GUILTY TX - Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger, indicted for Murder of Botham Shem Jean #6

[Bennettfit]

Now Dominque Alexander and his big celebration party will demand the protection of the police that he hates.

When in the presence of police I think Dominque, feels quite the opposite of protected.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

The statute, passed in 2007, applies in cases where four legal criteria are met, according to The Washington Post: The shooter must believe someone is trespassing on their property, they cannot provoke the victim during the confrontation, they cannot be committing a related crime when they pull the trigger, and they must believe deadly force is necessary.

The Post reported that Guyger’s case may be the first in which the castle doctrine has been applied to a killing that took place in the victim’s home.

Lee Merritt, one of the attorneys representing Jean’s family, told the Associated Press the jurors will be deciding “the value of a black life.”

Prosecutors argued that Guyger was more concerned about herself that night and that she shirked her duties as an officer by not rendering first aid to Jean, who lay dying of a bullet wound to his heart. Guyger admitted on the witness stand that she did not perform CPR properly, though she was trained in the lifesaving technique.

She had no blood on her uniform and rubber gloves she carried in her pocket in case of a similar situation had not been used.

Guyger texted Rivera while on the phone with 911 dispatchers, telling him she had “(expletive) up” and needed him. Body camera footage shot by officers responding to the 911 call showed her texting outside Jean’s apartment as other officers performed CPR on him, trying to save his life.

“I was by myself with someone I had just shot,” Guyger testified. “I was alone with him, and that’s the scariest thing you could ever imagine, and I just wanted help.”

Hermus, during cross-examination, told Guyger to imagine the scenario from Jean’s shoes.

“Can you imagine Mr. Jean’s perspective?” Hermus asked. “An intruder barging into his apartment. And then having been shot and fallen and being alone in that apartment.

“Can’t you imagine that being a little bit scarier than you just being alone at the moment?”

“Yes, sir,” Guyger responded.
Dallas jury rejects 'castle doctrine' defense in Amber Guyger trial, finds ex-cop guilty of murder

 

[Cryptic]

That's not grounds for appeal.

Though I respect your position as an attorney, I am thinking that such appeals appear to be permissible:

For example, here is an example of judge reducing a murder conviction to manslaughter:
Bullets for the Bully

My guess is that if the judge can reject a conviction for a certain charge and apply a lesser charge, then an appellate argument that the charge did not fit the circumstances (did not fit historical use) can also be made.

 

[gitana1]

Hoping for at least 40. jmo

Ouch.

 

[Hraefn]

Agreed. But she's going to lose an appeal on both grounds. Her defense wasn't stellar except closing but that's not grounds for an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

What are your thoughts?

I also think she will be unsuccessful unless some other facts come to light such as a prohibited discussion in jury deliberations. I think the appeals will be very thorough though and there are some arguments to be made (disallowing the TX ranger testimony for example). But again I don’t think from what we know now that there was a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Herat]

Was there ever any evidence of drug or alcohol testing on her after the murder?

 

[gitana1]

Just popping in to say that this trial discussion has been excellent and informative.

@Gitana you rule!

Texas has some hardcore laws about murder.

I was so worried about the Castle Doctrine being misapplied here (Bo was in his castle; she was the invader).

Does the jury do the sentencing in Texas or is it the judge? So far, haven't seen AG's face, but her team sure looked glum.

Don't forget our other attorneys especially @Hraefn who was posting every bit of trial when he or she could. I relied on those posts. He or she was much more helpful and informative on this case all along than I!

 

[turaj]

Hoping for at least 40. jmo

i am thinking 15 to 20. That is based on coming back fast and being sure of verdict. If I was on the jury I would be comfortable with 20 thinking by that time hopefully be able to contribute to society...I think she should never have been a police officer but she was and here we are.

 

[wyome]

How does this whole thing work with the jury deciding years of jail time. Are they deliberating that now, or have they already made a recommendation and the judge is considering and will announce it in a 1/2 hour? Does the judge have the ability to change it at her discretion?

Sorry if this was already asked and answered, I stepped out for a bit.

