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

[Brisketexan 104628]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They have.  Sometimes, from a persuasion standpoint, it's better to let the jury reach that conclusion unaided than give them the old trout slap.

This testimony is just a bunch of wadding the defense is shoving in the gaping wound that the state blew in the defendant.

So, the defense attorneys are also better at first aid than Amber Guyger....

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

IANAL but I've watched enough legal dramas on film and television to know you don't ask a question when you're not sure of the answer. This question could very easily be answered "yes" by someone. The question "in those situations did you ever shoot anyone?" would be a lot safer way to go based on my Hollywood expertise.

I thought of this, too. If I'm an apartment maintenance guy I would refuse to enter an unoccupied apartment at any time moving forward.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So, the defense attorneys are also better at first aid than Amber Guyger....

Indeed.  Out of rep today.

[hullabelew 3706]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

IANAL but I've watched enough legal dramas on film and television to know you don't ask a question when you're not sure of the answer. This question could very easily be answered "yes" by someone. The question "in those situations did you ever shoot anyone?" would be a lot safer way to go based on my Hollywood expertise.

I thought of this, too. If I'm an apartment maintenance guy I would refuse to enter an unoccupied apartment at any time moving forward.

One big difference is the maintenance dude knows this could happen and would react differently.  You're just sitting in your apartment and someone comes busting you, you are going to be up and saying 'WTF dude'.    [sarcasm]If Jean had just thought to so "Maintenance" when she busted in. [/sarcasm] 

Edited September 27, 2019 by hullabelew

[Fuck Tim Beck 3806]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

the old trout slap.

.

This brings back memories of South Austin's mom 

[smuggs 9342]

Is that a birthmark on this guy's skull or an island of follicles. 

[HOOKEM4 5023]

Honestly, what more could they get from this expert? She entered the wrong apartment and killed an innocent man. How is this testimony going to effect that fact?

[hullabelew 3706]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Indeed.  Out of rep today.

Ha.  Me too. 

[immortal13 4059]

10 minutes ago, HOOKEM4 said:

Honestly, what more could they get from this expert? She entered the wrong apartment and killed an innocent man. How is this testimony going to effect that fact?

Affect

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

This expert is worthless.  I hope he isn't allowed.

[4th and 5 4914]

I wonder.....

has the defense ever qualified an expert?

Because this is a shit show.

They had to know the state would object to their expert and they spent a mere 20 minutes trying to qualify him in a complicated field? 

[4th and 5 4914]

this fucking Rogers guy is a V6

[hookem17 485]

Defense counsel is not doing well in explaining why he needs this expert.

[Bruh Man 3160]

3 hours ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

I feel sorry that she has to deal with these consequences, but not so sorry as to absolve her of her responsibility of causing this entire clusterfuck.  In my mind she's guilty, minimum sentence of 5 years (no early release) with a stipulation that she can never be allowed to carry a gun or act as a peace officer ever again.

[4th and 5 4914]

Long game: appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel

[TXSooner518 2432]

Your Honor, we wanted this expert to testify that guns shoot bullets.

[hookem17 485]

This is unbelievably stupid. You could draw a line from almost anywhere in that apartment to the hole in the wall that may have struck Jean. 

[TXSooner518 2432]

LOLOLOL at them comparing this guy's testimony to the fucking ME.  GTFOH.

[Constant 6722]

2 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

Again after you fucking make this mistake once, how the fuck do you not become aware and give the slightest effort???? Just inconceivable to me.

When I was a kid, I accidentally got into a gold Toyota Camry parked right next to my moms gold Toyota Camry. The shock and embarrassment is so seared into my brain that I still think and joke about it 20 years later when I’m getting into vehicles. I’m not sure how someone makes that mistake multiple times. 

[Tailgate 3018]

Defense hired the wrong team

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

This expert isn't even qualified to suck my balls.

For anyone interested, I'd highly recommend watching Exhibit A regarding the validity of some admitted "expert" testimony.  Texas is particularly egregious in that matter, but at least we have a statute by which  their science can be reviewed/disproved and used to overturn wrongful convictions.

