TexasCHLforum.com

https://news.yahoo.com/judge-allows-cop ... 03550.html

Judge allows castle doctrine for defense.

philip964 wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:27 pm https://news.yahoo.com/judge-allows-cop ... 03550.html

Judge allows castle doctrine for defense.

This is because she allowed “mistake of fact.”

carlson1 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:16 pm This is also interesting from a prosecutor that is not involved in this case said.

"It's a really legally interesting case, how 'mistake of fact' can be such a powerful defense,"

...If the jury believes she was mistaken in entering the wrong apartment and perceived Jean as a deadly threat, Guyger could be acquitted of murder.

"So the real question is whether the mistake of fact defense negates that intent, and if it does she should be found not guilty," ...

Grayling813 wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:56 pm

ELB wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:15 pm I haven't been able to follow the trial in detail, but I just went through some news stories, and … whatever happened to the neighbors who claimed that Guyger pounded on the door and called Botham Jean by name? That featured in more than one story (and I believe in this thread too?), yet the only testimony from neighbors I found were two women whose first inkling something was not right was hearing two loud sounds that took them a moment to identify as gunshots. At least one of them explicitly testified that she did not hear anyone shouting/pounding before the gun shots.

Also found this:

Jurors on Tuesday and Wednesday heard from Texas Ranger David Armstrong, who led the investigation into the shooting. Armstrong testified that his team interviewed 297 of the 349 residents of South Side Flats.

He said 46 of them told investigators they had walked to the wrong floor and put their key in someone else’s door, according to The Dallas Morning News.

I think she screwed up, and she should be accountable for that, but...manslaughter, not murder.

And none of them shot the other tenant.

And if they had,…mistake of fact, manslaughter.

This is a tough case all around. I feel for everyone involved, and the lives that have been torn apart, on both sides.

I know her father fairly well - we're both in the same profession. Not like we're beer drinking buddies, or even go out to dinner together.
But we do meet frequently through our profession, and this incident is rough for him.

He and the family are going through a tough time, but no comparison to what Mr. Jean's family is having to endure.

Prayers for all involved.

Found guilty of murder.

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

Honestly surprised. I was expecting manslaughter.

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.

Tons of fodder for appeal. I hope she uses it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:48 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.

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.

Pretty sure it was the judge who was reading the jury's verdict who responded with "No outbursts".

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.

While bailiffs warned those in the courtroom about cellphone use and reactions, a woman yelled "yes" as the judge read the verdict. A bailiff standing behind her immediately admonished, ”No outbursts!”

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.