Grego2007 said:

---

7 days of talking about how aggie football is doing would kill me

---

On the positive side, don't think you could have watched the Arky game!

cadetjay02 said:

---

I was the foreman on a 4 day civil trial (not sequestered) but we were given specific instructions that we couldn't talk about the case until it was given to us.

---

I too was foreman on a jury with similar instructions and the case was all anyone talked about when we were alone.

Media seems confused about when the latest time the jury could report a verdict is tonight.

culdeus said:

---

Media seems confused

---

This part about covers it.

uneedastraw said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

Jury will have a lot to discuss. I keep coming back to her not having any reason whatsoever to want to kill this guy. The only possible reason could be that she thought her life was in danger..

---

Of course she thought she was in danger. But was she? Or maybe she panicked and made a bad decision and prematurely pulled the trigger. She obviously had lapses of judgement to lead up to her putting herself in that situation. Could another lapse of judgement be that she assumed he was going to hurt her when in fact he was simply standing up and moving forward to see who entered his apartment?

She murdered him in what she thought was self defense.
How many mistakes are you allowed to make when you kill someone?

---

Honest answer: depends on how much money you have.

You people are getting way too caught up in whether the shooting was justified or not. It was not. No one has ever argued that. It's whetger or not she made a mistake that put her in that position which she clearly did. Prosecution is supposed to prove that she did not make a mistake, but their opening statement was that she made a mistake but should have known better.

Jury call was made apparently, but I haven't heard the why behind that yet.

Edit: Done for the day.

Question for the lawyers:

During the prosecution's cross-examination of Guyger on Friday, we witnessed the following exchange:

Prosecutor: You said that you yelled "let me see your hands", but none of the neighbors heard you say that. Why is that?

Guyger: I don't know.

Prosecutor: Because you didn't say it, that's why.


Is this not wildly inappropriate? If your lawyer doesn't say anything, can you as the defendant object to the question? With your legal background, if you were put in that position, would you have responded with anything?

Ft.Worth_Ag said:

---

When do yall anticipate a verdict?

---

Hung jury is my guess

Wheatables02 said:

---

Two thoughts -

1) For those wanting manslaughter, she admitted to intentionally shooting BJ on while on the stand. This negates the elements of the offense for manslaughter. In layman's terms, a legit jury cannot convict her of Manslaughter. I don't think it will happen.

2) They are trying to wrap this trial up ASAP to keep possible rioting from interfering with weekend events.

Culpabe mental states -

d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence.

Definition of Manslaughter - A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

---

In his closing, the state destroyed the case for manslaughter.

He said [paraphrase] " if that second shot through the wall killed someone, that would be manslaughter. But she shot at Jean intentionally, so it is murder."

Don't think it can be manslaughter and the prosecution even said so

Seven Costanza said:

---

Question for the lawyers:

During the prosecution's cross-examination of Guyger on Friday, we witnessed the following exchange:

Prosecutor: You said that you yelled "let me see your hands", but none of the neighbors heard you say that. Why is that?

Guyger: I don't know.

Prosecutor: Because you didn't say it, that's why.


Is this not wildly inappropriate? If your lawyer doesn't say anything, can you as the defendant object to the question? With your legal background, if you were put in that position, would you have responded with anything?

---

The attorney could have objected to that as a sidebar comment. Sometimes not objecting to an argumentative statement like that is the correct call. You saw it for what it was, chances are the jury did also.

The initial question was actually objectionable as speculation. She cannot testify as to what other people heard (she has no personal knowledge) or why other people did not hear certain statements. As proc said, it is a judgment call on whether to object or not. Sometimes you let objectionable questions slide because you know the answer and it helps your case or the answer does not affect your case. Also, juries do not like it when an attorney objects too much.

So, as a defense attorney, how do you handle them allowing "lesser charges" near the end? Wouldn't your arguments differ?

Guitarsoup said:

---

Wheatables02 said:

---

Two thoughts -

1) For those wanting manslaughter, she admitted to intentionally shooting BJ on while on the stand. This negates the elements of the offense for manslaughter. In layman's terms, a legit jury cannot convict her of Manslaughter. I don't think it will happen.

2) They are trying to wrap this trial up ASAP to keep possible rioting from interfering with weekend events.

Culpabe mental states -

d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence.

Definition of Manslaughter - A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

---

In his closing, the state destroyed the case for manslaughter.