 

[VAgirlatheart]

I have not followed this case at all. Just read the news story and was shocked to see all the people shouting justice was served. I am honestly confused and have come here to see what I am missing. From what I have gathered this woman believed she was entering her apartment and an unknown man was in her apartment and she shot and killed him. How is that murder? Manslaughter maybe but murder? It seems to me to be a horrible mistake that she made not murder. Should she get punished? Yes she killed someone. But a drunk driver that gets in a wreck and kills someone does not get charged with murder. She wasn't even intoxicated. Even a person in a car accident that is at fault for running a red light and kills someone does not get charged with murder. This is what I am confused about. As I said I have not followed this case and am curious what I am missing. I understand he is black but I think the same thing would have happened if he was any other race. He was a unknown man in a woman's house.

Let me catch you up, she missed signs that pointed to her being at the wrong place. Not her apartment. Period. She also heard someone in the apartment and saw the door open and instead of looking up to see if she was in the right place, she came in guns blazing

 

[10ofRods]

I have not followed this case at all. Just read the news story and was shocked to see all the people shouting justice was served. I am honestly confused and have come here to see what I am missing. From what I have gathered this woman believed she was entering her apartment and an unknown man was in her apartment and she shot and killed him. How is that murder? Manslaughter maybe but murder? It seems to me to be a horrible mistake that she made not murder. Should she get punished? Yes she killed someone. But a drunk driver that gets in a wreck and kills someone does not get charged with murder. She wasn't even intoxicated. Even a person in a car accident that is at fault for running a red light and kills someone does not get charged with murder. This is what I am confused about. As I said I have not followed this case and am curious what I am missing. I understand he is black but I think the same thing would have happened if he was any other race. He was a unknown man in a woman's house.

The main reason this case got so much attention is that Mr. Jean was in his own house, not hers. She was not in her house, she was in his house. She was distracted, possibly upset with her paramour, missed all clues that she was not on the right floor of her apartment building nor at the door of her own apartment.

She was an unknown woman at a man's house.

As an aside: it is not good practice for police agencies to allow officers to wear uniforms off duty and in many places, that alone is cause for disciplinary action against the cop. This is a well researched topic and requiring police to leave their uniforms at work (and spend some time re-orienting their headspace) cuts down on violence by cops in their own homes. Domestic violence among police is significantly higher than in other occupations and departments who maintain a policy of "no uniforms outside of work" have lower rates. This includes lower rates of non-lethal domestic violence.

It's interesting that you assumed the opposite, though. But the actual case is far more interesting because of its facts.

 

[Hatfield]

Before the jury started weighing the case Monday, Texas District Judge Tammy Kemp allowed the panel to consider what is known as the "castle doctrine" as a possible defense over the objections of prosecutors, who called the move "absurd."

Similar to self-defense laws known as "stand your ground," the Texas statute says a person is justified in using deadly force if someone enters or attempts to enter a person own home.

"It may have been a stretch for Judge Kemp to allow that jury to consider it," Tim Powers, former Texas prosecutor and judge, told NPR.

The move raised a unique set of legal facts the experts said has been untested in Texas courts: considering a "castle doctrine" defense in a location that is not one's "castle."

"This is a case of first impression, which means we don't have any precedents of this where the mistake of fact defense merges with the castle doctrine," said Peter Schulte, a Texas defense lawyer and former prosecutor,

But in the end, the jury rejected the controversial legal standard as a possible defense. Both Powers and Schulte anticipate the issue to be raised during Guyger's expected appeal.
Ex-Dallas Officer Who Killed Neighbor In Upstairs Apartment Is Found Guilty Of Murder

JMO
I only sporadically followed this case so I dont have the benefit of knowing any of the testimony first hand.

With what little I have learned about the case I do think the Castle Doctrine would require that a person be defending their own "castle" and not used by the defense just because the person claims they thought it was their castle.
I agree with the prosecutor that it is "absurd" to even consider using that as their defense since she was not even in her own home.

I do think the Castle Doctrine is valid for homeowners, Renters, etc and those people should have rights to be able to defend their home, their family, their possessions, and their own lives when someone who is not invited enters their property. So its an important "doctrine" for people that have their living space violated, but for someone that chooses to go into someone else living space, whether by mistake or on purpose, then all bets are off to be able to use that doctrine to their own advantage. That is almost akin to using the stand your ground law but with you approaching the victim, you being the aggressor, and you are threatening the victim.

 

[CrimeDawg123]

i am thinking 15 to 20. That is based on coming back fast and being sure of verdict. If I was on the jury I would be comfortable with 20 thinking by that time hopefully be able to contribute to society...I think she should never have been a police officer but she was and here we are.

