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

[Ghost of LL 15674]

3 minutes ago, 77horn said:

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

Punishment stage tends to be pretty wide open.  But I have no idea.

[Orange&White 5566]

6 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

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

 

 

5 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

You sure about that?

Maybe with a stacked jury.

 

All she had to do was not mention that she saw the door cracked and heard someone inside. Once she said that, she had every reason and opportunity to walk away. Her defense team should have had her better prepared.

[Trey3216 15451]

1 minute ago, Ellellelle said:

Does his family have a the ability to file a suit against the apartment complex?

I would bet they can and will.  The apartment complex does have some defense that they were proactively working on the situation, however.  So who knows where that would lead.  

[TwiceHorn 32002]

2 minutes ago, 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.

It's not a gambit.  It's good judging.  A judge is in charge of very limited trial resources of the state of Texas.  They have an interest in giving a fair trial while also preventing, if possible, retrials of cases that are avoidable and the associated massive waste of resources.

I think GoLL is absolutely right.  A smart judge will tilt their rulings in favor of the defense if it's a close call because it removes that as a ground of appeal, reversal, and retrial.  And it happens to be fair, as our system is and should be tilted toward the defendant at most turns.

The expert witness exclusions were not a close call, in my opinion.  What was excluded should have been excluded the way the defense teed it up.  And a judge has pretty broad discretion there, even in a criminal case.

[mdmost 43857]

A just verdict for a horrible tragedy of Amber Guyger's choosing. I really thought the DA was going to blow this but the cross of her really sealed her fate. This shoot first mentality has to be addressed by DPD and other police departments. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by mdmost

['stache 22118]

Well, I'm shocked. My general thought on how shitty people can be these days is temporarily on stay.

[hayden_horn 11402]

35 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Sometimes there is justice.  I still can't believe she admitted to hearing someone in the apartment before she went in.  That is what sealed it.

 

34 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Agreed in that it's what would have sealed it for me if I were on the jury. That fact changed everything. Even on this thread you will see that I had said I could actually believe she was surprised by the whole deal, but then I heard that testimony. And that fact meant she had the opportunity to avoid the confrontation completely.

i am still stunned at that admission.

and yes, that fact is what sealed it for me. a cop, of all people, hearing someone in what she thinks is her home? back away, call for backup. she went in guns blazing. 

guilty.

though i'm sort of shocked at the murder verdict. i was all in on manslaughter being the compromise.

[po elvis 2137]

there was no way she was going to not be found guilty with the makeup of the jury.

[RPM 26573]

Excuse me, I'm sorry. I think there's been a mistake. Was the jury instructed Jean was a large black man and Ms. Guyger is clearly a small white defenseless police officer just trying to get home safe?

[Publiushorn 113]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

5-99 no probation/deferred.  Jury sentenced unless judge is chosen to do so.

It's sentencing by the Judge unless she elected for the Jury to do it prior to voir dire.

 

Edit. Nevermind. Doesn't appy to murder

Edited October 1, 2019 by Publiushorn

[TwiceHorn 32002]

On sentencing, it is wide open.  The testimony, if any, and argument, is focused on factors of aggravation and mitigation.

In capital cases, they have "mitigation" experts who conduct a social study of the defendant and tell the jury how fucked up they are and that it isn't altogether their fault.

I wouldn't be surprised if the defense didn't have a similar type of expert.

[TwiceHorn 32002]

4 minutes ago, mdmost said:

A just verdict for a horrible tragedy of Amber Guyger's choosing. I really thought the DA blew this but the cross of her really sealed her fate. This shoot first mentality has to be addressed by DPD and other police departments. 

At what point did you think the DA blew it?

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

31 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'll take the under.

[DaysOff 8158]

We put a man on the moon 50 years ago, but can't come up with a weapon for cops that's in between taser and bullet. Something that will take a mother fucker down from a hundred yards and is non lethal. Star Trek had that shit.

[South Austin 53158]

While her appeal is pending, will she be incarcerated in an all-female prison, where she will have to take showers with other (presumably hot) female inmates?  Asking for a law review article I'm working on.

[jdhorn92 1590]

2 minutes ago, po elvis said:

there was no way she was going to not be found guilty with the makeup of the jury.

