Jump to content

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

'stache

By 'stache
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Constant
Constant

First off I’d like to say that I’m heartbroken for the Jean family. As a parent myself, I hope Mr. Jean’s father and mother find some peace in the outcome. They appear to be a wonderful family that ra

SubliminalHorn
SubliminalHorn

Just relax the throat and stay in rhythm 

4th&Five
4th&Five

Posted Images

4th and 5

4th and 5 4914

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

I dunno, even if it really was her apartment, since the "intruder" entered while it was unoccupied, she needs some reasonable belief that deadly force is needed to stop a murder, agg assault, sex assault, or robbery. His mere presence isn't enough to trigger that (as it would be if an intruder entered with force while it was occupied). Given he had no weapon, and there was no other evidence, I think castle doctrine would have been very shaky even in her own apartment. 

I think the castle doctrine presumption and instruction do not apply in this case.

But that's my opinion based on the evidence presented. Which brings me to my next point....

2 hours ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

I missed the live trial action this morning, but can one of our law dogs explain why the Judge instructed the jury that they could consider the Castle Doctrine defense?  It doesn't appear to be applicable given the actual circumstances of this murder.  Does this make it more likely for the verdict to stand on appeal?  There's got to be a good reason.  I just can't figure out what it is.

Not giving a defensive  charge or instruction where there is a scintilla of evidence to support it is reversible error. They do not want to try this case again.

59 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and as a trial lawyer, there are two words that elevate the heart rate more than any others:

"Jury's back."

Seriously.  Every damned time, I feel like my heart is going to beat right outta my chest.

Yep. 

Now imagine the stakes are freedom, and not money.

Edited by 4th and 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104636

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

I think the castle doctrine presumption and instruction do not apply in this case.

But that's my opinion based on the evidence presented. Which brings me to my next point....

Not giving a defensive  charge or instruction where there is a scintilla of evidence to support it is reversible error. They do not want to try this case again.

Yep. 

Now imagine the stakes are freedom, and not money.

No doubt.  I've told people that plenty of times -- my cases are generally about money (believe it or not, they're also often about major matters of policy, which can have a great effect on millions of people -- no pressure there), but yeah.....I've also said it's nothing compared to the pressure of a serious criminal trial or an iffy surgical procedure -- someone can lose their freedom, or their life.  I have no doubt that turning that sort of thing over to a jury is nerve-wracking as hell.

And I both loathe the stress....and feed off of the energy and adrenaline.  Pretty messed up, if you ask me about me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, DallasHorn26 said:

I've never followed a murder trial this close, but it seems like they usually take longer or is a week normal? Also, how much attention would this be getting if she had been a teacher, nurse, etc instead of a cop?

I can't imagine someone from any other profession being able to make the same mistake of fact argument while still maintaining legal representation.  Only a cop can get away with this argument and maybe get away with the crime itself. 

With identical facts and a CHL holder being the killer, there is no way he/she doesn't end up getting convicted of 2nd degree murder.  Or trespassing, breaking and entering, and felony murder.  Of course, police may kill a CHL holder as soon as they arrive on scene. They certainly wouldn't help him set up the story and scene in a favorable way like they do for one of their own. 

Is there any Texas case law of someone other than a cop successfully using this defense with similar facts?  This certainly isn't the first time someone went into the wrong house and killed someone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HOOKEM4

HOOKEM4 5026

Posted
Posted

I have a sinking feeling the result will not be close to adequate. I cant say how I would vote if I were on the jury as I would never in a million years be allowed on a jury involving a cop crime. Ever since the day 16yr old me was assaulted by a cop for a minor traffic violation, my bias was set in stone. If I never interact with another cop the rest of my life it will not be long enough. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hopkinsnhorns

hopkinsnhorns 533

Posted
Posted

The longer the jury deliberates, the more likely I see either a compromise manslaughter verdict or a hung jury.

It came up in the trial that one of the jurors had a professional relationship with Ranger Armstrong, but the Judge didn’t see fit to dismiss the juror. From that moment forward, I was worried that the defense snuck a ringer on the jury. It only takes one obstinate racist/Back The Blue asshole to prevent a guilty verdict...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104636

Posted
Posted
The longer the jury deliberates, the more likely I see either a compromise manslaughter verdict or a hung jury.

It came up in the trial that one of the jurors had a professional relationship with Ranger Armstrong, but the Judge didn’t see fit to dismiss the juror. From that moment forward, I was worried that the defense snuck a ringer on the jury. It only takes one obstinate racist/Back The Blue asshole to prevent a guilty verdict...

One thing I’ve learned....there’s no reliable predictor from how long a jury takes. Seriously, long deliberation can mean literally any outcome. Same with a short one. It has pretty much zero correlation.
I wish it did. But i just tell my clients the truth - we’ll know that the jury did when they come back.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
housious

housious 468

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and as a trial lawyer, there are two words that elevate the heart rate more than any others:

"Jury's back."

Seriously.  Every damned time, I feel like my heart is going to beat right outta my chest.

Do you do civil or criminal work? Just curious 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


One thing I’ve learned....there’s no reliable predictor from how long a jury takes. Seriously, long deliberation can mean literally any outcome. Same with a short one. It has pretty much zero correlation.
I wish it did. But i just tell my clients the truth - we’ll know that the jury did when they come back.

