TX - Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger, indicted for Murder of Botham Shem Jean #5

[iluvmua]

If you are soooooooooooooooo tired, delusional, and sleep deprived are you really driving home while talking and texting bow-chicka-bow-wow with your main squeeze?

I would think that being intimate would be the last thing on your mind if you just finished a 15 hour shift.

She must have had copious amounts of coffee

Jmo

 

[VAgirlatheart]

We haven’t even gotten to opening statements yet and I already feel the state has convinced me, this was no sleep deprivation mistake.

But I’m gonna try to be like judge kemp and give this girl a fair chance to explain.

It ain’t looking good.

 

[BeachSky]

Me too.. Wow. I want to see the texts right before he was shot.

Well for some reason her defense team is trying to control letting in
her phone activity before & after the murder.....hmmmm

JMO

 

[Jax49]

Did anyone understand what the prosecutor said before the judge called counsel to the bench? It was about the calls she made but I couldn't understand all of it.

ETA: Link which can be replayed.

Watch Live: Former Cop Amber Guyger on Trial in Alleged Murder of Botham Jean

 

[tamsidea]

Not admitting texts pertaining to the relationship between AG and her partner. That is a win for the defense for sure. That would certainly taint the jury. MOO

 

[Lillymac]

Has the jury info been released? Make up of jurors?

 

[tamsidea]

Oh crap. Judge Kemp is pretty pissed that the DA did an interview on Fox 4 about this case last night.

 

[VAgirlatheart]

Not admitting texts pertaining to the relationship between AG and her partner. That is a win for the defense for sure. That would certainly taint the jury.

I thought she said she would allow some of it. To me, that’s damning information that is relevant.

 

[tamsidea]

I thought she said she would allow it.

She said the texts on that day are allowed EXCEPT for ones pertaining to their relationship.

 

[Hraefn]

Again, in Texas, it is different re murder/manslaughter - there is no need to show premeditation or motive for murder. You simply have to show intent - did she raise her weapon, aim, and fire it to kill. That's all the prosecution has to show for murder.

"1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life"

4 Types of Criminal Homicide in Texas | Plano Criminal Defense Lawyer

Right - of course Texas law would be so straight to the point. Lol

I watched an interview from a juror from the Trayvon Martin case where she stated that she based her whole decision on how the law was written. So if that’s how the jury will see it and they don’t believe she should have missed those signs where it was a mistake of fact then well...

Murder conviction it is.

JMO: I agree these facts fit the murder statute, she murdered him under TX law. Her case comes down to arguing a justifiable murder. Since TX has the Castle Doctrine, and the Castle Doctrine would justify the murder under TX law if she were in her own home, this case comes down to whether the mistake of fact that she was in her own apartment is found reasonable to the jury.

Unfortunately the language for lesser charges in TX do not seem to fit the facts here.
This is the TX statute that shows the levels of culpability (mens rea/mental state/intent): PENAL CODE CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY
BBM

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

This is the TX homicide statute: PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

I bolded the 4 levels of culpability. In TX, murder requires intentionally OR knowingly. Manslaughter requires recklessly. Criminally negligent homicide requires negligently.

AG killed Jean knowingly and intentionally IMO and I think that's hard to debate. As VAgirlatheart commented on above, juries tend to follow the letter of the law. This is because they have to fill out specific jury instruction forms provided by the Judge.

I don't practice law in TX and I don't practice criminal law. But in my civil practice, which includes wrongful death cases applying the same 4 stages of intent that apply in TX, the jury has to select the level of intent before moving on to the follow up questions. If jury instructions are like the ones I've seen in my practice, if the jury selects "intentionally/knowingly" in their verdict they will be shut off from the lesser charges. (As a simple example the jury instructions may state, "if you choose intentionally, go to page 4; if you choose negligently, go to page 6; etc., and not even allow the jury to get to the lesser charges)

As an aside, I genuinely hope I am wrong about this. It is definitely possible that TX case law shows manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide can be applied even to knowing/intentional killings. This is a really tough case and I do not envy that jury at all.

@gitana1 or any other posters with legal experience please chime in.

 

[Hraefn]

Court TV anchor just said Guyger trial is preparing for opening statements, but the Judge is still dealing with some pre-trial issues. Live coverage is off for now but they are still discussing the case.

 

[VAgirlatheart]

I thought she said she would allow it.

She said the texts on that day are allowed EXCEPT for ones pertaining to their relationship.

I don’t see that as a win for the defense. Most damning information is probably from that day anyways.

If she texted that she wanted to meet up later and she let bo die because she was texting her “boy toy” then I dont see how that helps her at all.

 

[Jax49]

Oh crap. Judge Kemp is pretty pissed that the DA did an interview on Fox 4 about this case last night.

Wow is right. I've never seen a judge turn away from the camera and bend over like she's physically ill.

 

[Amster]

Stupid DA violated the gag order?

 

[Jax49]

Back to the seal while jurors are questioned about the DA's statement.

 

[VAgirlatheart]

Stupid DA violated the gag order?

Wait. I missed this.

 

[tamsidea]

I don’t see that as a win for the defense. Most damning information is probably from that day anyways.

If she texted that she wanted to meet up later and she let bo die because she was texting her “boy toy” then I dont see how that helps her at all.

But the prosecutor can't show that content - texting for a meet-up - because it is in reference to their relationship. That is my understanding anyway. If the jury were to see that she was texting about the meet-up then I agree it would be pretty damning. That is why I am saying a win for the defense if the prosecution must exclude those conversations. MOO

 

[Jax49]

Wait. I missed this.

Amber Guyger murder trial begins Monday

eta: about the 120 mark

 

[VAgirlatheart]

I remember the DA speaking about this last night but I don’t see how i don’t recall him saying anything that could sway anything.. he’s not even on the case right ..

 

[Wishbone]

But the prosecutor can't show that content - texting for a meet-up - because it is in reference to their relationship. That is my understanding anyway. If the jury were to see that she was texting about the meet-up then I agree it would be pretty damning. That is why I am saying a win for the defense.

IMO Sounded like there was some sexual banter going on in the texts and that is what will be excluded, not that she was planning to see him later.