What do you have against Estee Lauder, more of a Mac guy?

[RPM 26573]

1 minute ago, Publiushorn said:

It's sentencing by the Judge unless she elected for the Jury to do it prior to voir dire.

I heard one of the local pundants (CH8?) say she requested Jury sentencing.

[pepper brooks 580]

In Texas, there are four types of criminal homicide: 1) murder, 2) capital murder, 3) manslaughter, and 4) criminally negligent homicide. Here is a breakdown of the four homicide crimes in simple English:

1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree.

2. Capital Murder: There are different ways to commit capital murder. You commit capital murder if you kill a fireman or member of law enforcement. You commit capital murder if you intentionally kill someone while committing arson, kidnapping, robbery or burglary, terroristic threat, obstruction or retaliation, or sexual assault. Capital murder is a capital felony.

3. Manslaughter: You commit manslaughter if you “recklessly” cause the death of another person. Manslaughter is a felony of the second degree.

4. Criminally Negligent Homicide: If you are criminally negligent and you take someone else’s life, it would be considered criminally negligent homicide, which is a state jail felony. Some “accidental killings” fall into this category.

 

For the most part I saw this as scenario 4.  The 911 call and her state seemed to at least lend some credence to her honestly thinking she was in her own home, thinking it was an intruder, etc.  That said, not much else seemed to indicate deadly force was the go to reaction here.  The neighbor who shared the wall also seemed to corroborate that he didn't "attack" her, at least not that she heard.  All that said, the cross exam of her was brutal to her case so I can see how they got to the max charge.  I don't know that I would have gotten quite there, but I know I am certain she should serve jail time regardless of whether I think she's guilty of murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide.  Point being, I think she is guilty of one of the above no matter what, and I please to see the jury "get it right".  None of that means shit to lost soul departed too soon.  

[jimmyjazz 46990]

Question:  did she admit to hearing someone inside "her" apartment on her own volition, or was she asked if she heard someone by the prosecution?  (Sorry, I didn't follow the trial.  I'm fascinated by such an admission, though, and like others have posted before, it seems like this would be the kind of thing her attorneys would have prepped her for.)

[mdmost 43857]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

At what point did you think the DA blew it?

I should amend that to I thought they were going to blow this. At times I felt they were making the defense's case for them. I'm satisfied with being wrong. 

[Blotto 23975]

12 minutes ago, Ellellelle said:

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

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

I would bet they can and will.  The apartment complex does have some defense that they were proactively working on the situation, however.  So who knows where that would lead.  

Havent been following this case nearly as closely as many of you, so I have to ask...what is the angle against the apartment complex? 

[4th and 5 4998]

The state fucked up.

They should have immediately moved to have her bond increased and had her taken in to custody. She is a flight risk post-conviction for murder. I've seen criminal defendants skip out after getting convicted but before punishment.

[RPM 26573]

So orange is the new dark blue?

[kevwun 16351]

2 minutes ago, Blotto said:

 

Havent been following this case nearly as closely as many of you, so I have to ask...what is the angle against the apartment complex? 

 

There was a problem with the locking mechanisms and the doors didn't always close all the way and lock.  It's how she got in to Jean's apartment in the first place.

Edited October 1, 2019 by kevwun

[Brisketexan 106682]

15 minutes ago, pops said:

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

 

14 minutes 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 

I really do think that was THE pivotal fact.  It turned the case from:

"I walked into my apartment, was startled to see someone there and acted instinctively to protect myself"

to

"I knew something was up in the apartment, and instead of pausing to assess the situation and figure out what was really going on, and instead of following my intensive training in procedure to wait outside and call for backup, I chose to go in and CREATE a confrontation that resulted in BJ's death."

Had the case facts been the first scenario, I truly think she would have been acquitted.  But the fact that it was scenario 2 sealed her fate.

[BigDHornfan 6625]

4 minutes ago, Blotto said:

 

Havent been following this case nearly as closely as many of you, so I have to ask...what is the angle against the apartment complex? 

Faulty door locks

[hookem17 485]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Question:  did she admit to hearing someone inside "her" apartment on her own volition, or was she asked if she heard someone by the prosecution?  (Sorry, I didn't follow the trial.  I'm fascinated by such an admission, though, and like others have posted before, it seems like this would be the kind of thing her attorneys would have prepped her for.)

