From a former Dallas DA:
So, tomorrow the world will be watching the start of Amber Guyger Murder trial, dubbed by the media as the trial of the decade for Dallas County. #GuygerTrial
The reason for this post is this: As a police officer, criminal defense attorney, and former Dallas County prosecutor, I feel the need to prepare my fellow Dallas County Citizens that a "Not Guilty" verdict is very likely in this case. Not because I like what happened in this case, or that I feel like Amber Guyger should go un-punished. It just how our criminal law handles these types of cases. When I became a lawyer 15 years ago, I took an oath to follow the law of the land, whether I agreed with it or not.
Some say, why did the Dallas County DA's office indict this case if a not guilty verdict is likely? Well, they had to. The law states that the District Attorney does not have to take in account "defenses" when choosing to indict. Although the grand jury does consider some defenses on some cases, this case was different. This case has to go to a trial. The District Attorney's Office couldn't just close this case without letting a jury of 12 make the decision.
As I said a year ago, "Murder" is the right charge in this case. When Amber Guyger pulled her weapon and fired, she intended to shoot Botham Jean. And the law requires we look at the "intent" of the person at the time the force is used. Murder is defined under Texas law as "intentionally or knowingly causing the death of another." At the time the shots were fired, Amber Guyger intended to shoot Botham Jean which caused his death. As such, this is not a manslaughter case. Manslaughter requires that at the time deadly force was used, the person acted "recklessly." In this case, if Amber Guyger had fired her weapon at a closed door, not knowing if anyone was on the other side, and Botham Jean was shot and killed, that would have been reckless and therefore, Manslaughter.
So, how does Amber Guyger "win" this trial? She uses the same defenses every citizen in the State of Texas has in these situations. In this case, two defenses come into play "Mistake of Fact," and "Self-Defense." "Mistake of Fact" is a rarely used defense in criminal cases, but it has been around for centuries. Our criminal laws intend to punish the "mental intent" of a person, not just the result. In other words, our criminal law doesn't punish people for making mistakes that's what the civil courts are for.
"Mistake of Fact" is defined as "It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense." Tex. Penal Code Sec. 8.02. This is a defense to prosecution which means, once raised by ANY evidence presented in the case, the burden shifts back to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does NOT apply. And here's how strong a "defense" is: If the jury has a reasonable doubt on whether or not the State of Texas "disproves" the "Mistake of Fact" beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury MUST ACQUIT. In other words, the State of Texas will have to DISprove the mistake of fact beyond a reasonable doubt in this case to secure a conviction.
In the Amber Guyger trial, if the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that Guyger could not have made a reasonable mistake based on the facts presented, she gets convicted. If the jury finds that it's possible that Guyger made a reasonable mistake, and does not believe the State of Texas proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not a reasonable one under the facts, the jury MUST acquit Guyger and find her not guilty. That is why I expect a "Not Guilty" verdict in this case I believe it is going to be almost impossible under this set of facts for the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not at all possible for Guyger to make such a mistake.
In a "Mistake of Fact" case, bottom line is this: If the facts were as the Guyger believed them to be, she would not be facing any criminal charges. That's where the "self defense" defense comes into play here if the jury believes that Guyger's "mistake of fact" was not unreasonable, then they evaluate the case as she thought them to be and if she had been in her apartment, the "castle doctrine" applies and her actions were lawful, which means a "Not Guilty" verdict.
The facts are generally not in dispute here. So, the focus in this case is going to be a legal one - the State is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Guyger's "beliefs" were not reasonable. Based on what we know, is it possible that such a mistake could be made based on the facts? If Yes (which is what I believe based on the facts known right now), the State will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply. And that result is a "Not Guilty" verdict.
Lastly, I've been asked a lot about the jury being able to find Guyger guilty of some other charge besides murder, i.e. a "lesser included" offense of "Manslaughter" or "Criminally Negligent Homicide." Well, it depends. At the close of the evidence at the end of the trial, either the State or the Defense will have to ask the Court to include one of these "lesser included" offenses in the jury charge (the law given to the jury). The State is not likely to do so, as it will signal the jury that they don't believe that they proved the offense of Murder. The Defense will certainly not ask for one, as with the defenses in play, they don't want a possible "compromise" verdict. That remains one aspect of the trial that I am certainly very interested in seeing how it plays out.
When I was in law school, I distinctly remember my criminal law professor going over "Mistake of Fact" and saying, "don't really worry about this, as you'll never see it." I understand why. Which is why I think that this case has garnered so much interest. Most people, and rightfully so, are going to see a centuries old legal doctrine come into play and possibly result in a verdict that most people won't understand. But, it's our law and the rule of law controls. I hope that whatever the verdict, our citizens will trust the Rule of Law and not resort to anything but peaceful actions. After all, that's why we choose to live in this great country.