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

[TwiceHorn 31295]

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

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

Yeah, there's not really anything to cheer about here.  Except that people can stop shitting on the justice system for 30 seconds.

After her indictment, this went pretty textbook.  Fair trial.

Edited October 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TXSooner518 2432]

Just now, hookem17 said:

Surprising. Maybe mothers feeling sympathy for Jean’s parents. 

Orrrrr maybe people agreeing you can't just walk into another person's home and shoot them dead while they stand there unarmed? I mean, it's not like these facts need some type of jury nullification or something.

[TXSooner518 2432]

1 minute ago, pepper brooks said:

pretty shocked they got to "murder" here, but I would lean on saying that in this case if they were going to get it wrong on one side or the other I am more comfortable with murder than innocence.  What I mean is "not guilty and walk" would not have been acceptable to me.  You are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun.  I cannot believe this situation deserved not guilty.  even if you made an "honest mistake" an innocent man is dead.  that should not go unpunished IMO.  On the other hand, I do not believe this girl murdered this guy based on what I have read and followed.  Had I been on the jury I think I would have voted for manslaughter and 15-20 and somewhere near whatever the max is for the offense.  I am still more okay with murder than not guilty, but I think murder is a reach.  

which element of murder do you not find present? 

[swraith 336]

That jury may have just restored a tiny bit of my faith in humanity. Well done.

[hookem17 485]

1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

Orrrrr maybe people agreeing you can't just walk into another person's home and shoot them dead while they stand there unarmed? I mean, it's not like these facts need some type of jury nullification or something.

True. Just speculating on what may have been the line of thinking during jury selection.

[Skipper 6103]

I think they still give a relatively light sentence.  Setting the O/U at 10.5 years.  At least that is where I would probably come out if I were on the jury.  

[TwiceHorn 31295]

8 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

pretty shocked they got to "murder" here, but I would lean on saying that in this case if they were going to get it wrong on one side or the other I am more comfortable with murder than innocence.  What I mean is "not guilty and walk" would not have been acceptable to me.  You are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun.  I cannot believe this situation deserved not guilty.  even if you made an "honest mistake" an innocent man is dead.  that should not go unpunished IMO.  On the other hand, I do not believe this girl murdered this guy based on what I have read and followed.  Had I been on the jury I think I would have voted for manslaughter and 15-20 and somewhere near whatever the max is for the offense.  I am still more okay with murder than not guilty, but I think murder is a reach.  

There's been much discussion about how in Texas, murder is the legally appropriate charge.

The range of sentencing is 5-99, which allows for some mitigation of the seeming harshness of the murder label.  Murder, however, does not permit probation.

I don't see any need for more than the minimum.  She's not the type of person that will be able to "blow off" a short sentence.  Five years will come close to ruining her.  She's not likely to do anything like this again, so there's no reason to keep her out of society.

Edited October 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[hookem17 485]

Under 10 years. 

[TXSooner518 2432]

Just now, Skipper said:

I think they still give a relatively light sentence.  Setting the O/U at 10.5 years.  At least that is where I would probably come out if I were on the jury.  

Agree. I would take the under.

[gsoda3 3237]

the comments on the side of the youtube page are sickening to read.  

[Brisketexan 104636]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

After her indictment, this went pretty textbook.  Fair trial.

Very important qualifier.  Let's not let our pleasure with the result and process here make us forget the bullshit shenanigans of law enforcement in the immediate wake of the shooting and the investigation.  She got wildly preferential treatment, and DPD officers did what they could to put their thumb on the scales early on.  DPD officers acted as if another DPD officer was above the law.  That shit can't just slide.

They cheated.  They tried to change the ultimate outcome.  They failed, so that's good.  But they still cheated, and should be penalized.

[Huckleberry 32704]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, there's not really anything to cheer about here.  Except that people can stop shitting on the justice system for 30 seconds.

After her indictment, this went pretty textbook.  Fair trial.

Y'all lawdogs have some more explaining to do if you don't want me shitting on the legal system at all. 

Is it true that the castle doctrine requires forced entry into the home while someone is present? If so then why was the jury instructed to consider that doctrine when Guyger testified that she heard someone in the apartment before she entered? According to her testimony, even if she thought it was her apartment she knew for a fact it was entered while empty. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Huckleberry

[huge 3788]

6 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

the comments on the side of the youtube page are sickening to read.  

of course they are

no one should ever read that

[housious 468]

Just now, gsoda3 said:

the comments on the side of the youtube page are sickening to read.  

Is this your first time on Youtube?

