So is manslaughter off the table here? Some of these posts make it seem like manslaughter would be most appropriate, but that's not an option at this stage.
Amber Guyger Trial
120,103 Views |
1267 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Bocephus
But according to the statute, the "mistake of fact" would do away with the reckless element of manslaughter in my opinion. The crime she is charged with is murder, not entering the wrong apartment. So her mistake of fact defense of entering the wrong apartment and thinking that it's her own, means that her shooting was not reckless (bc it would not have been reckless if she was truly in her own apartment).Goose said:I disagree. Entering the wrong apartment thinking it was your own still counts as reckless. And if that recklessness resulted in the death of someone else, then manslaughter would seem to fit the bill in my opinion.mavsfan4ever said:From the statute, if the jury decides that the Mistake of Fact Defense gets her off for Murder, I don't see why it also wouldn't get her off for manslaughter (if they end up bringing that charge). She would not be guilty of manslaughter if the facts were as she believed.MW03 said:Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:
Does this case change if she was drunk and entered the wrong apartment? If so, why does being in the wrong state of mind due to alcohol matter instead of being in the wrong state of mind due to being tired/horny?
Texas Penal Code 8.02 Mistake of Fact
(a) 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.
(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.
So if you form a "reasonable belief" about a fact, and had you been correct that fact would have negated your culpability, then it's a defense.
Guyger was a police officer, so there are laws that protect police officers. Additionally, there is new law out there that says a police officer, even when off duty as Guyger was, in deemed to be on duty under certain circumstances where they are responding to what is deemed the commission of a felony (maybe even some misdemeanors, I'm not sure).
Aside from that, she could also be protected by the "castle doctrine". Under that evaluation, my opinion is that if Guyger were correct about the mistaken fact, that's only half the battle; she still needs to prove that she was justified under Sec 9.32 to use deadly force. I think that's why it's crucial for the defense to establish that she was being charged and that he was not sitting there calmly.
The question above about being drunk is a different situation entirely, because that impairment would not permit her an opportunity to form a "reasonable belief".
I agree that a manslaughter charge seems fair, and the jury may just convict her of manslaughter for that reason. But under the technical reading of the statute, I think the mistake of fact defense does away with manslaughter just like it does murder.
Bocephus said:TSUAggie said:
If she wasn't a cop, everyone would be claiming it was murder. Unarmed man shot and killed in his own home by intruder.
I do not mean to come off as condescending, but you have obviously never followed any kind of criminal cases in Dallas County.
Uh, no I don't typically follow criminal cases in Dallas County. I don't see how that has anything to do with what I posted. My point was that in general, most would view this as murder if she were not a cop. I also don't know why you thought you needed to reply a second time to my post just to say that.
Some have suggested the Dallas DA will not ask for inclusion of consideration of manslaughter as it's an admission his murder case is weak. My point has been he'd be an idiot not asking for inclusion.Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:
So is manslaughter off the table here? Some of these posts make it seem like manslaughter would be most appropriate, but that's not an option at this stage.
The same politics that led to the DA acquiring a murder indictment are the same politics that are pressuring the DA to go with murder or nothing.
And..the State has rested it's case. Now the defense gets to rally. Word is that Amber Guyger is going on the stand shortly.
And..the State has rested it's case. Now the defense gets to rally. Word is that Amber Guyger is going on the stand shortly.
Anyone else having trouble with the stream?
Or are they on a break? I just see the State of Texas seal.
Or are they on a break? I just see the State of Texas seal.
wbt5845 said:Some have suggested the Dallas DA will not ask for inclusion of consideration of manslaughter as it's an admission his murder case is weak. My point has been he'd be an idiot not asking for inclusion.Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:
So is manslaughter off the table here? Some of these posts make it seem like manslaughter would be most appropriate, but that's not an option at this stage.
Eh, it's all about optics anyway. It's really hard to look at the facts and think she went home that day to kill a dude. The people who DO think that are going to be pissed off by anything less than murder charges anyway. This shifts that outrage to the jury now. "How dare they acquit that murderer!"
Justice is... Well it's pretty subjective I guess.
Adjourning for the day.
Judge denied "direct verdict" and will resume tomorrow at 8:30am.
The defense will present its case tomorrow. I assume Guyger will take the stand tomorrow.
The defense will present its case tomorrow. I assume Guyger will take the stand tomorrow.