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

[TwiceHorn 32002]

4 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

In Texas, there are four types of criminal homicide: 1) murder, 2) capital murder, 3) manslaughter, and 4) criminally negligent homicide. Here is a breakdown of the four homicide crimes in simple English:

1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree.

2. Capital Murder: There are different ways to commit capital murder. You commit capital murder if you kill a fireman or member of law enforcement. You commit capital murder if you intentionally kill someone while committing arson, kidnapping, robbery or burglary, terroristic threat, obstruction or retaliation, or sexual assault. Capital murder is a capital felony.

3. Manslaughter: You commit manslaughter if you “recklessly” cause the death of another person. Manslaughter is a felony of the second degree.

4. Criminally Negligent Homicide: If you are criminally negligent and you take someone else’s life, it would be considered criminally negligent homicide, which is a state jail felony. Some “accidental killings” fall into this category.

 

For the most part I saw this as scenario 4.  The 911 call and her state seemed to at least lend some credence to her honestly thinking she was in her own home, thinking it was an intruder, etc.  That said, not much else seemed to indicate deadly force was the go to reaction here.  The neighbor who shared the wall also seemed to corroborate that he didn't "attack" her, at least not that she heard.  All that said, the cross exam of her was brutal to her case so I can see how they got to the max charge.  I don't know that I would have gotten quite there, but I know I am certain she should serve jail time regardless of whether I think she's guilty of murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide.  Point being, I think she is guilty of one of the above no matter what, and I please to see the jury "get it right".  None of that means shit to lost soul departed too soon.  

We've hashed this almost endlessly.  Legally, murder is the only charge that fits.

In Texas, you consider the act that caused the death and whether that act was "intentional," "reckess," or "negligent."  In this case it was intentional.  There were other circumstances leading up to that intentional act that were characterized by recklessness or negligence, but not the act itself.

[RPM 26573]

3 minutes ago, Blotto said:

what is the angle against the apartment complex? 

Their door locks were all fucked up. Door numbering was fucked up. Floor numbering was fucked up. But they were very stylish for that price point.

[Skipper 6406]

6 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

In Texas, there are four types of criminal homicide: 1) murder, 2) capital murder, 3) manslaughter, and 4) criminally negligent homicide. Here is a breakdown of the four homicide crimes in simple English:

 

You should probably just read through the thread where this was discussed at length (including by criminal attorneys).  Cliff Notes:  Murder was the right charge....

[housious 468]

11 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

We put a man on the moon 50 years ago, but can't come up with a weapon for cops that's in between taser and bullet. Something that will take a mother fucker down from a hundred yards and is non lethal. Star Trek had that shit.

PM Icono

[TwiceHorn 32002]

10 minutes ago, Blotto said:

 

Havent been following this case nearly as closely as many of you, so I have to ask...what is the angle against the apartment complex? 

There was a pretty well documented history of people going to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor.  And very few good markings in the garage and elsewhere (those apartment numbers are fucking ridiculous) to alert people as to which floor they were on.  If the complex was aware of this and took no action to remedy it, they could be liable for the death.

Locks, too, possibly.

On the other hand, when someone commits an intentional crime, classically, that breaks the chain of causation.  So even though the complex may have been negligent in marking their floors and apartments, it was completely unforeseeable that some asshole would pull a gun and waste someone, so no liability.

Edited October 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

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.

[Lou 264]

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

[Bernard 879]

43 minutes ago, swraith said:

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

This. I’m pleasantly shocked by the conviction. 

Bernard

[RPM 26573]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

There was a pretty well documented history of people going to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor.  And very few good markings in the garage and elsewhere (those apartment numbers are fucking ridiculous) to alert people as to which floor they were on.  If the complex was aware of this and took no action to remedy it, they could be liable for the death.

See the upcoming civil suit.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

There was a pretty well documented history of people going to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor.  And very few good markings in the garage and elsewhere (those apartment numbers are fucking ridiculous) to alert people as to which floor they were on.  If the complex was aware of this and took no action to remedy it, they could be liable for the death.

Locks, too, possibly.