[Ghost of LL 15493]

 

Prison is real rough on cops who kill innocent black men.  Amber, if you get the opportunity, you should kill yourself.

[tokamak 6352]

2 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

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

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. We haven't talked about it much in this thread because we've been focused on the minutiae of the trial itself, but what an incredibly sad situation. Botham Jean was literally sitting in his own home, minding his own business. Watching football and eating ice cream. Could have been any of us. Then Guyger barges in and before he even knows what's going on, she shoots him through the heart. If his goddamn door had just closed a millimeter further and latched, he'd be alive today.

I don't really know what my point is, other than it's just an incredibly shitty, senseless way to go.

[CHEF DIESEL 126]

I figured maybe a verdict of manslaughter with a few months in jail. Murder? Wow.

[SameSame 1692]

4 minutes ago, Skipper said:

I think they still give a relatively light sentence.  Setting the O/U at 10.5 years.  At least that is where I would probably come out if I were on the jury.  

Over

[SDG 3319]

Similar to a drunk driver; she had options and made the choice to go in. IMO this is the correct verdict. 

[Brisketexan 104636]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Y'all lawdogs have some more explaining to do if you don't want me shitting on the legal system at all. 

Is it tire that the castle doctrine requires forced entry into the home while someone is present? If so then why was the jury instructed to consider that doctrine when Guyger testified that she heard someone in the apartment before she entered? According to her testimony, even if she thought it was her apartment she knew for a fact it was entered while empty. 

1) from what I understand of it, I don't think that the Castle Doctrine instruction was proper, but....

2) by giving the jury that instruction, the judge managed to take away what might have been a key argument for Guyger on appeal.  That is, Guyger can't attack the verdict by arguing that it may well have been different if only the judge had given the jury the castle doctrine instruction that she asked for.

Giving the defense an arguably improper jury instruction on the verdict form is a gamble....it COULD cause the jury to screw up, but it also takes away that appellate point afterwards, so the verdict is more bulletproof.  I haven't thought it all through here, but man....I don't think Guyger has many good appellate points to make.  Her expert got excluded, but I think that was a sound decision by the court.  What else does she have?

[tx 3 putt 76414]

murder was the case that they gave me .....

[Jive Turkey 12568]

Cross examination of Guyger sealed the deal. 

[TXSooner518 2432]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Y'all lawdogs have some more explaining to do if you don't want me shitting on the legal system at all. 

Is it true that the castle doctrine requires forced entry into the home while someone is present? If so then why was the jury instructed to consider that doctrine when Guyger testified that she heard someone in the apartment before she entered? According to her testimony, even if she thought it was her apartment she knew for a fact it was entered while empty. 

Texas Penal Code 9.32

(b)  The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1)  knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A)  unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B)  unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C)  was committing or attempting to commit [aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.]

 

NO evidence entered of A, B, or C.

[tokamak 6352]

5 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

the comments on the side of the youtube page internet are sickening to read.  

FIFY

[Telegraph_it 3354]

Well I know my day is definitely going better than hers. 

[bigup2dahorns 3343]

I will take the under 10 years

Court resumes at 1 pm

[Jive Turkey 12568]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

1) from what I understand of it, I don't think that the Castle Doctrine instruction was proper, but....

2) by giving the jury that instruction, the judge managed to take away what might have been a key argument for Guyger on appeal.  That is, Guyger can't attack the verdict by arguing that it may well have been different if only the judge had given the jury the castle doctrine instruction that she asked for.

Giving the defense an arguably improper jury instruction on the verdict form is a gamble....it COULD cause the jury to screw up, but it also takes away that appellate point afterwards, so the verdict is more bulletproof.  I haven't thought it all through here, but man....I don't think Guyger has many good appellate points to make.  Her expert got excluded, but I think that was a sound decision by the court.  What else does she have?

That’s exactly what I thought the Judge was thinking. She knew which way the winds were blowing. I think she sensed a murder conviction coming. Including a manslaughter option was solely for appeal purposes and to take away a ground for reversal. 

[Huckleberry 32704]

4 minutes ago, tokamak said:

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. We haven't talked about it much in this thread because we've been focused on the minutiae of the trial itself, but what an incredibly sad situation. Botham Jean was literally sitting in his own home, minding his own business. Watching football and eating ice cream. Could have been any of us. Then Guyger barges in and before he even knows what's going on, she shoots him through the heart. If his goddamn door had just closed a millimeter further and latched, he'd be alive today.

I don't really know what my point is, other than it's just an incredibly shitty, senseless way to go.

