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

[Wishbone]

About the 911 call. I am curious what everyone hears at a certain point. From this link:
Uncensored 911 call released: What Amber Guyger said after shooting Botham Jean
5:31 AG: Hurry
5:34 AG: Hey. Over here, over here.
5:37 Dispatcher: Okay, go ahead and talk to them.
5:38 Responding officers: [maybe "Police!" but somewhat hard to hear.]
5:38 AG: No, it's me, I'm off duty, I'm off duty.
5:40 AG: I __________. I thought they were in my apartment, I thought this was my floor.

What does every hear at that blank? Curious to hear opinions before I share mine. I will say that is the exact part that stood out to me the first and every time I have heard the call.

Just my opinion, but it sounded like "f''''d up..... What did you hear?

 

[HongKongPhooey]

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.

The bow chicka bow wow?

 

[VAgirlatheart]

So they did go to Guyger's apartment?
IDK if that helps the state. IDK why the smell would be relevant except to show that the defendant should have realized it was not her apartment if it had a strong marijuana odor and she does not use. Marijuana use does not justify murder.

Anyone have any other opinions on this?

Don’t quote me on this and this is completely not verified but I am just making suggestions/opinions of why it could be relevant.

What we do know is there was marijuana found in his apartment. Does that make him a bad person absolutely not. However, I think a few things about this.

1. They know the defense will use that against him and try to do what they do, which is protect their client and make it seem he was the one in the wrong. They may even say that he was “slow” to respond to her commands like she claimed.

2. The state will likely use the fact that if he indeed was smoking the pot then she should have smelled it which does make since. Someone in my building occasionally lights up and you absolutely can smell it from outside, imagine in a interior hallway, how that will smell.

3. She was part of the warrant division which dealt with a lot of warrants for drug possessions.

These last two are completely rumors but could have some truth to them

4. This is a rumor and not verified but it could be verifiable, I believe he had complaints that the hallway smelled like marijuana and the management or staff went up there to investigate that earlier in the day.

5. And finally, there were rumors that she could have been a courtesy officer from the apartment complex, which is possible, I also have a courtesy officer that is an police officer as his main job, and sometimes they will take a percentage of rent off for being one. I don’t think that is true but it could be, so she could have went up for that reason.

The last two are likely the not true. Unless we see a witness come forward speaking about what she heard in the hallways which was “let me in.”

What I find interesting is the door data. Would the prosecution submit that as evidence if it didn’t really showed anything that supports their claim?

 

[BeachSky]

CTV reporter says mostly female jury


MOO

 

[Hraefn]

Just my opinion, but it sounded like "f''''d up..... What did you hear?

That's exactly what I heard. She almost stated to her colleagues "I f***ed up" but stopped herself and said "I thought they were in my apartment"

 

[VAgirlatheart]

Also, the gun being brought into evidence makes me wonder if they are trying to say that he wasn’t where she said he was at the time.

I believe she tried to get in and he heard her struggling, he opens the door and he gets shot because it frightened her. Just like the first story told.

But also, maybe not because they were talking about sending in someone to speak about the tv and hallway light and if that’s the case then it leads me to believe he’s there where they say he was.

Those doors don’t automatically locked but they do automatically shut. So either he really met her at the door and she got frightened, she knocked at the door trying to get him open because she wants to play cop and he was either making too much noise or smoking weed, or his door was unlocked but not ajar and she walked in thinking it was her apartment. I almost bet it’s the last one. Remember she told two stories.

 

[SandyQLS]

Thanks. My mistake.

Thank you. None of us really know. They have been really tight-lipped about details. I meant to say something about how we are finally here, at the trial date, so now ALL of these questions can hopefully be clarified.

 

[gitana1]

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

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.

I don't know. I think it fits manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.

I don't think mistake of fact makes the case fit the castle doctrine defense. It seems to be a defense in its own right.

Here the examples:
https://shookandgunter.com/three-examples-texas-mistake-fact-defense/

I think it isn't a viable defense to manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide because the code shows that the mistake has to negate the mindset that allows for criminal culpability. So if they shot someone but thought the gun was unloaded, the mistake negates the intent necessary for murder.

Mistakenly believing she was in her own apartment, however, doesn't negate her recklessness or negligence in banging on the door of an apartment that isn't hers, demanding entry despite clear signs that it wasn't her home (different floor, bright red floor mat, clearly lit numbering on the side), bringing a loaded gun with her despite being either so exhausted from work or wasted or whatever she was that she couldn't think clearly and shooting at someone who is not advancing on her nor had a weapon.

So it seems to be a defense to murder but not to the lesser includeds. What has she been charged with?

 

[Hraefn]

We've basically been told everything: the door was unlocked, and the door was ajar, and the door was closed and locked but Jean opened it. The door data is going to answer a lot of questions I think.

 

[Hraefn]

I don't know. I think it fits manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.

I don't think mistake of fact makes the case fit the castle doctrine defense. It seems to be a defense in its own right.

