I still thing the Mary Jane was hers , everything else they mentioned was in the backpack she dropped , I think she was under the influence couple that after a 13 hour shift and BAM!! you don' t even notice the red carpet beneath your feet , so I don't think "murder " as in she was going after him , I think "Murder " because it was totally HER mistake and she took it way to far.what would be her motive for going to some random guy's apt. and murdering him?
what would be her motive for going to some random guy's apt. and murdering him?
I can think of a lot of reasons. (I also don't think it was random.)
I still expect to see a plea deal here, but we'll find out motive if it goes to trial. Now, they don't HAVE to prove motive, to secure a conviction. Juries just like to hear it and it's much harder without motive. Also, she didn't have to decide to go there with the purpose of murdering him, for it to still be murder. Premeditation can take a matter of seconds.
I think that they will string this out forever, with motions, hearings, whatever...and go for a plea when things are almost forgotten.
what would be her motive for going to some random guy's apt. and murdering him?
I think in order for the DA to get a murder conviction of any kind they are going to have to come up with a valid motive. I don't think any jury is going to find murder in this case without one. Otherwise, a jury is going to go right back to that manslaughter charge. I do think there must be something else going on here. Her story (as reported) just doesn't make sense. Since the DA went for, and obtained, a murder indictment, I am assuming they must have some sort of motive theory. At least I hope they do, and didn't seek this charge just to placate the victim's family.I can think of a lot of reasons. (I also don't think it was random.)
I still expect to see a plea deal here, but we'll find out motive if it goes to trial. Now, they don't HAVE to prove motive, to secure a conviction. Juries just like to hear it and it's much harder without motive. Also, she didn't have to decide to go there with the purpose of murdering him, for it to still be murder. Premeditation can take a matter of seconds.
How do they have over 300 witnesses?
If I was on the jury, I would vote manslaughter.
I do not think a murder charge is going to stick.
Jmo
How do they have over 300 witnesses?
If I was on the jury, I would vote manslaughter.
I do not think a murder charge is going to stick.
Jmo
I think in order for the DA to get a murder conviction of any kind they are going to have to come up with a valid motive. I don't think any jury is going to find murder in this case without one. Otherwise, a jury is going to go right back to that manslaughter charge. I do think there must be something else going on here. Her story (as reported) just doesn't make sense. Since the DA went for, and obtained, a murder indictment, I am assuming they must have some sort of motive theory. At least I hope they do, and didn't seek this charge just to placate the victim's family.
That is correct, its not a requirement. But in a case like this, from a practical stand point, it pretty much is going to be. If I am the defense attorney, I would be very happy if there is no additional lesser included charge of manslaughter.I agree. I think they always know they have to show motive. I was just pointing out that it's not a legal requirement for a murder charge and conviction.
IMO murder charges are for her pulling the trigger with intent to kill. No motive required.what would be her motive for going to some random guy's apt. and murdering him?
That is correct, its not a requirement. But in a case like this, from a practical stand point, it pretty much is going to be. If I am the defense attorney, I would be very happy if there is no additional lesser included charge of manslaughter.
You can be pulling trigger with intent to kill in self-defense, so that really isn't making sense to me.IMO murder charges are for her pulling the trigger with intent to kill. No motive required.
But there was no self-defense. It maybe was in her mind but the only person who could have acted in self-defense was the victim after Guyger unlawfully entered his apartment with her weapon drawn.You can be pulling trigger with intent to kill in self-defense, so that really isn't making sense to me.