Yeah, that's the other thing. Sometimes there are loopholes in the law, and I won't say it's necessarily right for juries to take matters into their own hands in those situations but it sure as shit isn't wrong.

An innocent man was sitting on his couch watching TV and got shot and killed. Justice shouldn't be about vengeance, but for that to happen someone did something incredibly and terribly wrong and there should absolutely be legal consequences. Whether it's complete negligence, evil, or incompetence that kind of thing can't be allowed to happen.

[Nicole44 22027]

Murder was the correct charge and correct verdict. No other way to see it. Was worried with the lesser included offense the jury would bite on manslaughter but they didn’t. 

The jury got it right. Good. 

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

The jury got this right. She entered the wrong apartment and murdered someone. The fact that she’s a cop shouldn’t change the crime

[Asithappens 974]

I hesitate to say "good", because nothing about this is good. But she killed somebody who was in their own home/castle.

It's murder. She needs to go away for a long time. 

I would think that's something Texans can understand. 

[Huckleberry 32704]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1) from what I understand of it, I don't think that the Castle Doctrine instruction was proper, but....

2) by giving the jury that instruction, the judge managed to take away what might have been a key argument for Guyger on appeal.  That is, Guyger can't attack the verdict by arguing that it may well have been different if only the judge had given the jury the castle doctrine instruction that she asked for.

Giving the defense an arguably improper jury instruction on the verdict form is a gamble....it COULD cause the jury to screw up, but it also takes away that appellate point afterwards, so the verdict is more bulletproof.  I haven't thought it all through here, but man....I don't think Guyger has many good appellate points to make.  Her expert got excluded, but I think that was a sound decision by the court.  What else does she have?

I certainly hope it was a gambit the judge was playing.

[HOOKEM4 5025]

They got it right. Amazing.

RIP

[Ghost of LL 15493]

13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Y'all lawdogs have some more explaining to do if you don't want me shitting on the legal system at all. 

Is it true that the castle doctrine requires forced entry into the home while someone is present? If so then why was the jury instructed to consider that doctrine when Guyger testified that she heard someone in the apartment before she entered? According to her testimony, even if she thought it was her apartment she knew for a fact it was entered while empty. 

You want my honest answer as a trial lawyer?  It's because the judge read her jury and knew that they were going to convict.  And she didn't want to give the defense a point of appeal.

In a criminal case, the State has very limited appellate rights, owing to the prohibition on double jeopardy.  So in my experience the trial judge is going to lean toward the State in making evidentiary rulings and (especially) jury instructions.  The thinking for the trial judge is that "if I fuck this up in favor of the State, the defense can appeal and the appellate court will get it right."

Yeah, the appellate court often doesn't get it right for one reason or another (often because criminal defense attorneys are not appellate attorneys and the fuck up and fail to preserve the error).  But whatever.

The fact that the trial court gave the instruction the defense wanted means that the defense now doesn't have that as a point on appeal. 

There's old trial-lawyer wisdom of "beware the trial in which you're winning all of the rulings from the judge."  The judge has seen a lot more juries than you have, and is probably a pretty good predictor of how the jury's going to go.  So when the judge is ruling your way all the time, that's just eliminating all of your appellate points.

 

eta: Dammit--Brisket beat me to it, and was uncharacteristically succinct in his answer.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Ghost of LL

[4th and 5 4914]

1 hour ago, TXSooner518 said:

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?

Yes. That's what I said way back when this happened. It's old school self defense with no instruction (no duty to retreat) / presumption (of reasonableness of force). This is what the law of self defense used to be.

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1) from what I understand of it, I don't think that the Castle Doctrine instruction was proper, but....

2) by giving the jury that instruction, the judge managed to take away what might have been a key argument for Guyger on appeal.  That is, Guyger can't attack the verdict by arguing that it may well have been different if only the judge had given the jury the castle doctrine instruction that she asked for.

Giving the defense an arguably improper jury instruction on the verdict form is a gamble....it COULD cause the jury to screw up, but it also takes away that appellate point afterwards, so the verdict is more bulletproof.  I haven't thought it all through here, but man....I don't think Guyger has many good appellate points to make.  Her expert got excluded, but I think that was a sound decision by the court.  What else does she have?

Exclusion of experts is it. I think any other error would be minor and found harmless.

I've posted previously that the failure to include lesser included offense or a castle doctrine charge is reversible error on appeal. Giving them even where little to no evidence of it makes the case bulletproof on appeal.

5 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Cross examination of Guyger sealed the deal. 

She was completely unprepared.

This was a winnable case. The defense lost this case. 

