Dallas officer kills man after mistaking apartment for her own, police say

[TwiceHorn 31305]

Just now, boilerhorn said:

Question for the lawyers here:

Could allowing Guyger to testify be considered "ineffective assistance of counsel?"

Probably not.  Anything that's a reasonable judgment call can't be ineffective assistance of counsel.

While raised frequently, it's not frequently a ground for reversal of a conviction.  The law has kind of gone overboard to the point that it protects all but the most grotesquely negligent trial counsel.  On the one hand, you obviously can't second guess every tactical and strategic decision of trial counsel.  On the other, I think the law has gone too far and defendants aren't getting fair trials because of overextended and borderline incompetent indigent (and non-indigent) defense lawyers.

[HRSchenker 2259]

I didn't think she was going to be found guilty of murder until she admitted to hearing a noise outside. Figured they would either accept her mistake of fact defense or use that one line to lock her up. Hopefully this brings some kind of closure to Bo's family. 

[immortal13 4059]

11 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, and the thing is, it was an unforced error. it was not on cross - this admission was made on DIRECT.

how in the FUCK can the defense rehearse a direct with that fact as part of the testimony? 

the thinking i guess was to highlight that she was scared, but that was a fucking GROSS miscalculation. that admission got the jury to murder, i have no doubt about that now. hell, i said it at the time. shocking fact to reveal on direct. 

I assume there was no video from the hallway that would have brought that fact to light?

[DaysOff 7854]

Man that wfaa anchor with the nerd glasses would get it.

[C-Man 27069]

Guess it will be safe to head back downtown after my meeting and lunch

[TwiceHorn 31305]

15 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

From the little I saw, I wasn’t overly impressed with Toby Shook and his defense team at all.

 

Agreed.  His role seemed pretty minimal, although he did handle the crucial Guyger direct where the massive dick stomping occurred.

As far as overall strategery, certainly in hindsight, the handling of the experts and the order of proof was FUBAR.

Maybe, just maybe, Guyger admitted to Armstrong that she heard something, so that was coming in either way and better to eat it on direct and try to spin it than have it shoved up your ass sideways on cross.  Which happened anyway.

Edited October 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[South Austin 52159]

7 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Guess it will be safe to head back downtown after my meeting and lunch

Police will be rioting.

[Guest Lobo]

Well, we're gonna have the change the police mantra of "Do what you got to do to make it home at night."  

[Ghost of LL 15495]

15 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

Question for the lawyers here:

Could allowing Guyger to testify be considered "ineffective assistance of counsel?"

No.

She had to testify because her only prayer was the mistake-in-fact or self-defense defenses.  Those are affirmative defenses, which means that she has the burden of proof.  She'd have no way to carry her burden of proof without testifying.

And so what're you to do as her lawyer?  She has to testify.  And you know that fact is going to come out.  Presuming that you're not going to suborn perjury, how do you deal with it?

You have two options: 1) hope the State doesn't ask the right question on cross-examination, or 2) try to get it out on direct and do your best to spin the fact so that when it does come up on cross, it lands with a thud to a jury who thinks "yeah, I already knew that."

The defense went with Option 2.  It's hard to fault them for that.  Perhaps they could have done a better job of framing the fact and inoculating her against it.  But it's real easy to back-seat drive.

[RPM 26234]

When is sentencing? 

[TXSooner518 2432]

32 minutes ago, Lou said:

So if she doesn't testify, is the verdict different?

Gonna be REALLY difficult, maybe impossible, for the defense to establish self-defense in response to an unarmed man in his own apartment without the defendant''s testimony.

[Continental Op 3934]

Here to eat my plate of crow. I thought there was no way in hell she was going to get convicted.

[Jive Turkey 12568]

seeing several Dallas defense attorneys on Facebook claiming "reversible error" not to let in Ranger Armstrong's opinion testimony.  they're hoping it's reversible error.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Where is @Constant?  Verdict is rendered, so now he can give his opinion, right?

[TXSooner518 2432]

6 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

seeing several Dallas defense attorneys on Facebook claiming "reversible error" not to let in Ranger Armstrong's opinion testimony.  they're hoping it's reversible error.

Seems very very very standard to not let in opinion testimony as to the actual question of fact the jury must answer. Otherwise, when does that end? Let's have the state call 500 experts that say it's their opinion it is unreasonable and the defense call 500 experts that say it is reasonable. 

[AUS-97HORN 11682]

the last thing that jury needed to hear was the opinion of a fucking semi-disgraced Texas Ranger on what you should do in a time of panic.