Bottom line is the state has to convince a jury of 8 women and 4 men that beyond a reasonable doubt she should have known it was not her apartment. I believe at least one juror is going to find it plausible for her to believe she was in her own apartment by Mistake of Fact.
To me being in the wrong apartment and thinking it was her own negates the necessary intent to be guilty of murder. But her entering the wrong apartment (whether she was tired at the time, distracted by her partner/lover's texts, intoxicated, whatever) is reckless by definition and if that resulted in another person's death, which it did, then that to me is manslaughter. Where mistake of fact might come into play for manslaughter would be if punk kids in the neighborhood moved apartment numbers around as a joke and this resulted. But "oh I was tired and wasn't paying attention" doesn't (or shouldn't) protect someone from the results of their mistake.mavsfan4ever said:But according to the statute, the "mistake of fact" would do away with the reckless element of manslaughter in my opinion. The crime she is charged with is murder, not entering the wrong apartment. So her mistake of fact defense of entering the wrong apartment and thinking that it's her own, means that her shooting was not reckless (bc it would not have been reckless if she was truly in her own apartment).Goose said:I disagree. Entering the wrong apartment thinking it was your own still counts as reckless. And if that recklessness resulted in the death of someone else, then manslaughter would seem to fit the bill in my opinion.mavsfan4ever said:From the statute, if the jury decides that the Mistake of Fact Defense gets her off for Murder, I don't see why it also wouldn't get her off for manslaughter (if they end up bringing that charge). She would not be guilty of manslaughter if the facts were as she believed.MW03 said:Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:
Does this case change if she was drunk and entered the wrong apartment? If so, why does being in the wrong state of mind due to alcohol matter instead of being in the wrong state of mind due to being tired/horny?
Texas Penal Code 8.02 Mistake of Fact
(a) 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.
(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.
So if you form a "reasonable belief" about a fact, and had you been correct that fact would have negated your culpability, then it's a defense.
Guyger was a police officer, so there are laws that protect police officers. Additionally, there is new law out there that says a police officer, even when off duty as Guyger was, in deemed to be on duty under certain circumstances where they are responding to what is deemed the commission of a felony (maybe even some misdemeanors, I'm not sure).
Aside from that, she could also be protected by the "castle doctrine". Under that evaluation, my opinion is that if Guyger were correct about the mistaken fact, that's only half the battle; she still needs to prove that she was justified under Sec 9.32 to use deadly force. I think that's why it's crucial for the defense to establish that she was being charged and that he was not sitting there calmly.
The question above about being drunk is a different situation entirely, because that impairment would not permit her an opportunity to form a "reasonable belief".
I agree that a manslaughter charge seems fair, and the jury may just convict her of manslaughter for that reason. But under the technical reading of the statute, I think the mistake of fact defense does away with manslaughter just like it does murder.
I hear you, but I read the statute differently. For both murder and manslaughter, the "mistake of fact" is her thinking that the apartment was her own. Therefore, if the jury believes the "mistake of fact" is reasonable, then that mistake of fact would do away with the intent to kill for murder and the recklessness of manslaughter.
In my opinion, most of your arguments go towards whether the "mistake of fact" was reasonable or not.
Or perhaps, to look at it another way, if the jury buys into her mistake of fact defense, then they would not think she acted recklessly in accidentally entering the wrong apartment.
In my opinion, most of your arguments go towards whether the "mistake of fact" was reasonable or not.
Or perhaps, to look at it another way, if the jury buys into her mistake of fact defense, then they would not think she acted recklessly in accidentally entering the wrong apartment.
Needless to say, tomorrow morning is must see TV.
How do you justify that there was no blood on her uniform and apparent NO attempt to try to save his life once she realized her mistake? I am one of those that things she IS to blame for what she did. If I accendentally wen into the wrong appartment and killed someone I am NOT an innocent person. I had some sort of obligation as a human being to be sure of what was happening before I killed.
Shock, most likely.
hbc07 said:
Shock, most likely.
So, here again, she wasnt following training? Was she a good cop or one who repeatedly ignored training on this fateful night?
When you kill what you think is an intruder in your apartment and then realize you killed someone in their own apartment, I'd say training for anyone is largely out the window in the seconds after. She apparently called 911 immediately. But that bullet cut through most of his body. This booger eater that shot someone in his own place wasn't going to be able to do anything to save him.
