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

[gitana1]

So wait, you can’t object to the other lawyers questions to your client during cross examination? I know it’s the defenses client but it’s all fair game when the prosecution is grilling them??

You have to have actual grounds to object. What grounds would there be to object to, "Did you intend to kill him?" Not liking the question is not grounds.

The question is highly relevant to the case. It's not argumentative. It doesn't call for hearsay. It's doesn't call for an expert opinion. It doesn't call for speculation.

There have to be grounds for objections.

 

[gitana1]

Honest question for any medical professionals here - would it be wise to do CPR on an individual shot in the chest? Apart from the merits of the case, this has bothered me. If I came across a person shot in the chest, I would personally be afraid to do CPR, due to the location of the bleeding, fearing it would hasten death.

I don't know but the first responders did CPR. And as far as I recall she never said she was afraid to hasten death. She just sort of half you know whatted it because she was on the phone and texting with her other hand.

 

[Mormon Attorney]

I don't know but the first responders did CPR. And as far as I recall she never said she was afraid to hasten death. She just sort of half you know whatted it because she was on the phone and texting with her other hand.

I know the responders did CPR but I was thinking there was no heartbeat then so they would not make it worse. While there was still a heartbeat, I am just asking if it would be wise to do CPR with bleeding in the chest . Just an honest question. I know the defense did not raise it but I wondered this in the testimony. There are certainly first aid measures that would apply like stopping the bleeding. I just wondered if CPR would be prudent. Purely a medical question because it has bothered me.

 

[Weki]

From my Red Cross CPR training within the last year, if memory serves, if there’s blood in the mouth or something is in the mouth you wouldn’t blow into the mouth. But you can still do chest compressions. Typically you’d do chest compressions and then blow into the mouth and switch back and forth. If there’s nothing in the mouth I can’t recall anything in my training that says you can’t do the full CPR.

But I think most importantly with a gunshot wound you’d focus on stopping the bleeding. She had a whole first aid kit and didn’t even do that, which I think even someone without training would intuitively try to do.

 

[Wishbone]

I know the responders did CPR but I was thinking there was no heartbeat then so they would not make it worse. While there was still a heartbeat, I am just asking if it would be wise to do CPR with bleeding in the chest . Just an honest question. I know the defense did not raise it but I wondered this in the testimony. There are certainly first aid measures that would apply like stopping the bleeding. I just wondered if CPR would be prudent. Purely a medical question because it has bothered me.

I don't remember if she bothered to even check if had a pulse or was breathing? She called him "bud" like he was alive?

 

[Mormon Attorney]

I don't remember if she bothered to even check if had a pulse or was breathing? She called him "bud" like he was alive?

I think the testimony was that he was alive at first. I do not believe he was later but I could be wrong.

 

[MsFacetious]

Only danger of not guilty verdict would be one hold out and I sure hope that does not happen.

One hold out would not be a not guilty verdict. Either verdict has to be unanimous, they all must agree on it. If one person disagrees with the majority it will be a hung jury. There won't be a verdict and we will have another trial.

I think I felt bad for her a little bit until I learned that while Mr. Jean's family was probably planning a funeral, she was texting her partner and whoever else about getting drunk.

That didn't even phase me.

It was learning that she had her police bag with her and still didn't render aid.
She had hemostatic gauze in there. She could have packed the wound.
She had a chest seal in there, she could have sealed it off. Like we saw in Hannah William's freeway shooting.

The fact that she was texting MR instead of rendering SIMPLE aid to Botham is what did me in. There is no excuse for that.

Hilarious. I just saw a meme online comparing AG to "Barney Fife".

Nah. Barney's heart was in the right place. Amber's, not so much.

I was thinking about what the case would be if the round she fired into the wall had gone into the apartment next door and killed someone else. Another innocent. What she did is just plain unforgivable.

I was hoping we would hear from the occupant of that apartment actually. The bullet was high enough to not hit anyone, but I imagine it still messed with those people.

So wait, you can’t object to the other lawyers questions to your client during cross examination? I know it’s the defenses client but it’s all fair game when the prosecution is grilling them??