Yeah, I will throw out my guess 10-20. I was trying to put myself in his family's shoes - which obviously I can't. The family now has a verdict and I pray no matter the sentence, they will be able to start the process of living life without Botham.

 

[Hope4More]

If this trial was right..why is everyone so shocked? There are those making the whole sordid affair about race.
It wasn't about race.

A few seconds, she said: his door pushed opened slightly by the insertion of her key; she sees a "silhouette" 30 feet away, at the back of the room; she opens the door more widely, props it open with her left hand and cop gear; the "blazing" hallway lights illuminate well into his apartment, light from his laptop and TV glow in the area around his sofa; her own words say he walks towards her as she has her gun already out.

Was the exhibit the jury asked for a photo of the layout of the room in which he was shot?

Because that one exhibit and the hall lights said it all. She could NOT have failed to see him well enough to know he was a black man of no small size.

The reason why it didn't occur to her until too late that she was in the wrong apartment was because her mind moved on to immediate assumptions about the black man she saw in the apartment.

Would she have shot a white man sitting on his couch, or getting up to move towards her? Would she have shot to kill if she heard a woman's voice say "hey hey hey"?

 

[imstilla.grandma]

He said: “It is a signal that the tide is going to change here, [that] police officers are going to be held accountable for their actions.”

Crump added in a press conference: “This is a precedent now that will go forth across America for equal justice for everybody.”

“Killing this man was unnecessary and unreasonable from start to finish.”

Special security measures were put in place during the trial. Jean’s death sparked protests and demands for justice from activists who cited it as one of a long line of racially charged shootings by a police department that lacks accountability.

Critics of the department have also claimed Guyger was given preferential treatment. It emerged during the trial that the head of the Dallas Police Association told another officer to shut off an audio-visual recording system inside a patrol car so that he could have a private conversation with Guyger soon after the shooting.

She still faces a civil lawsuit brought by Jean’s family.
Amber Guyger guilty of murdering black neighbor Botham Jean in his own home | Texas | The Guardian

 

[10ofRods]

Maybe I missed something, please forgive me if so. Is it possible that the jury wanted a definition of Castle Doctrine to determine if Jean was in his right if he did indeed "charge" at AG when she entered his apartment? (I don't believe he did based on bullet trajectory testimony.) If someone unlawfully enters your residence and you charge at them, do they then get to legally shoot you in self defense?

I was sure hoping so! I think you may be right. Castle Doctrine would give him the right to any sort of self-defense. Since she's the intruder, he would have had a right to charge at her (or shoot her or hit her with a bat). At least that's my understanding of Texas law.

There would have been some jurors who saw it that way, I'm sure. AG had no defense of "self-defense" in this case. The juror did their job well and followed the law.

 

[MsArk]

i am thinking 15 to 20. That is based on coming back fast and being sure of verdict. If I was on the jury I would be comfortable with 20 thinking by that time hopefully be able to contribute to society...I think she should never have been a police officer but she was and here we are.

I’m guessing right in the middle at 50 years with this jury. Honestly, I would be satisfied with 10 years and prohibited to ever carry a firearm. She is not some mad criminal running around as a menace to the general population. Many will disagree with me though.

 

[SuziQ]

I have not followed this case at all. Just read the news story and was shocked to see all the people shouting justice was served. I am honestly confused and have come here to see what I am missing. From what I have gathered this woman believed she was entering her apartment and an unknown man was in her apartment and she shot and killed him. How is that murder? Manslaughter maybe but murder? It seems to me to be a horrible mistake that she made not murder. Should she get punished? Yes she killed someone. But a drunk driver that gets in a wreck and kills someone does not get charged with murder. She wasn't even intoxicated. Even a person in a car accident that is at fault for running a red light and kills someone does not get charged with murder. This is what I am confused about. As I said I have not followed this case and am curious what I am missing. I understand he is black but I think the same thing would have happened if he was any other race. He was a unknown man in a woman's house.

Make sure you watch AG's testimony.

 

[MTW2011]

A terrible joke I saw on the CourtTV Facebook group....”Do you think Amber will know which cell is hers and go to the right one?” Ouch.

 

[angelainwi]

Make sure you watch AG's testimony.

Definitely need to watch her testimony. I believe her many lies on the stand are part of why the jury found her guilty of murder