Metroplex
Sponsored by

Amber Guyger Trial

99,832 Views | 1267 Replies | Last: 10 mo ago by Bocephus
BoDog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For the legal eagles out there, what is the consensus of this trial? Is there a good chance she walks, gets a lesser charge, or is she SOL? I'm surprised the trial was not moved out of Dallas County given the media coverage.
DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not a legal eagle, but I think she'll be found guilty of murder even though I do buy her story that it was an honest mistake in that she unintentionally/mistakenly entered the wrong apartment, freaked at finding a guy in there (he was watching football on his laptop across the room in the dark), and then killing him when she thought it was her place. But big picture, she "intentionally or knowingly caused the death of another individual" which is all the statue requires in Texas.

I think sentencing is where her best shot at leniency of entering the wrong apt being an honest mistake will come into play more. Murder in TX can be sentenced from 5 to 99 years. I think she'll get the neighborhood of 10-15 and be out in 5-7.
bbattbq01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm thinking along the same lines as Danny. She killed the guy. Crappy situation all around.
BoDog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agree. I feel terrible for both parties. After working a 13 hour shift, I bet she was physically and mentally worn out. I am sure each and every floor to the complex looks identical. I cannot help but think if this guy would of had his door locked, then none of this happens....
DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agree. All of us tend to go into auto-pilot when going to work or getting home, especially at the end of a long day. Her auto-pilot just had a freakishly terrible and tragic result. Not entirely unlike some of these kids who get left in a hot car. Mom and dad are on auto-pilot which leads to a tragic screwup. But there's also no changing the fact she entered someone else's apartment and ultimately intentionally killed the resident, although her reason for being there was not intentional. Which is why I still think it's murder but with a fairly lenient sentence.
752bro4
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BoDog said:

I cannot help but think if this guy would of had his door locked, then none of this happens....
Victim blaming
BoDog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well its pretty tough to deny. Seems like common sense to lock your damn door at night-especially in an apartment south of Downtown Dallas. Just sayin....
DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't blame the guy, but it is one thing that would have likely disrupted the auto-pilot mode before somebody got shot. Again, just freakishly tragic combination of circumstance.
proc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It is going to be really hard to convince all 12 jurors that her use of self defense was not reasonable. Subjectively reasonable, not objectively.

It is also going to be really hard to convince all 12 that it was reasonable. My prediction is a hung jury with a mistrial, or a "compromise" verdict where they convict her of a lesser included offense such as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.
proc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am going to armchair quarterback the prosecutor who gave the opening statement. Arguing all of the clear and obvious mistakes that she made on her way to the victim's apartment, has a high likelihood of telling the jury that she shot him as a mistake of fact.

He kind of argued the defendant's case for her.
DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm going to assume she'll take the stand to explain her actions that night. So I think a lot of it will boil down to how remorseful and believable she comes across. If she's able to put on a good cry for the enormous mistake she made that ended one life and wrecked hers and otherwise come across as a likeable, normal person that the jury relates to and could put themselves in her shoes, that compromise verdict or light murder sentence becomes much more likely.
proc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree, she will pretty much have to take the stand.
PatAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
She killed a guy. Unless they have some pre-existing conflict, I'm ok with a lenient sentence, but she did murder him. I also think police officers should be held to a higher standard than civilians in situations like this.
Bones08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
She made some pretty understandable mistakes leading to her getting into the apartment. Once she was in the apartment she loses me a bit with her actions. I guess I can understand how happens, but I have a hard time justifying it in my head.

Like some others have said I think a guilty verdict with a lesser sentence would probably be fitting. I'm not sure though. Just a tragic situation for both sides. Makes me sad thinking about it.
DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I too wondered how she didn't recongizie it wasn't her place faster, but when I saw the details of the apartment layout and what he was doing, it made more sense to me. The entry door to the apartment first enters the kitchen. Then the middle is the dining area and furthest away is the living area where the victim was. So that immediate entry area of the kitchen and dining is less likely to look different vs. if you entered into a living area where the furniture is more likely to be stand out as different. And he was apparently watching the Thursday night football game on his laptop in the (mostly) dark.

So that's when I could understand a little more that she still may have not recognized the place.
Bones08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I actually made an eerily similar mistake in an apartment I lived in years ago. I lived on the fourth floor of the complex. I arrived home after a long day of work and was confused as to why my key wasn't working before realizing I was on the third floor, not the fourth floor.

There were probably many things I should have noticed, but for whatever reason I just did not.

The way a brain can just auto-pilot through certain things is kinda freaky.

Bocephus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
She will not be convicted of murder. The DA should not have listened to the mob and upped the charge. Manslaughter was reasonable. This incident is the perfect example of mistake of fact.

There are 12 women on the jury. You don't think one of them will be able to identify with coming home and seeing someone in your apartment and getting scared?

Residents of that complex went to the wrong apartment all the time. It was a very common occurrence. My understanding is that he was not watching football on his laptop.

She made a tragic mistake and imo a manslaughter conviction was a given and he would have received a fair punishment. The murder charge was an overreach. If the prosecution asks for lesser included charges it may signal to the jury that they don't have enough for murder. Not a good thing and not likely.

Already have multiple reasons for appeal with the release of the 911 audio to the public and the refusal to change the venue.

She is not going to be found guilty of murder. Dallas county jurors do not convict legit bad guys with felony convictions for murder. The DA gave the mob the charge they wanted and in the end, ensured that Guyger will walk.
benMath08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A mistake is missing your exit or forgetting you were supposed to grab dinner.