Here the examples:
https://shookandgunter.com/three-examples-texas-mistake-fact-defense/

I think it isn't a viable defense to manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide because the code shows that the mistake has to negate the mindset that allows for criminal culpability. So if they shot someone but thought the gun was unloaded, the mistake negates the intent necessary for murder.

Mistakenly believing she was in her own apartment, however, doesn't negate her recklessness or negligence in banging on the door of an apartment that isn't hers, demanding entry despite clear signs that it wasn't her home (different floor, bright red floor mat, clearly lit numbering on the side), bringing a loaded gun with her despite being either so exhausted from work or wasted or whatever she was that she couldn't think clearly and shooting at someone who is not advancing on her nor had a weapon.

So it seems to be a defense to murder but not to the lesser includeds. What has she been charged with?

This is my understanding of where the charges/jury instructions are at

Guyger was originally arrested on a manslaughter charge, but a Dallas County grand jury indicted her for murder. Dallas attorneys not involved with the case say murder is the appropriate charge because, in Texas, manslaughter is a reckless act and she intended to pull the trigger.
...
If the jury believes a "reasonable" person could have also made that mistake, Guyger could be found not guilty of murder. If they don't, the jury could find her guilty. If the jury does find Guyger not guilty of murder, they would then deliberate the lesser charges.

Murder is punishable by up to life in prison. Criminally negligent homicide is punishable by up to two years in a state jail.

Testimony begins Monday in Amber Guyger's murder trial for shooting Botham Jean

 

[gitana1]

This is my understanding of where the charges/jury instructions are at

Testimony begins Monday in Amber Guyger's murder trial for shooting Botham Jean

Whoa. Holy smokes.

 

[VAgirlatheart]

We've basically been told everything: the door was unlocked, and the door was ajar, and the door was closed and locked but Jean opened it. The door data is going to answer a lot of questions I think.

But would the state submit that into evidence if it showed it was indeed unlocked. It would help the defense.

****Unless, it was truly unlocked but not ajar and she didn’t put her key in there like she said which proved she lied about that part and just turned the handle and walked in. But then again, I don’t think someone who thought it was their place would turn the handle as if it was unlocked before putting a key in there either.

Just give me the evidence already lol.

 

[gitana1]

I agree. But again, based of off the law in Texas and the wording .. it’s definitely murder but seems like a manslaughter charge.

Now if there is that one little piece of evidence that is super damning to her then like you said I believe it’s a wrap.

The text messages does not look good for her. Especially rendering aid.

I think mistake of fact is a defense to murder.

 

[BeachSky]

We've basically been told everything: the door was unlocked, and the door was ajar, and the door was closed and locked but Jean opened it. The door data is going to answer a lot of questions I think.

Well if she lied at all...that’s cover up, right? She was talking a lot on 911. Wanted a supervisor. It’s not like she blacked out or could not recall. Her version is documented.
His version is represented through the State.
The projectory of the bullets & the (TG) door lock data will speak to what happened .

MOO

 

[gitana1]

But would the state submit that into evidence if it showed it was indeed unlocked. It would help the defense.

****Unless, it was truly unlocked but not ajar and she didn’t put her key in there like she said which proved she lied about that part and just turned the handle and walked in. But then again, I don’t think someone who thought it was their place would turn the handle as if it was unlocked before putting a key in there either.

Just give me the evidence already lol.

The defense will move it in if it's helpful to them.

Is this airing live anywhere? Can someone summarize for us who can't watch?

 

[angelainwi]

The defense will move it in if it's helpful to them.

Is this airing live anywhere? Can someone summarize for us who can't watch?

I am watching here https://www.courttv.com/title/court-tv-live-stream-web/

 

[Hraefn]

The jury will be sequestered.
I am watching live as well.

IMO there are a lot of not guilty verdicts in high profile sequestered jury cases; Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, OJ Simpson.

 

[Wishbone]

I don't know. I think it fits manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.

I don't think mistake of fact makes the case fit the castle doctrine defense. It seems to be a defense in its own right.

Here the examples:
https://shookandgunter.com/three-examples-texas-mistake-fact-defense/

I think it isn't a viable defense to manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide because the code shows that the mistake has to negate the mindset that allows for criminal culpability. So if they shot someone but thought the gun was unloaded, the mistake negates the intent necessary for murder.

Mistakenly believing she was in her own apartment, however, doesn't negate her recklessness or negligence in banging on the door of an apartment that isn't hers, demanding entry despite clear signs that it wasn't her home (different floor, bright red floor mat, clearly lit numbering on the side), bringing a loaded gun with her despite being either so exhausted from work or wasted or whatever she was that she couldn't think clearly and shooting at someone who is not advancing on her nor had a weapon.

So it seems to be a defense to murder but not to the lesser includeds. What has she been charged with?

IMO If she banged on the door then criminally negligent homicide is out the window.

 

[gitana1]

The jury will be sequestered.
I am watching live as well.

IMO there are a lot of not guilty verdicts in high profile sequestered jury cases; Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, OJ Simpson.

Yup. Not great.

 

[Hraefn]

The courtroom is back live, with the Judge speaking now.