 

[Orange&White 5516]

14 minutes ago, Skipper said:

I think they still give a relatively light sentence.  Setting the O/U at 10.5 years.  At least that is where I would probably come out if I were on the jury.  

I agree with your guess of a "lighter" but I think I'd take the under.

[Asithappens 974]

Just now, 4th and 5 said:

This was a winnable case. 

 

You sure about that?

Maybe with a stacked jury.

[DaysOff 7853]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I certainly hope it was a gambit the judge was playing.

Do judges often do that in their instructions, and should they be? I think not as a guy that sits in jury pools.

[TwiceHorn 31295]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Y'all lawdogs have some more explaining to do if you don't want me shitting on the legal system at all. 

Is it true that the castle doctrine requires forced entry into the home while someone is present? If so then why was the jury instructed to consider that doctrine when Guyger testified that she heard someone in the apartment before she entered? According to her testimony, even if she thought it was her apartment she knew for a fact it was entered while empty. 

I don't care whether the system gets shit on, it needs some shit, but not for this particular case past the indictment stage.  Some of the shenanigans preceding indictment probably deserve some shit.

First, I wouldn't trust reportage about "castle doctrine" versus self-defense.  The self-defense statutes are contained at Chapter 9 of the Penal Code.  Section 9.32 pertains to use of deadly force.  

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-32.html

What is properly termed "Castle Doctrine" in 9.32 are the presumptions of reasonableness of 9.32(b).  I'm fairly certain that the jury was not instructed that her actions were presumed reasonable.  I'm not sure if they were left to make that determination (whether any presumption applies) on their own, or were simply instructed as to the more general self defense provisions of 9.32, which require the jury to evaluate reasonableness.

Unless we get a copy of the jury instructions, it's speculation.

[tokamak 6352]

So what are the odds that she can appeal? Would she have any chance of winning if she were able to?

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

20 minutes ago, Gooby said:

People cheering outside the courtroom while she just sat there and had to hear it all.  Brutal.

Could be worse. At least some asshole didn't walk into her apartment while she was eating ice cream and put two bullets in her chest. 

[77horn 216]

Law dogs, I guess after lunch we start the penalty phase.  What do you think we'll get to hear that didn't make it into the guilt/innocence phase?  the MLK thing that was shot down? her social media stuff?  Anything else

[boilerhorn 1335]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm fairly certain that the jury was not instructed that her actions were presumed reasonable. 

Can the judge make such an instruction?

[4th and 5 4914]

If you are listening to the knucklehead on WFAA, he is wrong about the law.

She cannot be released on bond pending appeal for murder

Art. 44.04. BOND PENDING APPEAL. 

(b) The defendant may not be released on bail pending the appeal from any felony conviction where the punishment equals or exceeds 10 years confinement or where the defendant has been convicted of an offense listed under Article 42A.054(a), but shall immediately be placed in custody and the bail discharged.

Art. 42A.054. LIMITATION ON JUDGE-ORDERED COMMUNITY SUPERVISION. (a) Article 42A.053 does not apply to a defendant adjudged guilty of an offense under:

(1) Section 15.03, Penal Code, if the offense is punishable as a felony of the first degree;

(2) Section 19.02, Penal Code (Murder);

[smuggs 9342]

1 minute ago, Jive Turkey said:

Cross examination of Guyger sealed the deal. 

A complete disaster. She seemed very unprepared. I've watched it twice, it's just a train wreck.

From the circumstances of the shooting itself, to her actions afterwards, to her behavior on the stand - it's obvious that she is not a person who is mentally and emotionally equipped to handle the stress that a job in law enforcement entails.

[Ghost of LL 15493]

Just now, DaysOff said:

Do judges often do that in their instructions, and should they be? I think not as a guy that sits in jury pools.

Yes and yes.

As I said, judges are generally pretty good about knowing where the jury's going.  So if the judge knew that this jury was going for murder, then why not give the defense every instruction they wanted?  

Better to do that then run the risk of the verdict being reversed on appeal and coming back down and having to do it all over again.

[Braff Zacklin 13425]

3 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

This was a winnable case. The defense lost this case.

The fact that she unlawfully entered another man's home and shot him dead while he was watching TV and eating ice cream is why the case was "lost."

[pops 6974]

13 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Cross examination of Guyger sealed the deal. 

Admitting the door was open and she heard something inside and still decided to enter sealed the deal. 

[immortal13 4059]

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

[Ellellelle 308]

Does his family have a the ability to file a suit against the apartment complex? Edit: Rather, do they have a reasonable case?