Especially the locks.  It was shown that they over-torqued the screws on the strike plate, causing it to deflect in a way that prevented the auto-shut feature from being effective.

[Post Oak 20551]

3 minutes ago, housious said:

PM Icono

I don't think a cock holster is what he's referring to

[Reagan1k 3042]

37 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Sometimes there is justice.  I still can't believe she admitted to hearing someone in the apartment before she went in.  That is what sealed it.

Yep - You can't reasonably claim to feel threatened in that situation.....and be justified.

A shooting instructor at the old Jeff Cooper school told a story about his working in a gun shop and having a robbery occur while he was carrying. 

Bad guy had a shotgun and inexplicably put it down to pick up something during the crime. 

Store owner (instructor) said he drew and put a 1911 to the criminal's temple, then called the police.

When asked later why he didn't just shoot the guy, his response was - "At that moment I didn't feel threatened".

She testified that she created the situation which lead to his death. There was no threat until she chose to open the door and enter the apartment.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

17 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

We put a man on the moon 50 years ago, but can't come up with a weapon for cops that's in between taser and bullet. Something that will take a mother fucker down from a hundred yards and is non lethal. Star Trek had that shit.

I think if we can find a way to weaponize dog farts, you'll have your answer.

[Brisketexan 106682]

5 minutes 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 think you're setting the O/U in the right place.

[hayden_horn 11402]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

I really do think that was THE pivotal fact.  It turned the case from:

"I walked into my apartment, was startled to see someone there and acted instinctively to protect myself"

to

"I knew something was up in the apartment, and instead of pausing to assess the situation and figure out what was really going on, and instead of following my intensive training in procedure to wait outside and call for backup, I chose to go in and CREATE a confrontation that resulted in BJ's death."

Had the case facts been the first scenario, I truly think she would have been acquitted.  But the fact that it was scenario 2 sealed her fate.

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. 

[TwiceHorn 32002]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

I really do think that was THE pivotal fact.  It turned the case from:

"I walked into my apartment, was startled to see someone there and acted instinctively to protect myself"

to

"I knew something was up in the apartment, and instead of pausing to assess the situation and figure out what was really going on, and instead of following my intensive training in procedure to wait outside and call for backup, I chose to go in and CREATE a confrontation that resulted in BJ's death."

Had the case facts been the first scenario, I truly think she would have been acquitted.  But the fact that it was scenario 2 sealed her fate.

My recollection was that she volunteered that on direct, also.  And I never heard anything that "required" her to admit that (other facts tending to show that was the case).  Thus, it appears to be a colossal blunder by the defense.

As to her cross, Hermus just did a great job.  I'm not sure there was much in the way of preparation that could have stopped that.  Maybe some senseless objections.

[boilerhorn 1606]

Question for the lawyers here:

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

[TwiceHorn 32002]

5 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

Especially the locks.  It was shown that they over-torqued the screws on the strike plate, causing it to deflect in a way that prevented the auto-shut feature from being effective.

While that is not a good fact, it would have to have been known to the complex and gone uncorrected. It also seems like an isolated event.  

We don't know what the complex knew and failed to correct.  We do know that there were a lot of tenants going to the wrong apartment.  That seems somewhat more likely to be known to management than one fucked up strikeplate.  But if it was reported and uncorrected, that's a problem.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I think you're setting the O/U in the right place.

How late is too late to pursue a career in law?  I like engineering, but nothing gets me as fired up as legal matters.

[C-Man 27701]

I should amend that to I thought they were going to blow this. At times I felt they were making the defense's case for them. I'm satisfied with being wrong. 

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

[Brisketexan 106682]

2 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

Question for the lawyers here:

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

No.  A strategic error generally can't meet that standard - it's a really high bar, which requires facts like counsel sleeping through witness testimony, failing to make a filing deadline, stuff like that.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Just now, C-Man said:

 

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

 

They seemed wholly unprepared at some points.  Furthermore, she was an exceptionally bad witness.  For the defense, she felt rehearsed and intentionally dramatic at times, while failing to keep to the script on cross examination.  That combination of feeling both overly produced and subsequently unprepared did little to garner sympathy from the jury.

[South Austin 53158]

4 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

Question for the lawyers here:

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

If it was, any criminal defendant who testified and is subsequently convicted could assert such a claim.