3rd Generation Ag said:
How do you justify that there was no blood on her uniform and apparent NO attempt to try to save his life once she realized her mistake? I am one of those that things she IS to blame for what she did. If I accendentally wen into the wrong appartment and killed someone I am NOT an innocent person. I had some sort of obligation as a human being to be sure of what was happening before I killed.
This speaks more to the charges against her than it does to what she did or didn't do, in my view. Had she been correctly charged with some form of negligent homicide, failure to render aid (if appropriate), etc., like she should have been, then her defenses would be lessened or taken away entirely.
I can't speak for what was running through her mind, but I think even if I were adequately trained I'm not sure I could easily handle the shock of shooting someone 5-10 feet away from me in what I (allegedly) thought was my apartment only to realize it wasn't.
There is the challenge. It's not what we would reasonably do. It's a subjective standard. Can the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that under her circumstances she did not reasonably believe in those few seconds that she needed to defend herself using deadly force. That's a tough burden.
TSUAggie said:Bocephus said:TSUAggie said:
If she wasn't a cop, everyone would be claiming it was murder. Unarmed man shot and killed in his own home by intruder.
I do not mean to come off as condescending, but you have obviously never followed any kind of criminal cases in Dallas County.
Uh, no I don't typically follow criminal cases in Dallas County. I don't see how that has anything to do with what I posted. My point was that in general, most would view this as murder if she were not a cop. I also don't know why you thought you needed to reply a second time to my post just to say that.
In Dallas people are rarely charged with murder. Open and shut cases are charged with manslaughter bc the juries are that bad. She was charged with murder bc she is a cop.
3rd Generation Ag said:
How do you justify that there was no blood on her uniform and apparent NO attempt to try to save his life once she realized her mistake? I am one of those that things she IS to blame for what she did. If I accendentally wen into the wrong appartment and killed someone I am NOT an innocent person. I had some sort of obligation as a human being to be sure of what was happening before I killed.
If she did CPR on him she would push the blood out of his body faster and he would die faster. He was shot through the heart. He was not going to survive. Doing it is optics. A surgeon could have been in the room with him and he would still die. There is no coming back from that gunshot and he died almost instantly.
expresswrittenconsent said:hbc07 said:
Shock, most likely.
So, here again, she wasnt following training? Was she a good cop or one who repeatedly ignored training on this fateful night?
She wasn't a cop on this fateful night. She was off duty.
proc said:
There is the challenge. It's not what we would reasonably do. It's a subjective standard. Can the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that under her circumstances she did not reasonably believe in those few seconds that she needed to defend herself using deadly force. That's a tough burden.
One I do not think they met. The parade of witnesses who went to the wrong apartment was a huge blow imo.
Yeah, and I think that parade is only beginning.
If I'm the defense attorney, I call all 95 individuals (or whatever the number is) who have gone to the wrong apartment or wrong floor and I call them one at a time. That seems like it would go a long way to guaranteeing a favorable verdict.
It's all about the mental state of the perpetrator. Did Guyger act intentionally to cause the death of Jean? Yes. It's murder. How she entered the room may have been "reckless", but that has nothing to do with her actions in causing the death intentionally of this poor man. She wasn't acting recklessly when she pulled that trigger. She was acting deliberately with purpose to kill that man.
If she was reasonable in her belief that it was her apartment, and if she had been correct that it was her apartment, would she be liable? I don't know. The standard is not to compare her to other tired people. Reasonable people. Maybe even reasonable police officers if the prosecution can get the jury over on that.
Is it criminal negligence? A doctor, high and in the operating room, clips and artery and kills a patient? Yes, that's criminal negligence. This feels like murder or not guilty because of the mistake in fact defense. I don't think there's a lesser included that covers this one
Doesn't mean the jury won't do it, though.
If she was reasonable in her belief that it was her apartment, and if she had been correct that it was her apartment, would she be liable? I don't know. The standard is not to compare her to other tired people. Reasonable people. Maybe even reasonable police officers if the prosecution can get the jury over on that.
Is it criminal negligence? A doctor, high and in the operating room, clips and artery and kills a patient? Yes, that's criminal negligence. This feels like murder or not guilty because of the mistake in fact defense. I don't think there's a lesser included that covers this one
Doesn't mean the jury won't do it, though.