Edited September 27, 2019 by hopkinsnhorns

[TXSooner518 2432]

Just now, Tailgate said:

Defense hired the wrong team

I mean if this level of preparedness and strategy allows you to be a high-paid defense attorney, sign me up yesterday.

[4th and 5 4914]

She paid this guy tens of thousands of dollars.

And got nothing.

She paid this expert thousands of dollars. Thanks for coming! We won't need you.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Now I know why my FIL does so much expert witnessing in his semi-retirement.  He's actually incredibly competent in his field (synthetic organic chemistry), but still, my point stands.

[tokamak 6352]

Weren't some of y'all saying early this week that the defense team is a bunch of heavy hitters?

[Skipper 6103]

Well shit now I'm pissed I got busy at work and missed the expert witness shitshow 

[4th and 5 4914]

I don't know Rogers, who seems to be running the show. It is like he is completely unprepared.

Shook is good and Mowla, who has had little to do with this, is great on appeals.

 

[C-Man 27058]

7 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

She paid this guy tens of thousands of dollars.

And got nothing.

She paid this expert thousands of dollars. Thanks for coming! We won't need you.

I thought I heard she wasn't paying shit. Defense was being paid by the police association or something.

[4th and 5 4914]

I don't know if that is true. Do they cover it when you do dumb shit off duty?

[George 487]

Can someone explain what happen with the expert witnesses.  are they not allowed to testify 

Edited September 27, 2019 by George

[Tailgate 3018]

8 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

She paid this guy tens of thousands of dollars.

And got nothing.

She paid this expert thousands of dollars. Thanks for coming! We won't need you.

Is she paying? Or does the police union help cover costs?

[Constant 6722]

I don’t believe her legal costs are being covered. I could be wrong, though. 

[hookem17 485]

9 minutes ago, George said:

Can someone explain what happen with the expert witnesses.  are they not allowed to testify 

The defense’s reconstructionist was excluded. For expert testimony to be admissible, the expert’s specialized knowledge must assist a layperson (i.e. a juror) in determining a fact issue. The court determined that some of the subject matter the expert was going to testify about did not require an expert explanation; that is, the jurors could understand the issue without the assistance of the expert. 

Expert testimony must also be based on sufficient facts and data. The court determined that the remaining portion of the expert’s testimony was too arbitrary and hypothetical to be admissible. 

[El Diablo 4232]

I'd imagine the gals on cell block D are getting sweaty watching this thing unfold.

[Constant 6722]

Probably halfway through the prosecution cross of the defendant and the only word that comes to mind is evisceration. 

[Guest Lobo]

7 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I'd imagine the gals on cell block D are getting sweaty watching this thing unfold.

Something, something...mistaken finger in the back door of the red carpet.  Or brown carpet in the dark.  Or the blonde carpet.  Something, something.  In the dark.  Unload.  

Edited September 27, 2019 by Lobo

[El Diablo 4232]

3 minutes ago, Constant said:

Probably halfway through the prosecution cross of the defendant and the only word that comes to mind is evisceration. 

How will Guyger counter?

[mackavelli 183]

12 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

How will Guyger counter?

[Zavala 1384]

Did she get the rope?

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

3.6 Roentgen. Not great, not terrible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[South Austin 52147]

33 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I'd imagine the gals on cell block D are getting sweaty watching this thing unfold.

I can fap to that.

[Deej 76568]

Keep your chin up, Amber. Oh wait, you don't have one.

[SDG 3319]

Narrowing; don’t bring in a dr, bring in a ranger instead?  

[4th and 5 4914]

Lots of the science excluded......because she already testified to it, or failed to testify to it because her lawyers didn't elicit that testimony.

Brilliant.

You do it the other way. The jury has to understand why she testifies so poorly before she does it. Why she makes bad decisions. Why she doesn't see, hear or smell. This is all supported by decades of science

All this stuff comes in if experts go first. Is she going to testify? Gee, judge we don't know, we will let you know when and if she decides to do so.

The state objects to everything, the defense just lets everything in. These guys are fucking useless.

Why is how she acted after the shooting (which makes the jury hate her guts) relevant to prove her state of mind, and the reasonableness of deadly force, at the exact moment of the shooting?

