TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:17 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:35 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:08 pm WOW

WOW

WOW

When they appeal, I wonder how much of the testimony this jury didn’t get to hear will be presented or allowed. Then if this is overturned that’s it, right? It doesn’t go down to manslaughter, right?

And if that happens she is free because they dumped their mag in this trial with regards to convicting on murder instead of manslaughter.

IANAL, but I think that if there was a procedural error, such as improperly excluding testimony, then the case gets reverted back and can be re-tried (with the relevant testimony included). So not a complete reversal and freedom, but definitely a better outcome for the defendant than where she is at right now. Worst case, she ends up in the same exact spot.

I think that is why the judge allowed the castle doctrine defense, so the defense couldn't use that on appeal.
I am not sure about the other testimony - she did allow some testimony from DPS that related to state of mind.
The figures about how many other people went to the wrong apartments is a different story. I guess we will have to wait and see.
I understand why the defendant was allowed to testify, but I think it may have backfired. Although I don't know what else they could
have done to present their side of the story.

I'm not sure how the jury could have failed to understand her side of the story. It was pretty straightforward. She was tired, she went to the wrong apartment. She then made a series of bad judgment calls (entering the apartment without calling for backup, shooting without clearly identifying her target / determining whether he was armed, failing to use first aid supplies she had with her, etc).

I think the jury heard her side and decided that she was guilty. Maybe it will get overturned on appeal and another jury might see things differently.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:54 pm I wonder what she chose for lunch as her last meal while free? She is going to be eating lots of baloney sammiches for the next several years.
I would go with steak and lobster.

Unfortunately, her stomach was probably in knots. I know mine would have been.

C-dub wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:08 pm WOW

WOW

WOW

When they appeal, I wonder how much of the testimony this jury didn’t get to hear will be presented or allowed. Then if this is overturned that’s it, right? It doesn’t go down to manslaughter, right?

And if that happens she is free because they dumped their mag in this trial with regards to convicting on murder instead of manslaughter.

IANAL, but I think that if there was a procedural error, such as improperly excluding testimony, then the case gets reverted back and can be re-tried (with the relevant testimony included). So not a complete reversal and freedom, but definitely a better outcome for the defendant than where she is at right now. Worst case, she ends up in the same exact spot.

WildBill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:55 am

bbhack wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:39 am The sound bite I'm hearing has the jury foreman saying "No outbursts" after the verdict was read. Since when does the jury foreman control the courtroom? This is outrageous.

I read that it was a bailiff who made that statement.

That makes a heck of alot more sense.

bbhack wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:39 am The sound bite I'm hearing has the jury foreman saying "No outbursts" after the verdict was read. Since when does the jury foreman control the courtroom? This is outrageous.

Are you sure it's the jury foreman saying that? The sound bite I heard must have cut out before that.

Definitely a bit presumptuous, but I'm not sure I'd say "outrageous". I'll save my outrage for more substantive things.

WildBill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:29 am

carlson1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:03 am

Jago668 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:57 am

carlson1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:45 am Found guilty of murder.

Honestly surprised. I was expecting manslaughter.

I thought manslaughter, but then again the jury never heard all investigator’s testimony.

I also thought manslaughter. Since we were not in the courtroom and didn't hear and see what the jury did, I can also understand the murder conviction.
It appears to me that being a police officer was both an advantage and disadvantage for the defendant.
I think most non-LEOs in this situation would have retreated and called for help rather than entering the apartment.

When evaluating whether something is fair, I usually find it helpful to reverse the situation in my mind. So if a man was coming home from a long day at work, tired, and mistakenly entered his neighbors house because he honestly thought it was his, then shot and killed the unarmed female homeowner who understandably confronted this intruder to her home, what should the punishment be? Just to complete the hypothetical, what if the homeowner was a LEO?

Either way, I think manslaughter is the right offense. IANAL, but to me this is textbook manslaughter. You do something wrong, with no ill intent (mistakenly enter the wrong house, shoot an unarmed person), and someone dies as a result. To me, that is manslaughter.

But am I upset with the verdict? The answer to that is no. Because, again, what would the likely outcome be for the "cop killer" in the reverse scenario? I think a guilty verdict on a murder charge would very possibly be the outcome, and I would not feel that it was completely unwarranted.

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:10 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:51 pm

AndyC wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:41 pm I'm predicting - Guilty, Manslaughter.

I really don't care about her job, about the difference between a home or a rented apartment.... she negligently killed an innocent person inside their own place - period.

If I were on that jury I would go with man slaughter and a light sentence of which at least 18 months in prison and a very long parole. Her job is gone. She will need to find a more appropriate career that suites her abilities. Being a cop was not her strength. She proved that already.