Not just because you dislike them, but you can object to the cross examination. The prosecution has to stay "in the scope" of the questions the defense asked. So if the defense only asks 3 questions the prosecution is limited. It doesn't sound like an issue in this case, but it is an issue at trial.

I think her attys wisely advised her not to get defensive on the stand and answer with yes and no. Not to fight with the prosecutor and I think she had no choice but to say she intended to kill because she did. Her whole claim is she feared for her life. Of course she intended to kill. There’s no getting around that. She’s claiming her training kicked in and she double tapped.

I actually think she came off more sympathetic when she answered honestly. As opposed to when she did her poor me act.

Sure, more sympathetic. However, she also verified that this case fits the murder statute.

He actually was on another case not to long ago with another police officer and got him found guilty of murder. The police officer was black though in that case, so that could have played a little bit into factor.

I’m hoping he can put it all together and get the jury to understand it better, but honestly I hate putting hope into people. They always let me down. I’m not sure that I can watch the verdict because if this girl walks, I’m gonna highly disappointed and devastated.

Yes. I will be crushed.

I also heard it could be because they were going to rest on Monday, so they didn’t want to close on Saturday because you can’t deliberate on Sunday or atleast that wasn’t the plan. But I also heard because if they rested on a Saturday - the judge could have given the jurors instructions that day and since they were not coming back the next day, she wanted it fresh in their minds. Of course, This all speculation from some of those at the court house/media.

I think it was wise to not rest anyway. That gives the defense a couple of days to determine if there is anything else they can do before they rest.

Honest question for any medical professionals here - would it be wise to do CPR on an individual shot in the chest? Apart from the merits of the case, this has bothered me. If I came across a person shot in the chest, I would personally be afraid to do CPR, due to the location of the bleeding, fearing it would hasten death.

I wouldn't do CPR. What I would do is pack the wound and put a seal over it. So that when CPR was started the blood wouldn't come shooting out like it did.

 

[MsFacetious]

I think the testimony was that he was alive at first. I do not believe he was later but I could be wrong.

I believe they operated on him at the hospital right? Tried to repair his heart? So clearly they hadn't pronounced him dead yet? Did I dream that...

 

[VAgirlatheart]

Oh do you know what minute? I'd love to see that.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Yes 3:00hr mark is where to start lol

Also,
2:14hr is good as well.
“Oh so you had already left”

Good lawyering.
Perfect execution.

Frankly if the jury let’s her off, you can’t really say he didn’t give his all. At this point, it’s all on the jury.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

Good overview of the state's case...

Amber Guyger trial: Botham Jean was bent over or lying on back when shot, medical examiner testifies

 

[Mormon Attorney]

From my Red Cross CPR training within the last year, if memory serves, if there’s blood in the mouth or something is in the mouth you wouldn’t blow into the mouth. But you can still do chest compressions. Typically you’d do chest compressions and then blow into the mouth and switch back and forth. If there’s nothing in the mouth I can’t recall anything in my training that says you can’t do the full CPR.

But I think most importantly with a gunshot wound you’d focus on stopping the bleeding. She had a whole first aid kit and didn’t even do that, which I think even someone without training would intuitively try to do.

I agree. I would definitely think you would want pressure on the wound to stop the bleeding. On the CPR, I would be afraid to do chest compressions on a living person with a bullet wound in the chest. I would not have done it for that reason but I would hope I would have the presence of mind to do anything else that might help.

Just for the record, it is an honest inquiry. Some of my friends knew the victim and he was a very special young man, gone too soon. I will let the jury decide on the officer's actions but I would think that CPR would not be a good move with chest bleeding.

 

[turaj]

So wait, you can’t object to the other lawyers questions to your client during cross examination? I know it’s the defenses client but it’s all fair game when the prosecution is grilling them??

SHE could have answered that question in a better way...throwing in the threat...I thought he was going to kill me...the prosecutor got her exactly where he wanted her and she just gave in.

