Justice was done here.
@CottonTales : It is possible. The Defendant worked a 13.5 hour shift. Parked on the wrong floor of the apartment bldg. garage & went to the place where her apt. was located a floor below.
If I could design the appeal, I would focus on the fact that the jury heard that the Defendant was texting her lover–a married man with whom she worked on a daily basis. I would argue that she was convicted in large part on the basis of her illicit affair.
Remember: This is a police officer & the Castle Doctrine defense was included as a jury instruction.
While my appeal is not a complete defense, it most likely would result in overturning the verdict & ordering a new trial IF the appellate court felt that this was a significant factor affecting the jurors’ decision.
@maya54 : Interesting observation. If not already a criminal defense attorney, then you should consider it.
An issue that I raised when this shooting was first reported was whether or not there were prior noise complaints by Amber Guyger regarding the apartment above her apartment. Reports indicated that this was the case, but never confirmed who made the complaints.
I still don’t understand why she would have shot this guy, a stranger, Unless she thought he was a intruder. Why else?
If I came home and my door was propped open, I sure as heck wouldn’t have gone in, guns blazing. She shouldn’t have gone in, plain and simple.
@CottonTales : I agree, but this is a police officer in full uniform & armed. Police Officers are NOT trained to run.
But they are not trained to do what she did either, from what I have read. she should have retreated, not entered.
My suggested ground for appeal (many grounds could & should be argued) would be most effective if her defense counsel did not object to the jury hearing that she was distracted due to texting her lover–a married man. This would fall under “ineffective assistance of counsel”.
If a timely objection was made, then the focus shifts from ineffective counsel to wrongful ruling by the judge.
Looks like Texas Penal Code 9.32 contains the castle doctrine: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.32
quote=“Texas Penal Code 9.32” The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
[/quote]
Would the word “occupied” in the (A) phrase invalidate the castle doctrine defense here, because if Guyger believed that she was entering her own apartment, encountering someone *who was already there before/i, that would not be encountering someone unlawfully entering the occupied habitation.
No motive for this comes to mind except panic. She saw someone she thought had broken into her apartment and she panicked. It might be negligent homicide but murder??
@CottonTales : Great point. Nevertheless, the officer stayed and shot. Allowed under Texas law according to the trial judge IF the officer believed that this was her apartment. Otherwise the Castle Defense doctrine defense would not have been included as a jury instruction.
Essentially your argument–a very reasonable argument–is that the Castle Doctrine should not have been given as a jury instruction.
My impression is that the trial judge allowed the Castle Doctrine defense to be given as a jury instruction because he realized that the Defendant would be found guilty regardless since she was obviously being untruthful on the stand.
This verdict rested on the credibility of the Defendant, Police Officer Amber Guyger. Unquestionably, the jury unanimously deemed her testimony to be untruthful.
A firefighter is trained to go into a burning building. Not even a close analogy there.
A person can be found guilty if texting while driving, she shouldn’t be not guilty by “texting my married lover while or distracted by him and shooting an innocent man on his couch”. I don’t know where her phone was, but she clearly had it to call 911 after she shot him.
All of the above comments are well reasoned & grounds worthy of consideration on appeal, in my opinion.
@CottonTales : Agree, but the difference might be a conviction for murder versus a conviction for manslaughter.
If I had input into the sentencing and the possible sentence for manslaughter (the lesser included offense in a murder charge) and the sentence range for murder overlapped, I would encourage the court to hand down a sentence within the overlapping range.
In Texas, manslaughter is a second degree felony, with a sentence of 2 to 20 years.
In this case, my best guess is that a sentence of anywhere in the range of 12 to 20 years would be justified & palatable to the public.
Voluntary Manslaughter carries a penalty of up to 20 years in Texas. Murder has a sentencing range of 5 years to 99 years in Texas. The overlapping range, therefore, is 5 years to 20 years.
I think that any sentence below 10 years would result in civil unrest & would be unjust. An innocent human being was murdered while eating ice cream on his couch in his own apartment. (A very productive & accomplished human being–although this may not be relevant.)
She must have believed it was her apartment. The victim was a stranger. She had no motive to kill him Except that she thought he was a home invader. Was there evidence from the prosecution that she had a beef with this guy and just used the “I thought it was my apartment” as a ruse?
Clearly she should have run away or called out rather than shoot first and ask questions later. That is clearly negligent, but I suppose murder in Texas does not require premeditation.
@TatinG, home Invaders don’t usually leave the door propped open and are lounging on their couch. There was no evidence that they knew each other.
Good luck with that.
I would guess that juries aren’t sympathetic to affairs with married people, even subliminally.