Manslaughter is a second degree felony:

Texas Penal Code wrote:Sec. 12.33. SECOND DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT.
(a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.

(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

If she is convicted, I would probably judge on the lower end of the spectrum for prison time (probably 5 years). Her life is already pretty well ruined by this point and sticking her in prison for a LONG time does nobody any good. She can't be a police officer any more and having a felony conviction can make it quite hard to find jobs.

The question I have to ask is, what would I be facing if I had made the same mistake... Probably a MUCH stiffer sentence.

5 years is what, 2 years or so of actual confinement, right? That sounds about right given the entirety of the situation (underlying mistake, etc). I'm not sure what will actually happen, though.

And I would hope that this same sentence would apply to you or anyone else. Including someone in the exact opposite scenario (civilian mistakenly enters LEO home and kills them).

I'm also wondering whether the defense has given ammo (pardon the pun) to a civil lawsuit against the apartment owners by stressing how easy it was to mistakenly enter the wrong apartment given the building layout, etc.

Ameer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:11 pm If I understand that Ranger correctly, it's reasonable for anybody to enter the home of a LEO and shoot everybody who lives there. Even if none of the residents are armed, no crime was committed, as long as the door wasn't locked.

I think you have to reasonable believe that it was your home, so similar looking apartment door, etc. I'm sure that there are plenty of cases where Texas Rangers have been quick to testify on behalf of non-LEO's who have made these kind of mistakes

ELB wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:18 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:22 pm

ELB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:55 pm There were two people involved in a shooting with no witnesses their interaction other than the survivor. In figuring out what happened every type of evidence about both actors is relevant until investigators examine it and determine it is not. Deciding which kind of evidence is not relevant in advance because you’ve already prejudged who the is the victims and who is the perpetrator is laying the tracks of a railroad, not to mention putting a hole in the case big enough for a defense attorney to drive an acquittal through.

With any luck, the Texas rangers are calm and professional enough to consider everything, and then rule in or out as the evidence directs.

I understand, but surely there are limits here? For example, when we have a case where someone ambushes a police officer and kills them, is it common to execute a search warrant at the dead officer's home, and then publicly release information about anything illicit that may have been found there? If so, then by all means the police should do the same thing here. But I did not think that was standard procedure.

Was the police officer ambushed in his home? I would expect it to be searched, sure. ETA: and if the searched turned up evidence of drug use, he (or his heirs) could certainly expect his whole life to be examined for all kinds of relationships.

This police officer in this incident had her home searched too, albeit by consent rather than warrant, which seems to keep getting overlooked.

Searching the shooters home and car is not being mentioned because it seems pretty obvious that this was the proper thing to do. Releasing the shooter immediately is being mentioned because it does not seem obvious that this is what normally would happen to someone who goes into someone's home and kills them.

You are the second person to inform me that it is, in fact, common to search the home of a shooting victim (when the victim is shot at home). So I'll revert to my earlier post where I explicitly stated that my objection to that search and info release was based on my apparent misconception on that point.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the shooter here is being handled in remotely the same way that she would be if she had not been a LEO. That really is the whole point.

ELB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:55 pm There were two people involved in a shooting with no witnesses their interaction other than the survivor. In figuring out what happened every type of evidence about both actors is relevant until investigators examine it and determine it is not. Deciding which kind of evidence is not relevant in advance because you’ve already prejudged who the is the victims and who is the perpetrator is laying the tracks of a railroad, not to mention putting a hole in the case big enough for a defense attorney to drive an acquittal through.

With any luck, the Texas rangers are calm and professional enough to consider everything, and then rule in or out as the evidence directs.

I understand, but surely there are limits here? For example, when we have a case where someone ambushes a police officer and kills them, is it common to execute a search warrant at the dead officer's home, and then publicly release information about anything illicit that may have been found there? If so, then by all means the police should do the same thing here. But I did not think that was standard procedure.

Jose_in_Dallas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:25 pm

Paladin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:00 pm Since it's been over a month I was thinking about this and found some articles: After Five Search Warrants, Amber Guyger’s Apartment Was Reportedly Never Searched

Where Is Amber Guyger’s Toxicology Report?

From what I've read and understand, no search warrant was issue for Guyger's apartment because she gave them permission to do so (hence no search warrant). And as far as the toxicology, I don't believe that will be made public until after the trial (where's Botham Jean's toxicology?).

Considering the source of your article, I'm not suprised by the bias.

This is not "fact" but makes sense as to what happened regarding a search warrant for Guyger's apartment.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2 ... ons-remain

Was Guyger's apartment searched?
Authorities have not said whether Guyger's apartment or vehicle were searched. A search warrant would not have been necessary if officials obtained consent to search her apartment at the South Side Flats.

