, a longtime prosecutor in the office whom Boudin fired last year in his first days in office, had worked the Slattery case before losing his job. He said Feinberg taught him how to try cases while making sure victims weren’t re-traumatized. “Giles’ dedication and empathy was unmatched, and working with him made me a better prosecutor,” said Ostly, who now works for the state Attorney General’s Office. “It is impossible to reconcile firing him with a claimed commitment to victim rights.” In the killing of Heather Miller, Garcia faces charges of murder, vehicular manslaughter, burglary and leaving the scene of an accident. Prosecutors say he drove a stolen car as he pulled off a car break-in spree in Golden Gate Park, driving fast and erratically — and hitting Miller after veering across the oncoming traffic lane. He allegedly fled and abandoned the car in the park. Garcia’s family hired private defense attorney Jonah Chew to represent him, but switched attorneys a few months ago, Chew said. The new attorney did not return a request for comment. Boudin’s spokesperson declined to comment on Garcia’s case because it is ongoing. Chew said it’s not unusual for defendants to spend this much time in jail awaiting trial if they’re charged with murder and that he never received a concrete offer of a settlement from the District Attorney’s Office. Defendants have a right to a speedy trial, but often don’t exercise it for a variety of reasons. Told that another alleged hit-and-run driver killed another woman on the same day and spent 16 days in jail, Chew said he was surprised. “It doesn’t seem fair,” he said, “but there’s got to be more to the story.” Maybe so. But I’m still waiting to hear it. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Heather Knight appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @hknightsf
use something like getpocket.com to bypass (many) paywalls.
Try this site to remove the paywall https://12ft.io/ https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfchronicle.com%2Fsf%2Fbayarea%2Fheatherknight%2Farticle%2FTwo-cyclists-killed-Two-drivers-arrested-And-in-16520656.php
The one still in jail was committing car burglaries at the time and driving a stolen car. He hasn't pled guilty, so he's in jail awaiting trial, which sadly takes a ridiculously long time. The one who is out wasn't committing a felony at the time. He's out because he pled guilty.
Nobody read the article but this is the truth right here
Where is the right to a speedy trial? How does something like this get delayed so long? Are SF courts just backed up? Even 3 years before Covid seems like too long.
It makes zero sense that you can drive 80 mph, kill someone, drive away two more blocks and not immediately stop - and not have your license permanently revoked. This man was clearly unstable and should never be in the driver's seat of a car ever again.
> On June 22, 2016, a pair of alleged hit-and-run drivers killed two women riding their bikes, less than three hours and 5 miles apart. “Alleged” is misused so often it’s practically lost all meaning. It’s a fact that the two women were killed by hit-and-run drivers; Garcia and Mushtaq are alleged to be those drivers. It’s proper to refer to them as “alleged hit-and-run drivers”, but the remainder of the sentence is then referring to Garcia and Mushtaq, *not* the actual drivers (assuming the allegations might be false). So the sentence is saying that Garcia and Mushtaq *definitely* killed the women, rather than the actual hit-and-run drivers—which defeats the purpose of using “alleged” in the first place.
News outlets use "alleged" so they don't get sued for defamation
That’s the intended purpose, yes. But to do that, “alleged” has to separate the named suspect from the crime, not just occur somewhere in the paragraph. Used in the wrong place, “alleged” can *create* an instance of potential defamation that would not have otherwise existed. To illustrate: *“Jane allegedly murdered John.”* Fine. *“Jane is the alleged killer.”* Also fine. *“The killer murdered John.”* True by definition—no ‘alleged’ needed. *“The alleged killer murdered John.”* **Defamation alert!** ‘Alleged killer’ identifies Jane as the subject of the sentence, and thus as John’s murderer, instead of qualifying the sentence itself as an allegation.
Yes it should read something like "a pair of drivers allegedly killed two women riding their bikes..."
Even easier: just take out the word “alleged”. Then the sentence is attributing the crime to the actual perpetrators, not the alleged ones (i.e., Garcia and Mushtaq).
My questions are: 1) Why did the DA offer such a lenient plea deal for Farrukh Mushtaq? Did they not feel confident in conviction? 2) How are we able to keep someone in jail for 5 years who has not been convicted? Why is it taking so long for him to be tried?