Going to the wrong apartment is reasonable, NOT recognizing instantly that you are inside the wrong apartment to me is not.
And I live in a "cookie cutter" stacked building where every floor is the same floor plan but there are tons of differences as you walk down every hall. Decorations from the complex (each floor has different paintings, , door mats, door decorations. The minute you open the door, there is the distinctive smell of the home. It is like she turned all her senses of observation OFF totally.
I know you say she is off duty, but I though part of the training for police was to be super observant. That ability would not turn off when she signed off the clock.
I still dont get how she could have been oblivious.
Honestly, I think she should plead guilty if she is a decent person at all. She should feel the terrible weight of guilt and remorse.
I don't even understand how she could want to walk away unpunished
And I live in a "cookie cutter" stacked building where every floor is the same floor plan but there are tons of differences as you walk down every hall. Decorations from the complex (each floor has different paintings, , door mats, door decorations. The minute you open the door, there is the distinctive smell of the home. It is like she turned all her senses of observation OFF totally.
I know you say she is off duty, but I though part of the training for police was to be super observant. That ability would not turn off when she signed off the clock.
I still dont get how she could have been oblivious.
Honestly, I think she should plead guilty if she is a decent person at all. She should feel the terrible weight of guilt and remorse.
I don't even understand how she could want to walk away unpunished
I lived in apartments for a long time and experienced the 'wrong apartment' issue many times from both sides even opening the door of a wrong apartment once. But how often does one walk into and through the foyer and into the kitchen of the wrong apartment without their spidey sense going off? eta: but of course its the prosecution's job to ask that question, not ours...mavsfan4ever said:
If I'm the defense attorney, I call all 95 individuals (or whatever the number is) who have gone to the wrong apartment or wrong floor and I call them one at a time. That seems like it would go a long way to guaranteeing a favorable verdict.
Buddy of mine walked into the apartment below mine once. Made it all the way through the kitchen into the living room before noticing it wasn't my place.
But it wasnt his apartment. One that he had been living in and going through daily routines for months or years.
I bet she would have absolutely plead guilty to manslaughter but here we are now with a murder charge and she is not guilty of murder.
I went into the same wrong apartment twice in college. I lived in the fourth floor and was tired after a long day, so I'd go in the third floor one. All female place.
First time, it was empty and left. Noticed within 2 seconds via furniture. Second time, they were there in their pajamas. It was right after Eurotrip came out, so I said "this isn't where I parked my car". No laughs. I apologized and left.
First time, it was empty and left. Noticed within 2 seconds via furniture. Second time, they were there in their pajamas. It was right after Eurotrip came out, so I said "this isn't where I parked my car". No laughs. I apologized and left.
Maybe I'm just idealistic but let's say she finds someone in her own apartment. She's a cop. Is it ok to just execute the guy?
Should there be no attempt I dunno to arrest the guy? What happened to hands up?
Guy was holding a bowl of ice cream. Or nothing. There was no threat and there was no ****s given. Shoot first and just deal with it.
To me this is murder. Same as if she dropped him on the sidewalk. It was no accident. Still think she walks completely free not guilty.
Should there be no attempt I dunno to arrest the guy? What happened to hands up?
Guy was holding a bowl of ice cream. Or nothing. There was no threat and there was no ****s given. Shoot first and just deal with it.
To me this is murder. Same as if she dropped him on the sidewalk. It was no accident. Still think she walks completely free not guilty.
culdeus said:
Maybe I'm just idealistic but let's say she finds someone in her own apartment. She's a cop. Is it ok to just execute the guy?
Should there be no attempt I dunno to arrest the guy? What happened to hands up?
Guy was holding a bowl of ice cream. Or nothing. There was no threat and there was no ****s given. Shoot first and just deal with it.
To me this is murder. Same as if she dropped him on the sidewalk. It was no accident. Still think she walks completely free not guilty.
She has the same rights as you and I when she isnt on duty. I dont have to try and arrest someone breaking into my house.
Featured Stories
See All
10:53
5h ago
3.3k
Griffen leads second-half takeover as A&M ends Austin drought
by Olin Buchanan
58:55
2d ago
11k
Ask Liucci: Offseason begins with a busy portal window & more
by Billy Liucci
Senior right-hander Josh Stewart picked to wear #12 in 2026
by Richard Zane