You don't let the state Monday morning quarterback your self defense case. It's self defense 101!

Why did they elicit testimony that she wants to be a cop to help people, that opens the door to evidence from the state that she does in fact NOT want to help people, by not helping Mr. Jean.

Goddamn they fucked up a lot of stuff in just one day. 

Edited September 27, 2019 by 4th and 5

[bluto 4894]

2 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

Lots of the science excluded......because she already testified to it, or failed to testify to it because her lawyers didn't elicit that testimony.

Brilliant.

You do it the other way. The jury has to understand why she testifies so poorly before she does it. Why she makes bad decisions. Why she doesn't see, hear or smell. This is all supported by decades of science

All this stuff comes in if experts go first. Is she going to testify? Gee, judge we don't know, we will let you know when and if she decides to do so.

The state objects to everything, the defense just lets everything in. These guys are fucking useless.

Why is how she acted after the shooting (which makes the jury hate her guts) relevant to prove her state of mind, and the reasonableness of deadly force, at the exact moment of the shooting?

You don't let the state Monday morning quarterback your self defense case. It's self defense 101!

Why did they elicit testimony that she wants to be a cop to help people, that opens the door to evidence from the state that she does in fact NOT want to help people, by not helping Mr. Jean.

Goddamn they fucked up a lot of stuff in just one day. 

that aspect of the cross really stuck out to me that the defense didn't at least try to object, they just sat back and took it up the ass. 

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Anyone catch what time they are resuming tomorrow?

[hookem17 485]

8 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

Anyone catch what time they are resuming tomorrow?

9:00

[TwiceHorn 31283]

4 hours ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

This expert isn't even qualified to suck my balls.

For anyone interested, I'd highly recommend watching Exhibit A regarding the validity of some admitted "expert" testimony.  Texas is particularly egregious in that matter, but at least we have a statute by which  their science can be reviewed/disproved and used to overturn wrongful convictions.

The State of Texas has kind of a long history, legally, of "letting stuff in and letting the jury sort it out."  It's hard to explain that to a layperson, but it's really part of the heritage of this state.

A result of that is that by and large, judges in state courts in Texas "let lawyers try their cases;" as opposed to federal courts, where the judges feel quite free to tell lawyers exactly how to try their cases, what evidence the jury may hear, and frequently take cases away from juries via summary judgment.

And you will generally hear more bitching about federal judges in Texas than other places, because Texas is so loosey-goosey.

Compounding that, with experts, is the simple fact that many lawyers and judges have shaped their academic and professional careers to avoid science like the plague.  Not all, but a goodly portion.  And they often just shut down when things get too scienc-y.

Finally, in most areas, it's less likely to result in reversal to let something in rather than exclude it (improperly founded expert testimony is a big exception).  

So all of this has sort of conspired to make Texas courtrooms vulnerable to junk science.  All are to one degree or another.  But Texas is probably worse.

[Guest Lobo]

Bold move trusting the jury will dismiss things like physics, science, facts, and evidence in lieu of more and more cops saying that other cops never do anything wrong.  Bold strategy Cotton.  

I always thought I'd be super awake to smite my enemies.  Turns out, I just have to stay awake longer.  Basically Amber's defense is the plot to the next "Nightmare on Elm Street" trilogy.  "Nine, Ten...never sleep again."  

[Knoxtnhorn 5936]

Quote

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The State of Texas has kind of a long history, legally, of "letting stuff in and letting the jury sort it out."  It's hard to explain that to a layperson, but it's really part of the heritage of this state.

A result of that is that by and large, judges in state courts in Texas "let lawyers try their cases;" as opposed to federal courts, where the judges feel quite free to tell lawyers exactly how to try their cases, what evidence the jury may hear, and frequently take cases away from juries via summary judgment.

 

 

Interesting point.

I served on my first jury a little over a year ago.  It was a civil trial.  Car dealership (Park Place) sued a former employee for stealing millions via a pretty exquisite scam. I say exquisite because there was a lot I wasn't sure about when it came time to what was considered normal and what was considered criminal in the auto retail business. There were several points in which we sent the judge a question with the response being basically, "Figure it out yourselves".