[High Plains Drifter 10981]

1 hour ago, Fuck Tim Beck said:

I hope this puts all cops on notice. 

Looking at you Art 

 

The one bright spot in this entire shit show.

 

 

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

justice but what a hollow victory.  so many lives destroyed.

 

Hopefully, this will save lives in the long run, if it reigns in out of control cops.

 

 

 

And yes, my faith in humanity is slightly bumped up, at least for now.

[High Plains Drifter 10981]

55 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

I may be misremembering, but I believe she offered up the testimony about hearing someone inside on direct. 

 

Why did her defense lawyers let her testify? I rarely stay in a Hilton, but even I know you don''t take the stand if you are on trail.

 

edit: Not asking you specifically hookem, but the board in general.

 

 

Edited October 1, 2019 by High Plains Drifter

[bluto 4895]

Bruh, literally just a few posts up

[TwiceHorn 31305]

8 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Seems very very very standard to not let in opinion testimony as to the actual question of fact the jury must answer. Otherwise, when does that end? Let's have the state call 500 experts that say it's their opinion it is unreasonable and the defense call 500 experts that say it is reasonable. 

Totally agreed as to the ultimate conclusion.  I think that was rightfully excluded.

The opinions preceding that, about her state of mind, etc. seem to be a closer call.

['stache 21777]

23 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

No.

She had to testify because her only prayer was the mistake-in-fact or self-defense defenses.  Those are affirmative defenses, which means that she has the burden of proof.  She'd have no way to carry her burden of proof without testifying.

And so what're you to do as her lawyer?  She has to testify.  And you know that fact is going to come out.  Presuming that you're not going to suborn perjury, how do you deal with it?

You have two options: 1) hope the State doesn't ask the right question on cross-examination, or 2) try to get it out on direct and do your best to spin the fact so that when it does come up on cross, it lands with a thud to a jury who thinks "yeah, I already knew that."

The defense went with Option 2.  It's hard to fault them for that.  Perhaps they could have done a better job of framing the fact and inoculating her against it.  But it's real easy to back-seat drive.

Someone said earlier that it's not technically an "affirmative" defense as it concerns the burden of proof, but it's still a defense that requires evidence of her state of mind, and only she can testify to that. So your premise, I think, is still correct that she had to testify to have any chance.

[TwiceHorn 31305]

Twice now in the last year, Dallas County juries have held cops accountable for bad shoots.

This ain't Henry Wade's Dallas anymore.

I never was convinced she was gonna walk just because Dallas County.

Edited October 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[High Plains Drifter 10981]

3 minutes ago, bluto said:

Bruh, literally just a few posts up

 

Sorry, I need to catch up before asking stupid questions. Thanks for not negging me, bruh.

[Brisketexan 104671]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Twice now in the last year, Dallas County juries have held cops accountable for bad shoots.

This ain't Henry Wade's Dallas anymore.

 

And on both occasions, "brother officers" tried to rig the investigative process in the cop's favor at the very beginning of the process.  Don't forget that.  Juries are OVERCOMING crooked policing.

[Ghost of LL 15495]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Someone said earlier that it's not technically an "affirmative" defense as it concerns the burden of proof, but it's still a defense that requires evidence of her state of mind, and only she can testify to that. So your premise, I think, is still correct that she had to testify to have any chance.

Yeah--I think that's right.  At least it's ringing a bell.  It's an affirmative defense from the standpoint that she has to plead it.  But a criminal defendant never has the burden of proof.

Oops.

[TXSooner518 2432]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Totally agreed as to the ultimate conclusion.  I think that was rightfully excluded.

The opinions preceding that, about her state of mind, etc. seem to be a closer call.

If disallowing opinion testimony about what the defendant's state of mind might be after the defendant already testified as to what her state of mind actually was, is reversible error, then we are back to the CJ system being totally fucked.

['stache 21777]

So will the jury determine a sentence now? My guess is 15-20 years. They came up with murder relatively quickly so I don't think they would let her off with some bullshit like 2-5.

Edited October 1, 2019 by 'stache

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Yes, they are in recess for lunch until 1pm.  I'm assuming there will be statements made by the prosecution and defense, and possibly some family members of either side, before they deliberate again to determine the sentence.

[Pato del Muerto 52348]

Didn’t realize the trial happened, so now I’m 30 pages behind and can’t read it all, but I want to talk about some things that maybe have been discussed wrt being a cop off duty. 