Or maybe Pauly Shore just likes his luxury suite at the hotel where they are sequestered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pepper brooks

pepper brooks 579

Posted
Posted

this thing is crazy.  you have witnesses two floors away claiming they heard a big commotion, but the girl with a totally different story who shared a wall.  The girl who shared the wall has a version that seems to align with the 911 call, and seems to corroborate the police officers story more so than people two floors away.  That said, I cannot see how any court could apply a stand your ground scenario here.  The guy was in his own house!  I'm not sure based on everything I have read I can get to a murder here, but I can definitely get to manslaughter and would definitely go for some jail time.  This is sad all the way around.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
boilerhorn

boilerhorn 1335

Posted
Posted (edited)

Texas Tribune chimes in on mistake of fact and castle doctrine as it applies to this case.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/09/30/what-texas-castle-doctrine-amber-guyger-murder-trial/

Snip:
 

Quote

The doctrine is further complicated in this case because Guyger was operating under what's considered a mistake of fact. She said she thought she was in her own apartment when she was actually in Botham Jean’s apartment, and that “fact” carries through into her self defense argument.

If Guyger has a reasonable belief that she was in her own apartment then the doctrine applies, Schulte said. The state has to disprove that she thought she was in her apartment, he said.

 

Edited by boilerhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted

That Tribune article and many other articles and such are disregarding that she didn't prove that she was entitled to the deadly force presumption - no evidence that, even under her mistaken beliefs, he entered an OCCUPIED habitation unlawfully and with force, and no evidence that the force was immediately necessary to prevent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

So it should just be basic self-defense, was the force both necessary and proportionate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted

Texas really needs to revamp its Penal Code, including lumping all intentional killings as murder. The vast majority of the populace thinks of murder as something premeditated. A LOT of people are confused on that, and all it takes is one person on the jury to just have a visceral reaction to that word, and these facts not meeting the standard layperson definition to fuck the whole thing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ellellelle

Ellellelle 308

Posted
Posted

I was on a jury where we wanted clarification on burglary or robbery (the question was actually about clarifying burglary). We ended up finding him guilty of robbery and kidnapping. Asking for clarification means nothing, they could be arguing over a small technical detail.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21777

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

"The state has to disprove that she thought she was in her apartment, he said."

I don't think they have to disprove what she thought (that would be impossible). She testified that she thought she was in her own apartment, and I think the state needs to disprove that this belief was reasonable. I hope the prosecutor was good at trying to break this down for lay jurors, because there seem to be some very complicated nuances.

Edited by 'stache
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted

They don't HAVE to disprove that she had a reasonable belief that she was in her apartment. If the belief she was in her apt is found to be reasonable, the state still wins if her use of force, despite her belief, was unreasonable. I actually think the second is much more likely where they win.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31296

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Texas really needs to revamp its Penal Code, including lumping all intentional killings as murder. The vast majority of the populace thinks of murder as something premeditated. A LOT of people are confused on that, and all it takes is one person on the jury to just have a visceral reaction to that word, and these facts not meeting the standard layperson definition to fuck the whole thing up.

As adopted, which includes Chapter 19, it's a very fine penal code.  It has served us very well for a long, long time, but it is getting kind of corroded and corrupted by the lege (see UCW).

Making sweeping changes in law in response to aberrational cases like this is usually a mistake.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As adopted, which includes Chapter 19, it's a very fine penal code.  It has served us very well for a long, long time, but it is getting kind of corroded and corrupted by the lege (see UCW).

Making sweeping changes in law in response to aberrational cases like this is usually a mistake.

It isn't in response to this case. My job is teaching the law to judges, and so many areas of the law are unnecessarily antiquated and complicated. It's time to move into this century, and that includes not calling crimes things that require 12 of 12 jurors to revamp what they think words mean to avoid murderers getting off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104636

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, BigDHornfan said:

well that's telling that they aren't considering murder at all.

Not really, see the replies below.

21 minutes ago, HOOKEM4 said:

It is possible there are a few jurors who are on the fence about murder and they are trying to clarify it among themselves. It honestly can mean anything. 

 

14 minutes ago, Ellellelle said:

I was on a jury where we wanted clarification on burglary or robbery (the question was actually about clarifying burglary). We ended up finding him guilty of robbery and kidnapping. Asking for clarification means nothing, they could be arguing over a small technical detail.

 

 

My first jury trial (civil fraud case, decent amount of money in dispute, we were the plaintiff), the jury deliberated for well over half a day.  They even asked a question or two of the judge.

Turns out that they were ready to fill out the verdict form in our favor within 30 minutes, but then the foreman decided to play devil's advocate on each claim and element, to make sure that they were really comfortable with their decision.  5 hours later, yep, they were.

The point being, it's generally pointless to try to divine what the jury is thinking just by the time they take or a question they ask.  They have a lot of legal issues in front of them.  They usually will try to understand them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21468

Posted
Posted

So I’m wondering where the line is going to be drawn on riots/no riots.  Acquittal will obviously result in riots.  A conviction on a lesser charge with minimal time or probation will probably get some level of riotous activity.  I’m thinking she needs to get at least 10 years in the hoosegow for downtown to remain relatively unscathed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...