Other have pointed this out, but why are you asking about the victim's toxicology report? What possible relevance could that have here? I'm genuinely curious. It's about as relevant as whether he had recreational drugs in his home. Which is to say that its not relevant at all.

Conversely, there is an obvious reason why the cop's toxicology report might be relevant. After all, she is claiming that she was confused and thought that she was at her own apartment. This directly leads to the possibility that she might have been drunk or high when she entered someone's home and shot him.

Now if the dead guy had barged into the cop's home, then his tox report might shed light on some things.

The police should have had plenty of time to search the shooter's apartment while she was in custody awaiting a bail hearing. But she didn't spend much time in custody, did she? Regardless, if she gave consent to a search before she re-entered her apartment or vehicle, that fact would cast her in a positive light. Based on other leaks, I strongly suspect that if this did in fact occur, we would know about it.

We entrust police officers with the power to arrest us and deprive us, at least temporarily, of our fundamental right to liberty. They should be held to a much higher standard than "ordinary" citizens. And that's definitely not happening here.

Also, since any evidence of a prior relationship between the cop and the dead guy would be extremely relevant, I sure hope that the DA captured a full download of all her social media accounts before she scrubbed them.

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:15 pm

Killadocg23 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:13 pm This is getting comical. The innocent guy gets shot in his own apartment and they search his apartment lookingnfor contraband? To smear the name of a Dead man unbelievable. They really are trying to throw this under the rug per say. What does him having marijuana in his OWN apartment have to do with this lady shooting him? WOW !

Sadly, this kind of crap happens all the time.

Please tell me they did not let the Officer go back into her apartment before they got a warrant and searched it. Since evidence of a prior relationship would be extremely relevant to the charge here, that is one thing the authorities should have looked for in both apartments, IMHO. Also, anything going to the shooters' state of mind such as illegal drugs / paraphenalia she might have possessed, literature, computer files, internet search history, etc. At a minimum, her apartment should have been searched thoroughly before she was allowed to enter it.

Are we really to believe that if I mistakenly walk into a cops' home and kill him / her, I will be out almost immediately, and the only home being searched will be that of the dead cop? I'm sorry, but this is starting to look really, really, bad for law enforcement.

thatguyoverthere wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:47 am https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/la ... ar-n909506

Investigators said in a search warrant of the apartment of Botham Jean, 26, that they were looking for “any contraband, such as narcotics, and other items that may have been used in criminal offenses.” Investigators later said in a court document that they found 10.4 grams of marijuana during Saturday's search.

“The warrant seems to only be designed for one particular purpose,” Merritt said, “and that is to smear the victim.”

He said the officer's home has not been searched.

Interesting if true.

If this is true, this really is starting to smell bad.

WTR wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:36 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:18 pm We empower LEO's with the ability to arrest and imprison our fellow citizens. This responsibility should come with a higher standard of acceptable behavior than we have for the citizenry as a whole. We don't yet know all the facts here. But I do know that this officer should be held to at least the same standard that would apply if I (a non-LEO) did the same thing she did.

Assuming that the LEO's story is true, that means I would be out on bond right now if I mistakenly enter a LEO's home and then proceed to shoot and kill them. I honestly could see that happening (assuming the bond here is very high, of course). Also, from what I understand of the law, manslaughter is the correct charge absent proof of intent. But obviously we also need the myriad add-on charges including UCW since she was carrying a weapon while committing a felony, etc. I would expect that this LEO will be in another line of work after serving her prison sentence, and also will never be able to legally own a firearm in the future.

No proof of prior intent. She obviously intended to shoot him.

IANAL, but if there is no proof of prior intent to kill the man, that means this isn't murder, right? That's why I said that to my layperson's brain, the charge of manslaughter makes sense. But I'm a bit confused by your post. Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing?

Obviously a full investigation needs to occur and if there was prior intent that changes everything. But, if the fact is that there was no prior intent, then it sounds like the LEO is being treated in the same way that a non-LEO citizen would be. That was my main point and concern.

We empower LEO's with the ability to arrest and imprison our fellow citizens. This responsibility should come with a higher standard of acceptable behavior than we have for the citizenry as a whole. We don't yet know all the facts here. But I do know that this officer should be held to at least the same standard that would apply if I (a non-LEO) did the same thing she did.

Assuming that the LEO's story is true, that means I would be out on bond right now if I mistakenly enter a LEO's home and then proceed to shoot and kill them. I honestly could see that happening (assuming the bond here is very high, of course). Also, from what I understand of the law, manslaughter is the correct charge absent proof of intent. But obviously we also need the myriad add-on charges including UCW since she was carrying a weapon while committing a felony, etc. I would expect that this LEO will be in another line of work after serving her prison sentence, and also will never be able to legally own a firearm in the future.