1) should cops be allowed to wear the uniform and badge and gun when off duty, or should they have to get out of uniform at the station and leave their service weapon there as well so that there’s no confusion over official capacity or not?  If they choose to carry a personal weapon, then they do so and their LEO status allows for it but they are citizens at that point.  If 10 hour shifts are so demanding and exhausting, we shouldn’t let them continue their police duties after hours when they have lowered their concentration 

2) if she gets legal help from dpd and the officers union because she’s in uniform, then she needs to be held to the dpd standard of conduct. You can’t say she’s just a citizen at that point, but she gets all the benefits of being on duty. 

......

so can I get a summary of any damning testimony?

my personal feeling all along is that going up to, and even into, the wrong apartment is reasonable but the actions taken once she sees the victim are not. Does that stil hold up with the facts of the case out?

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

1) That is very inefficient and inconvenient to make them robe/disrobe at the station.  Not really feasible or necessary for anything.

2) They did use her training in de-escalation, protocols, CPR, etc against her in this case as she failed to follow her training.

Most damning bits came out in her cross-examination.  She admitted to hearing noises coming from her apartment before she entered.  She admitted that she intended to kill him when she engaged him.  Those two things likely convicted her.

[TwiceHorn 31305]

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Didn’t realize the trial happened, so now I’m 30 pages behind and can’t read it all, but I want to talk about some things that maybe have been discussed wrt being a cop off duty. 

1) should cops be allowed to wear the uniform and badge and gun when off duty, or should they have to get out of uniform at the station and leave their service weapon there as well so that there’s no confusion over official capacity or not?  If they choose to carry a personal weapon, then they do so and their LEO status allows for it but they are citizens at that point.  If 10 hour shifts are so demanding and exhausting, we shouldn’t let them continue their police duties after hours when they have lowered their concentration 

2) if she gets legal help from dpd and the officers union because she’s in uniform, then she needs to be held to the dpd standard of conduct. You can’t say she’s just a citizen at that point, but she gets all the benefits of being on duty. 

......

so can I get a summary of any damning testimony?

my personal feeling all along is that going up to, and even into, the wrong apartment is reasonable but the actions taken once she sees the victim are not. Does that stil hold up with the facts of the case out?

What most people feel is the key testimony is her admission that while she was futzing with the doorknob, she heard movement inside, and went in anyway "guns a blazin."

The defense did a pretty decent job making it seem reasonable-ish to go to the wrong apartment.

[Tailgate 3018]

Im going with 10+ years...so I guess that means I am taking the over.

[TwiceHorn 31305]

20 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

If disallowing opinion testimony about what the defendant's state of mind might be after the defendant already testified as to what her state of mind actually was, is reversible error, then we are back to the CJ system being totally fucked.

I don't see that timing issue as material.  Seems like an expert ought to be able to explain how her perceptions and decision making processes were affected by stress, and even her recollection of events.

Not that that should be particularly credible with the jury, but I'm not sure it's properly excluded.

[El Diablo 4232]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Holy.  Fuck.

Gotta admit, I'm blown away.  Even though I -- for the first time -- thought there was a path to guilty once the testimony came out that she knew there was something up inside the apartment, and then consciously CHOSE to make entry (that is, she wasn't surprised AFTER she entered the apartment....I still didn't think they'd come back with guilty on murder.

Outstanding.

I hope you'll at least post "I WAS WRONG" for every single post you made where you assured the entire world that she'd never be convicted. Say, 1,000,000 to start with?  

[AggieFactFinder 31]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What most people feel is the key testimony is her admission that while she was futzing with the doorknob, she heard movement inside, and went in anyway "guns a blazin."

I think many are forgetting that she was interviewed shortly after the shooting.  My guess is she disclosed that she heard him while still outside during that interview.  If you know it's going to come out anyway, wouldn't you introduce it on direct?  

Edited October 1, 2019 by AggieFactFinder

[hookem17 485]

2 minutes ago, AggieFactFinder said:

I think many are forgetting that she was interviewed shortly after the shooting.  My guess is she disclosed that she heard him while still outside during that interview.  If you know it's going to come out anyway, wouldn't you introduce it on direct?  

I wondered this too. But why wouldn’t the state have introduced that evidence during its case?

[TwiceHorn 31305]

5 minutes ago, AggieFactFinder said:

I think many are forgetting that she was interviewed shortly after the shooting.  My guess is she disclosed that she heard him while still outside during that interview.  If you know it's going to come out anyway, wouldn't you introduce it on direct?  

Kind of my guess also.

But, GoLL points out that even if nothing requires you to admit that on direct, there's a risk that the state gets that out on cross.  And then it could be a an even bigger shitshow.