He said [paraphrase] " if that second shot through the wall killed someone, that would be manslaughter. But she shot at Jean intentionally, so it is murder."

Don't think it can be manslaughter and the prosecution even said so

---

Good catch.

Was it ever determined which side moved to have the lesser charge added?

smango05 said:

---

Was it ever determined which side moved to have the lesser charge added?

---

I believe the state wanted lesser charges included so the jury could come to a compromise on lesser charges rather than hanging or acquitting. I think the defense moved to get rid of them by having her testify that her intention was to shoot Jean, so it couldn't be reckless or negligent, making it do or die.

Ah ok thanks. I thought the manslaughter charge was added at the end. Seemed like an awfully bold move of the ADA to then tell the jurors it wasn't manslaughter, having just moved to have it added.

Guitarsoup said:

---

smango05 said:

---

Was it ever determined which side moved to have the lesser charge added?

---

I believe the state wanted lesser charges included so the jury could come to a compromise on lesser charges rather than hanging or acquitting. I think the defense moved to get rid of them by having her testify that her intention was to shoot Jean, so it couldn't be reckless or negligent, making it do or die.

---

The defense did not want her to testify that she intended to kill him when she shot him. She answered that question poorly. Prosecution knows they will likely not get murder so they requested the included offense.

Just found this thread because this trial is so bizarre.

I think that she really went to the wrong apartment and believed she was acting in self-defense. On the other hand, it just doesn't sit well with me that someone is going to get away with walking into someone else's residence and killing them for no real reason. Like someone else said, she made mistakes, but how many mistakes are you allowed to get away with when you killed someone?

Was it just me or did the prosecution really try to ramp up the vitirol in their closing? Jason Fine telling the the jury that they speak for the "community" and then the lead guy getting up in Guyger's face & pointing.

ElephantRider said:

---

Just found this thread because this trial is so bizarre.

I think that she really went to the wrong apartment and believed she was acting in self-defense. On the other hand, it just doesn't sit well with me that someone is going to get away with walking into someone else's residence and killing them for no real reason. Like someone else said, she made mistakes, but how many mistakes are you allowed to get away with when you killed someone?

---

I think that is the big dilemma for everyone. That's why this case reads like it was constructed by some philosophical law prof wanting to make his class uncomfortable.

The issue is what she did doesn't neatly fit into any category of law. It was "wrong", but was it "murder"? Not really. Was it "manslaughter"? No, the act itself was intentional, if the circumstances leading to it were innocent mistakes.

It is so hard. And tragic.

Bocephus said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

smango05 said:

---

Was it ever determined which side moved to have the lesser charge added?

---

I believe the state wanted lesser charges included so the jury could come to a compromise on lesser charges rather than hanging or acquitting. I think the defense moved to get rid of them by having her testify that her intention was to shoot Jean, so it couldn't be reckless or negligent, making it do or die.

---

The defense did not want her to testify that she intended to kill him when she shot him. She answered that question poorly. Prosecution knows they will likely not get murder so they requested the included offense.

---

I think I agree with guitarsoup on this one. Guyger was very well prepared for her direct testimony. The intent question would be the top question that they would coach her on how to answer in cross examination. It's not fathomable to me that the defense attorneys didn't coach her on how to answer that question over and over again. I couldn't believe she said that she intended to kill him. But if the defense attorneys think they can easily get her off of the murder charge, then telling her to answer that way would also get her off of the manslaughter charge as well. So now she has a better chance to walk free than if she said she did not intend to kill him.

Ol Jock 99 said:

---

The issue is what she did doesn't neatly fit into any category of law. It was "wrong", but was it "murder"? Not really. Was it "manslaughter"? No, the act itself was intentional, if the circumstances leading to it were innocent accidents.

It is so hard. And tragic.

---

That's the problem. I think she definitely deserves to do time, but I don't know that she deserves to do the time that would come with a murder sentence.

She testified she heard noise inside what she though was her apartment. Instead of calling for backup and waiting outside she proceeded in. I thought the prosecution did a good job of driving that home in closing statements. For that reason alone I don't think there's any way she is found not guilty.

The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.

Enviroag02 said:

---

The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.

---

That's true. She was definitely the aggressor.

