Jonathan McKinsey: Defense Lawyers Disagree Over Dublin Park Shooting as November 4 Bail Hearing Nears
The Case, Simply Explained
Jonathan McKinsey, a 40-year-old engineer and father, was shot and killed at Dublin Sports Grounds in California on September 26, 2026. Two of his in-laws, Shouyong Zhang and Shili Chen, both 77, are accused of killing him. They have pleaded not guilty. On October 30, new reporting described sharply different accounts advanced by the defendants’ lawyers in filings seeking release before trial. Chen’s lawyer says she did not know her husband planned to shoot Jonathan and argues her actions afterward were protective rather than part of a planned killing. The prosecution previously charged both defendants with murder and a lying-in-wait special circumstance. These arguments have not been resolved by a trial or a bail ruling. Their next reported hearing is November 4.
Why It Matters
How people describe the seconds surrounding a fatal shooting can shape major legal questions, including whether two defendants acted together and whether either should be held without bail. A defense filing can be important evidence of a legal argument without establishing that the defendant’s account is true. Jonathan’s life deserves more than a dispute about who fired which shot. He was a parent, teacher and technology leader who had recently been navigating a painful family separation. The criminal trial must determine what the admissible evidence proves, not what either side alleges in its preliminary motions.
Go Deeper | What the October 30 Reporting Establishes
The shooting and the original charges
Authorities said Jonathan was shot at Dublin Sports Grounds while other families were in the area. Police arrested Zhang and Chen near the scene. Alameda County prosecutors charged them with murder and associated firearm allegations, including a lying-in-wait special circumstance. The case has received unusual public interest because Jonathan was a father and a New York Times Games engineering leader and because the accused are related to him through his estranged wife.
The fact that both were charged does not mean they have been convicted, and the fact that they later obtained separate lawyers does not establish which legal theory will prevail.
What Chen’s lawyer now argues
Reporting published October 30 describes attorney Curtis Briggs’s position that Zhang developed a plan without Chen’s knowledge. Briggs’s filing says Chen had been told to bring a gun for what she understood to be a shooting-range trip. The defense portrays her later decision to use the gun as a response to a perceived threat to her husband. It disputes whether her conduct satisfies the prosecution’s lying-in-wait theory.
These are arguments attributed to defense counsel. They do not establish that Jonathan posed a threat, that the shooting was justified, or that Chen had no prior knowledge. The original filing has not been independently obtained and authenticated by this newsroom, so this article does not represent the motion’s reported descriptions as verified court findings.
How the reported video sequence fits the dispute
According to press descriptions of the filing, Zhang approached Jonathan and fired first, Chen got out of their vehicle afterward and fired her weapon, and Zhang fired again. Some reporting says police recovered 18 shell casings. This is the sequence summarized by journalists from available accounts and motions. The full video, detailed forensic reconstruction and certified exhibits have not been reviewed here. An allegation about the timing of shots should not be converted into a conclusion about when Jonathan died or about either person’s state of mind.
The family-court background
Jonathan and Candice Jang were involved in divorce and custody litigation and made competing allegations of abuse. Both had sought protective orders. News coverage reports disputes over family relationships and reported threats. Those accusations are not equivalent to findings that Jonathan threatened a person or that Chen and Zhang were legally justified in harming him. Candice Jang has not been charged in Jonathan’s homicide in the official case record reviewed.
What Zhang’s lawyers argue
Zhang’s defense is also seeking pretrial release. Its reported arguments emphasize his age, health and the family conflict. An attorney’s description of a client’s medical condition or fears is not independent proof of the condition or a justification for violence. The judge must apply the relevant law to the charging allegations, risk factors and evidence offered at the hearing.
Why these court records are public
Pleasanton Weekly reported on October 28 that Judge Diane Meier reversed an earlier sealing order after a news organization’s request to open the docket. That decision allowed some filings to be inspected, but the publication specifically says search warrants and supporting affidavits were excluded from the unsealing. We should not state that every investigative document is publicly available.
The newly discussed defense motion’s original filing date and full docket copy remain unverified here. Accordingly this story is dated October 30, the confirmed date of the newly reported defense account, rather than falsely assigning it a newly verified official unsealing date.
What happens November 4
According to the court-record reporting, the defendants were scheduled to appear at the East County Hall of Justice in Dublin on Wednesday, November 4, at 9:15 a.m. Pacific time for a bail hearing. That is a scheduled proceeding, not confirmation that either defendant will be released. Both have pleaded not guilty, and no trial verdict has been returned.
What Happens Next
The next critical documents are the actual defense motions, prosecution responses and the judge’s bail decision. The case timeline should preserve September 26 as the date of Jonathan’s death, October 19 as the reported not-guilty pleas, October 28 as the report of unsealed court records, October 30 as the newly published defense account, and November 4 as an upcoming hearing. We will identify the original filing dates separately when the docket establishes them.
Read Jonathan’s case and biography · Follow the dated court record
Footnotes and Sources
Editorial verification note, October 30: This article is based on independently attributable reporting of court motions and a documented hearing schedule. The complete motions, original docket dates, prosecution’s responsive filings, surveillance recordings and certified hearing transcripts were not independently examined. Statements by the prosecution and defense are identified as allegations or arguments. Zhang and Chen remain presumed innocent unless convicted.
Every name has a story.
Follow Faces in the Footnotes
Like this story