She killed an unsuspecting guy in his own home.

I'm not sure what the appropriate punishment could even be but I know it involves spending a long time in jail.
Bocephus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
Bocephus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
benMath08 said:

A mistake is missing your exit or forgetting you were supposed to grab dinner.

She killed an unsuspecting guy in his own home.

I'm not sure what the appropriate punishment could even be but I know it involves spending a long time in jail.


I'm not defending the act. I'm just pointing out how she was overcharged. What is a long time to you?
Spaceship
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is it really a jury of 12 women? If so, how the heck does that happen in a case like this?
Robert C. Christian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Spaceship said:

Is it really a jury of 12 women? If so, how the heck does that happen in a case like this?

Just saw on NBC5 that its 8 women and 4 men.
proc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There are also 4 female alternates, so that's where the 12 number comes from. 8 women and 4 men and 4 alternate jurors that are also women.
cadetjay02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Great post! That is basically how it was explained to me by a Dallas PD detective. It's also why they are expecting the city to burn and he was issued riot gear a couple weeks ago.
Ervin Burrell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cadetjay02 said:

Great post! That is basically how it was explained to me by a Dallas PD detective. It's also why they are expecting the city to burn and he was issued riot gear a couple weeks ago.
And the reason they proposed putting the trial off until after the Fair, which eats up a good amount of the Dept's resources.
wbt5845
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It would seem to me the State would thus move for inclusion of a lesser charge. If it's just too hard to get past the
"Mistake of Fact" hurdle, go for something that'll give you a conviction. I can certainly see why the Defense would not want it.

What happens if one side wants inclusion of a lesser charge and the other doesn't?
proc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As long as there is some evidence supporting the inclusion of the lesser charge, it will be included upon request by either side.
wbt5845
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
proc said:

As long as there is some evidence supporting the inclusion of the lesser charge, it will be included upon request by either side.
Well, then per Bocephus' long entry above, the DA would be insane to not ask to include the lesser charge based on how the trial goes.

The jury will want to convict her of something - just get a felony conviction and you can sentence for whatever you want it to be.

In Texas, there is are four types of criminal homicide:

Capital Murder - Murder with extenuating stuff (it's a long list, but killing a cop while he's doing his duty is one) - Punishment is death or life without parole
Murder - Intentionally killing another person - Punishment is 5-99 years or life without parole.
Manslaughter - If you recklessly cause a death. Punishment 2-20 years.
Criminally Negligent Homicide - If you cause a death by criminal negligence of normal standards, such as a doctor causing a death by violating normal sanitary standards. Punishment is 6 months to 10 years.

Seems like manslaughter would be dead easy to prove in this case. I understand why they're going for murder - she intentionally knew she was killing another person. But if the burden is on the prosecution to prove she KNEW it wasn't her apartment, it seems inclusion of the lesser charge would only be prudent.

She could get 20 years for either one.

double aught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It seems few facts are in dispute here. What does the law say? Bocephus' post lays it out well.
Ag CPA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Biggest takeaway from this thread is to avoid Dallas the day of the verdict.
tysker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The facts remain dont seem to matter as much as the burden that police officer may or may not have higher benchmark to 'form a reasonable belief' that negates culpability pursuant the mistake of fact standard. This isnt some Joe Schmo; this is a highly trained and well regarded Dallas Police Officer. And thats the higher level issue: if Guyger 'wins' because she, even as a DPO, doesnt have the skills/training/wherewithal to ascertain reasonable facts to avoid shooting an innocent person in a case such as this, what does it look poorly on the DPD in general?



edit to add: I've always thought that if she had been drinking in some ways the situation would be more clear overall, right? If she had a couple drink in her, then she's obviously negligent, and manslaughter is the obvious charge and she goes to goes to jail for 7-10 with chance for parole just like a drunk driver. But given she may get acquitted by claims a mistake of reasonable belief of perceived facts along with her being tired and/or overworked, is detrimental to the perception and reputation of the DPD.
AggieC07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Has there been any insight into what she did to identify or try to identify the victim before shooting?
schwabbin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Best thread I've read on TA in a while
3rd Generation Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't get how she missed a bright red door mat when her apartment had NONE.
Bocephus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tysker said:

The facts remain dont seem to matter as much as the burden that police officer may or may not have higher benchmark to 'form a reasonable belief' that negates culpability pursuant the mistake of fact standard. This isnt some Joe Schmo; this is a highly trained and well regarded Dallas Police Officer. And thats the higher level issue: if Guyger 'wins' because she, even as a DPO, doesnt have the skills/training/wherewithal to ascertain reasonable facts to avoid shooting an innocent person in a case such as this, what does it look poorly on the DPD in general?



edit to add: I've always thought that if she had been drinking in some ways the situation would be more clear overall, right? If she had a couple drink in her, then she's obviously negligent, and manslaughter is the obvious charge and she goes to goes to jail for 7-10 with chance for parole just like a drunk driver. But given she may get acquitted by claims a mistake of reasonable belief of perceived facts along with her being tired and/or overworked, is detrimental to the perception and reputation of the DPD.


You guys need to keep in mind that she was off duty. She was a civilian at the time of the shooting. At least that's what the city will argue during the civil trial. I think she should be held to the standard of the average civilian. JMO

I'm not worried about the perception of DPD. The people who hate DPD are not going to change their mind bc of a trial. Same with the people who love the police.

I think manslaughter was the correct charge and she would have been convicted and received something between probation and 5 years. Instead they listened to the mob so she will be found innocent of murder.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.