The Dallas, Texas police officer has been found guilty of murder after shooting upstairs neighbor, a PriceWaterhouseCooper PwC CPA, in his apartment.
This is what I had predicted here on CC when this news first broke and she was just charged with manslaughter initially. Clearly murder. The Trial Judge even instructed the jury on the Castle defense–which allows one to “stand their ground” in their own home (castle) as the Defendant Police Officer claimed that she thought that she was in her own apartment.
Life in prison without the possibility of parole, or something different ?
What sentencing options does the Dallas, Texas Court have ?
What sentence will the Prosecution seek ?
Must Texas Prosecutors declare intent to seek the death penalty prior to trial ? Or can they introduce a recommendation of a death sentence for the first time during the sentencing hearing ?
Typically, sentencing hearings allow both sides to introduce more arguments & evidence than would have been admissible at trial during the guilt or innocence phase.
Could Prosecutors seek a life sentence with the possibility of parole ? If so, how many years must be served in Texas on a life setence before one is eligible for parole ?
Without knowledge of Texas law, my best guess is that she will receive a life sentence with the possibility of parole.
Could she receive a lessor sentence for a murder conviction in Texas ? Possibly a 30 year sentence ? Asking as I do not know Texas law.
Great question. I do not know the answer. Police Officers should be drug tested after any shooting.
My understanding is that former Officer Amber Guyger was distracted while texting her married lover–a superior officer–so she did not realize that she was on the wrong floor of her apartment building. Claimed that she had worked a very long shift of about 14 hours.
The deceased was seated on his couch in his own apartment eating ice cream when shot.
The police office claimed that she shouted instructions at the deceased to show his hands. (Neighbors disputed this claim.) Amber Guyger claimed that she thought that she was in her own apartment and that the decedant was an intruder. She testified that she thought that her life was in danger. Jury did not believe any of her story as this was a quick verdict–especially for a case in which the Castle Defense was allowed & given to the jury.
I think the jury made the right decision for the wrong reason.
People, including police officers, are allowed to be tired after a long day and mistakenly try to open the wrong door. She thought she was going into her own apartment. She thought she encountered an intruder in her own apartment. So far, reasonable.
But this “intruder” was not posing any danger to her. Her crime was shooting a person who wasn’t a threat, and who wouldn’t have been an immediate threat even if she had been in her own apartment. She’s a police officer, and she should have known to retreat from “her” apartment and call for backup. If she had, probably by the time backup arrived she would have realized her error, she would have been embarrassed, and nobody would be dead.
She didn’t shoot in self-defense because even if what she believed was true, Botham Jean was not attacking her. And that’s why she deserved to be convicted of murder, and it’s why other police officers who kill people who aren’t threats should also be convicted of murder.
Since she was NOT charged with “Capital Murder” which reqires premeditation, therefore life in prison without parole and the death penalty are NOT sentencing options for the court.
Amber Guyger was convicted of “Murder” in a Texas state court which carries a penalty of anywhere from 5 years to 99 years in prison. With this in mind, I will return to my prediction when this offense was first reported, that she will receive a sentence of 20 years in prison.
A 20 year sentence should include the possibility of parole as well as time off for good behavior. Probably will actually serve 10 to 12 years. Just a guess though.
As a sidenote: It takes a lot to convict a police officer of murder when there are no other witnesses than the police officer. The jury could have convicted her of the lesser offense of manslaughter. The jury also had the option to acquit the officer.
Any criminal conviction can be appealed unless one enters into a plea agreement which explicitly states that the defendant is waiving his or her right to appeal.
In this case, the Defendant, Amber Guyger, can appeal the conviction.
Many plea agreements do,however, allow a defendant to appeal the sentence ultimately given by the judge if in excess of that agreed to by the prosecutor & defendant in the plea deal. This type of appeal is referred to as a “sentencing appeal”. But, this is not relevant in this case because there was no plea agreement made.
I wonder if any plea deal offered was made by the prosecutor in this case.
P.S. Because the trial judge allowed the jury to consider the Castle defense, a major issue on appeal may have been avoided, or, at least, greatly weakened.
Would have been more likely if defense attorneys requested that the Castle defense be included in the jury instructions but was denied.
This may have been reversible error if not included as a jury instruction because Amber Guyger testified that she thought that she was in her home–a claim that the factfinder (the jury) unanimously rejected–and, under Texas law, there is no duty to retreat when in one’s own home.
The NY Times and WaPo are reporting that she faces a sentence of 5 to 99 years.
For me, the apartment mixup was always a red herring. Even taking her at her word on that, her actions were beyond unreasonable and showed a callous disregard for human life. She lived alone; there was no one inside “her” apartment she needed to protect from an intruder. According to her own testimony, she realized someone was in “her” apartment before she even entered: as she put her key in the lock, she heard noises and noticed the door was slightly ajar. She was in no physical danger from the “burglar.” But instead of retreating to safety and calling for backup, as her police training had taught her to do, she immediately drew her gun, entered the dimly lit apartment and confronted the “burglar.” She claimed that Mr. Jean disregarded her screamed commands and was quickly advancing toward her, but the prosecution presented evidence that contradicted that testimony. For example, forensics evidence showed the bullet entered Mr. Jean from a downward trajectory, indicating that when he was shot he was either just starting to get up from a seated position, or was crouched and cowering.
(All of the above information is from NY Times reporting.)
Not sure as to whether or not Texas law permits a sentencing “plea” deal to be agreed upon by the prosecutors and defense attorneys / defendant AFTER a jury finds one guilty of an offense. There is little to no incentive for the state, the prosecutors, to enter into such an agreement after a jury convicts.
“Amber Guyger testified that she thought that she was in her home–a claim that the factfinder (the jury) unanimously rejected” How do we know this? If I had been on the jury, I would have believed she thought she was in her own home. And I would have nevertheless convicted her.
Guyger returned to her apartment building after a long shift. She says she mistakenly ended up on the wrong floor of her apartment building. She went to the apartment directly above hers, which she says she mistook for her own apartment. The door was propped open. She entered, saw Jean, and shot him. She says she believed she was in her own apartment and was shooting an intruder.
@“Cardinal Fang” : The defense wishes that you were on the jury. If so, then the verdict would be overturned since you believed that the Defendant thought that she was in her own home. The Castle Doctrine defense was given as a jury instruction.
Based on your statement in post #13, you would not & should not have been qualified to sit as a juror as you would have violated your oath to abide by the law.
I can’t get past the part that she believed she was in her own home. Does anybody here believe if you opened a door to a home that you wouldn’t know if that was your home?
Appeal odds are quite low as the Defendant testified. Since the Defendant testified that she thought that she was in her own apartment–a complete defense under the Castle Doctrine–it is 100% clear that the jury unanimously did not believe her.
As the only palatable defense, the appeal is likely to fail.
The Defendant had to testify in order to assert the Castle Doctrine defense.
This case is over. (Except for sentencing, of course.)
I do believe that she thought she was at the door to her own apartment when she heard what she thought was an intruder in her apartment. Investigators said dozens of other residents had also parked on the wrong floor and went so far as to put their key in the wrong apartment door.
But the murder charge was appropriate because she was OUTSIDE her door when she thought there was an intruder and never should have gone in gun drawn