Edited October 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[bluto 4895]

Expected timing on how long until we get ruling on sentence?

[TwiceHorn 31305]

6 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

I wondered this too. But why wouldn’t the state have introduced that evidence during its case?

That would have been kind of awkward, as it would have been hearsay "Did Officer Guyger tell you that  . . . " to which there might have been exceptions, but still.

The state focused on the elements of its burden of proof, an intentional act resulting in death, rather than anticipating and defeating the defenses.

Edited October 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31305]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And on both occasions, "brother officers" tried to rig the investigative process in the cop's favor at the very beginning of the process.  Don't forget that.  Juries are OVERCOMING crooked policing.

I aint forgetting that, or excusing it  You assured me this was a show trial.🤬🤬

Edited October 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[hookem17 485]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

That would have been kind of awkward, as it would have been hearsay "Did Officer Guyger tell you that  . . . " to which there might have been exceptions, but still.

Party opponent statements always get in (unless the rules are different in criminal). “Ms. Guyger admitted to you that she heard someone inside the apartment before she entered, corrrect?” Seems straightforward, but that’s why I don’t practice criminal law. 

[El Diablo 4232]

So when's the civil trial gonna start?

[Trey3216 15325]

22 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Didn’t realize the trial happened, so now I’m 30 pages behind and can’t read it all, but I want to talk about some things that maybe have been discussed wrt being a cop off duty. 

1) should cops be allowed to wear the uniform and badge and gun when off duty, or should they have to get out of uniform at the station and leave their service weapon there as well so that there’s no confusion over official capacity or not?  If they choose to carry a personal weapon, then they do so and their LEO status allows for it but they are citizens at that point.  If 10 hour shifts are so demanding and exhausting, we shouldn’t let them continue their police duties after hours when they have lowered their concentration 

2) if she gets legal help from dpd and the officers union because she’s in uniform, then she needs to be held to the dpd standard of conduct. You can’t say she’s just a citizen at that point, but she gets all the benefits of being on duty. 

......

so can I get a summary of any damning testimony?

my personal feeling all along is that going up to, and even into, the wrong apartment is reasonable but the actions taken once she sees the victim are not. Does that stil hold up with the facts of the case out?

The weapon many LEO's carry is their own personal weapon.  Many departments do not supply a standard issue weapon, they allow the officer to select their weapon and the dept stamps approval.  

[TwiceHorn 31305]

4 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

So when's the civil trial gonna start?

The federal civil case has been pending for a long time now, but I'm sure was stayed pending the completion of the criminal trial.  It will be another year or two at least, assuming it doesn't settle promptly.

I think her liability is pretty clearly established, so it's whatever "policy limits" Texas Municipal League will tender.

The bigger question that may "need" trial is whether DPD/City of Dallas has a problem with training, policy, and procedure.

Edited October 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[msudawg 371]

1 hour ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

I think the O/U should be set at 9.5 years.  My money is that she gets 10 years.  Any more doesn't do anything to alleviate the pain of the deceased's family, nor is she more likely to be rehabilitated.  Honestly, 5 years probably gets the job done, but because of the optics of the case, they bump it to 10 years.  The verdict was more important than the sentencing IMHO.

I agree with your line of thought. In instances like this, how they determine how many years the juror should assign. I gather there will be testimonials by the families and other info given. But is there any guidelines provided to say. if this = 5 years, or if this = 20 years. 

If there are no guidelines, so many things come into play. the persons believe in does jail ever work as far as rehab.  

[Dr Fear 1266]

I can't believe she admitted to hearing someone inside before opening the door and going in with her gun drawn. Stupid 

Was this new info or had she already said this when intervied by DPD?

[immortal13 4059]

Some of you assholes need to read the thread

[TwiceHorn 31305]

4 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

Party opponent statements always get in (unless the rules are different in criminal). “Ms. Guyger admitted to you that she heard someone inside the apartment before she entered, corrrect?” Seems straightforward, but that’s why I don’t practice criminal law. 

I think you are right, that it could have come in that way, but the state didn't ask Armstrong about anything she told him in their interviews.

[TwiceHorn 31305]

1 minute ago, Dr Fear said:

2 hours ago, immortal13 said:

I can't believe she admitted to hearing someone inside before opening the door and going in with her gun drawn. Stupid 

Was this new info or had she already said this when intervied by DPD?

We don't know.

[SA-KC_Horn 1295]

The fact she admitted to hearing noises before entering and not rendering aid, should be 10+ yrs.