I am torn on what I think will happen. Yes, she was the aggressor. Yes, she went in, but her timeline was that it all happened in one fluid motion, not that she heard someone, paused, debated, and went in. As the door was opening and she was stepping in, she heard noises inside, according to her testimony. The kicker for me is that the prosecution had to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that mistake in fact was NOT a viable defense. That is an incredible difficult burden of proof, and I do not think they proved it. I could see how they convict, I could see how the decide to settle on manslaughter, and I could see how it is a hung jury or an acquittal. But it's evident regardless of the verdict there are no winners in this case.

mavsfan4ever said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

smango05 said:

---

Was it ever determined which side moved to have the lesser charge added?

---

I believe the state wanted lesser charges included so the jury could come to a compromise on lesser charges rather than hanging or acquitting. I think the defense moved to get rid of them by having her testify that her intention was to shoot Jean, so it couldn't be reckless or negligent, making it do or die.

---

The defense did not want her to testify that she intended to kill him when she shot him. She answered that question poorly. Prosecution knows they will likely not get murder so they requested the included offense.

---

I think I agree with guitarsoup on this one. Guyger was very well prepared for her direct testimony. The intent question would be the top question that they would coach her on how to answer in cross examination. It's not fathomable to me that the defense attorneys didn't coach her on how to answer that question over and over again. I couldn't believe she said that she intended to kill him. But if the defense attorneys think they can easily get her off of the murder charge, then telling her to answer that way would also get her off of the manslaughter charge as well. So now she has a better chance to walk free than if she said she did not intend to kill him.

---

As opposed to saying she shot him in order to stop the threat?

Chubster said:

---

She testified she heard noise inside what she though was her apartment. Instead of calling for backup and waiting outside she proceeded in. I thought the prosecution did a good job of driving that home in closing statements. For that reason alone I don't think there's any way she is found not guilty.

---

This is the problem. She wasn't on a police call. The police are not trained in how to search their own home. She did not violate a single general order or policy by going into the apartment to see what was causing the noise. The state keeps trying to imply that she went against her training when that could not be further from the truth. She was off duty, and a civilian so she was not required to follow training. On top of that as I already stated, there is no training to search your own home. If you want to argue that she should have treated it like an officer going to a burglary call, you don't find cover and call for backup unless you have established that the burglar has a weapon. You cannot do that until you go in and investigate. The prosecutors were wrong in multiple areas on this.

Enviroag02 said:

---

The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.

---

If you believe mistake of fact (which I think most people do), then isn't she supported by the castle doctrine?

Bocephus said:

---

Chubster said:

---

She testified she heard noise inside what she though was her apartment. Instead of calling for backup and waiting outside she proceeded in. I thought the prosecution did a good job of driving that home in closing statements. For that reason alone I don't think there's any way she is found not guilty.

---

This is the problem. She wasn't on a police call. The police are not trained in how to search their own home. She did not violate a single general order or policy by going into the apartment to see what was causing the noise. The state keeps trying to imply that she went against her training when that could not be further from the truth. She was off duty, and a civilian so she was not required to follow training. On top of that as I already stated, there is no training to search your own home. If you want to argue that she should have treated it like an officer going to a burglary call, you don't find cover and call for backup unless you have established that the burglar has a weapon. You cannot do that until you go in and investigate. The prosecutors were wrong in multiple areas on this.

---

Do you shoot to kill without establishing the "burglar" has a weapon?

Verdict expected today?

Enviroag02 said:

---

The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.

---

Only have to establish that you were scared for your life. Defense was not using a self defense strategy. They are using mistake of fact, which is that she made a mistake that put her into that situation.

The really interesting thing about this trial has been the reaction of people who are watching it. A lot of them buy into the emotional argument which is what the prosecution has been going for. Also interesting to see people trying to defend Jean, as if they think anyone is trying to attack him. The prosecution trying to explain when Jean has weed in his apartment was amusing to me.

HouseDivided06 said:

---

I am torn on what I think will happen. Yes, she was the aggressor. Yes, she went in, but her timeline was that it all happened in one fluid motion, not that she heard someone, paused, debated, and went in. As the door was opening and she was stepping in, she heard noises inside, according to her testimony. The kicker for me is that the prosecution had to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that mistake in fact was NOT a viable defense. That is an incredible difficult burden of proof, and I do not think they proved it. I could see how they convict, I could see how the decide to settle on manslaughter, and I could see how it is a hung jury or an acquittal. But it's evident regardless of the verdict there are no winners in this case.

---

Exactly

schwabbin said:

---

Verdict expected today?

---

Since it is a sequestered jury, I think most people are expecting that. I halfway expect a hung jury on Friday