 

[VAgirlatheart]

The defense can't object to her own answers. The question is not one they can object to: "Did you intend to kill him." That's the whole issue. There are no grounds to object.

"Oh shoot, I really don't like what my client just said, 'Objection your honor!'" isn't going to fly.

But the testimony I saw she kept saying she shot him "because he was a threat". The state kept saying, "No. Answer my question. Did you intend to kill him?"
"Yes. Because he was a threat."
"You're still not answering my question. Did you intend to kill him?"
"Yes."

Her adding in of the "because he was a threat" was non responsive. He didn't ask her why. So the state could've objected and moved to strike. Instead he forced her to respond to just his question.

Oh, I knew that. I wasn’t talking about her answers. I was talking more so as if the prosecution stepped out of line with certain things. I was going to use the example that you were using as to him repeating the question and her answering it already, but I guess you are right, never thought about - he didn’t ask for the reason as to why, so he can continue to go until she directly answer with yes or no. Got it. That’s why I was confused.

 

[gitana1]

I know the responders did CPR but I was thinking there was no heartbeat then so they would not make it worse. While there was still a heartbeat, I am just asking if it would be wise to do CPR with bleeding in the chest . Just an honest question. I know the defense did not raise it but I wondered this in the testimony. There are certainly first aid measures that would apply like stopping the bleeding. I just wondered if CPR would be prudent. Purely a medical question because it has bothered me.

Understood. I think it's irrelevant to this case though because she never said she failed to provide real life saving measures because she was afraid to make things worse.

 

[turaj]

I don't remember if she bothered to even check if had a pulse or was breathing? She called him "bud" like he was alive?

oh wow...honestly I thought there was a dog there and she was talking to the dog...wow.

 

[gitana1]

I think the testimony was that he was alive at first. I do not believe he was later but I could be wrong.

Yes. But gravely wounded and she did nothing proactive to ensure he didn't die. She was too busy covering her behind and texting her boyfriend.

 

[Weki]

Listen, when he showed the video which juxtapositions Botham Jean’s body being taken out on a stretcher and her getting in the car and immediately starting scrolling through her phone......I was DONE with her!! Gtfoh! The cross exam was perfect!

 

[gitana1]

One hold out would not be a not guilty verdict. Either verdict has to be unanimous, they all must agree on it. If one person disagrees with the majority it will be a hung jury. There won't be a verdict and we will have another trial.




That didn't even phase me.

It was learning that she had her police bag with her and still didn't render aid.
She had hemostatic gauze in there. She could have packed the wound.
She had a chest seal in there, she could have sealed it off. Like we saw in Hannah William's freeway shooting.

The fact that she was texting MR instead of rendering SIMPLE aid to Botham is what did me in. There is no excuse for that.




Nah. Barney's heart was in the right place. Amber's, not so much.




I was hoping we would hear from the occupant of that apartment actually. The bullet was high enough to not hit anyone, but I imagine it still messed with those people.




Not just because you dislike them, but you can object to the cross examination. The prosecution has to stay "in the scope" of the questions the defense asked. So if the defense only asks 3 questions the prosecution is limited. It doesn't sound like an issue in this case, but it is an issue at trial.




Sure, more sympathetic. However, she also verified that this case fits the murder statute.




Yes. I will be crushed.




I think it was wise to not rest anyway. That gives the defense a couple of days to determine if there is anything else they can do before they rest.




I wouldn't do CPR. What I would do is pack the wound and put a seal over it. So that when CPR was started the blood wouldn't come shooting out like it did.

Excellent post. And of course true that she's not not guilty if one person is a holdout. It would be hung.

 

[turaj]

Excellent post. And of course true that she's not not guilty if one person is a holdout. It would be hung.

We might have another trial...no guarantees. I think in this case we would but depends on DA.

 

[gitana1]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Yes 3:00hr mark is where to start lol

Also,
2:14hr is good as well.
“Oh so you had already left”

Good lawyering.
Perfect execution.

Frankly if the jury let’s her off, you can’t really say he didn’t give his all. At this point, it’s all on the jury.

Thank you so much!!