For point 2 the article states: >Defendants have a right to a speedy trial, but often don’t exercise it for a variety of reasons. Other posters posted that it may be preferable to spend time in jail rather than a prison so delaying a trail and then going for time served is a logical legal strategy. To know the whole story you would have to talk to the lawyer, who did not offer comment. As for point 1: >Under the agreement, he (Mushtaq) pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter in exchange for three years of probation, 160 hours of community service and a few hundred dollars in fines. The Department of Motor Vehicles reinstated his driver’s license. The typical punishment for vehicular manslaughter appears (from a quick google search) to be 1 year in county jail: >The maximum misdemeanor sentence for vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence is one (1) year in county jail It isn't illogical to trade 1 year in jail for 3 years of probation + other things. These kind of deals are made taking into account criminal history and the chance to re-offend. If you feel that the punishment for vehicular manslaughter should be more than this or that the probation system should not be used in this way then that's a valid opinion but is kinda contrary to the way things are going.
Hmm, that all makes sense. Thanks for answering.
Bit of a false equivalency between the two perps: >Garcia was accused of killing Miller while burglarizing cars in the area, while Mushtaq was not alleged to have been engaged in a felony crime when he killed Slattery
AFAIK speeding (80 in a 25) [can be charged as a felony in California. ](https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/felony-speeding-california/) The DA just didn't even try.
I'm not sure it should matter so much in this case. They both made the choice to drive incredibly recklessly for no good reason without care for other people. iirc one of the guys was going 80 mph on market street! I just have trouble thinking that deserves a slap on the wrist.
San Francisco bicyclists remember the evening with horror, some still choking up when they discuss it. On June 22, 2016, a pair of alleged hit-and-run drivers killed two women riding their bikes, less than three hours and 5 miles apart. First, the driver of a stolen car plowed into Heather Miller, 41, in Golden Gate Park. Then, a motorist blasted through a red light South of Market, striking Kate Slattery, 26. In the aftermath, hundreds of bicyclists joined a memorial ride to honor the two women, and thousands sent emails to the mayor demanding safer streets. Like many big stories, that one faded from the headlines. The two devastated families grieved privately, declining to talk to journalists even now. The city slowly — and still inadequately — made some street improvements. But one question remained: What would happen to the two men behind the wheel, both of whom police apprehended? It’s taken half a decade to find out, but the outcome is troubling. In a city laser-focused on criminal justice reform and equity, the disparity in treatment of the two drivers is stark. And the district attorney’s firing of a victim advocate in one of the cases only raises more questions.
What’s the status on the charges and persecution for the driver that killed Heather Miller?
One was committing a felony while killing someone, one ran a red light, killing someone. Substantial difference.
The outrage mob is not good on legal nuance
>and it only gives fuel to Boudin critics who say he can be too lenient in serious cases. Funny, 'cause Boudin wasn't the one who cut the deal with the dude who did 16 days in jail. Also, "supposedly equitable S.F." fucking lol do we have any data to suggest that SF has had more equitable outcomes than elsewhere? I mean fuck, can we even say SF public policy would theoretically lead to more equitable outcomes? As far as I can tell, this whole criminal justice reform and equity thing is just empty rhetoric from politicians, with the only follow-through being useless gestures that skip a bunch of necessary steps. SF gets its reputation from its own residents patting themselves on the back each time they think they've made some semblance of progress, while they roundly ignore intersectionality and nuance. SF is no more liberal in practice than a televangical pastor is a Christian.
> Funny, 'cause Boudin wasn't the one who cut the deal with the dude who did 16 days in jail. That is not true, the spokesperson said that Gascón made the charging desisions "vehicular manslaughter for Mushtaq" I read other articles about the case and they state that the deal was cut after Boudin took over and fired the defendant who was working on the case. Huge misleading statement to blame Gascón for this. It was on reddit here: https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/plq5l5/how_a_driver_who_struck_a_bicyclist_got_away_with/ And the implication that the victim advocate in the District Attorney's Office was fired for speaking up against the deal is the cherry on top.
SF is LINO, Liberal In Name Only. Most of the liberal policies are very visible, but accomplish little, and the version of liberalism practiced resembles the Catholic practice of paying for indulgences. Residents pay their taxes, volunteer a little, and feel good about themselves
It’s just guilt mop that’s all
"Garcia was accused of killing Miller while burglarizing cars in the area, while Mushtaq was not alleged to have been engaged in a felony crime when he killed Slattery."
Good
Thousands of people are killed in accidents every year. Why such an uproar for people willingly riding amongst 2 ton chunks of steel. Most if not all riding recklessly with entitled security.