From what I’ve read, the prosecutor quite clearly showed she did not follow training.
It was through her own testimony. Her training would have been to call for back up. She did not do that. Had she done so, it’s very likely that no one would have died. Additionally, it was her own testimony that she drew her gun and entered the apartment with the purpose of killing the person inside. She didn’t accidentally kill anyone.
@TatinG : Premediation is an element for the crime of “Capital Murder” in Texas. The only penalties are life w/o parole or the death sentence.
The Defendant was convicted of Murder. Murder in Texas is the equivalent of murder in the second degree in many other jurisdictions. Does not require premeditation as an element of the crime.
@doschicos : Exactly. While I think that you understand my point, you misunderstand its legal significance in this situation. Your position is exactly what defense attorneys want to hear.
@mom2twogirls : But doubtful that her training included a situation involving the Castle Doctrine for a police officer’s own residence.
But wouldn’t it include police procedure when a burglar is suspected to be in a residence but there is no one else believed to be in there?
@doschicos in post #39 wrote: “I would guess that juries aren’t sympathetic to affairs with married people, even subliminally”.
I cannot overemphasize the significance of this statement. If any juror echoes this sentiment, then the verdict is likely to be overturned & a new trial ordered.
Also, if appellate judges deem this statement to be reasonable, then there is a significant chance that the conviction will be set aside (or overturned) and that a new trial will be ordered.
Oh please. “My client was distracted by texting a married guy she was boinking, so she deserves a new trial.”
@ucbalumnus : Yes, you are correct.
But, in this case, the trial court judge allowed the Castle Doctrine as a defense for the shooter’s own residence–which is always the case. This is a very different situation from a burglar in an unoccupied home when the shooter is someone other than a resident of that home. In short, this is why lawyers make money. Your argument is right on target as is a prior poster who differentiated between the resident being inside & outside of her home.
@CottonTales : Exactly what the jury thought.
But see @doschicos comment in post #39 above. Many, including me, find that to be a reasonable perspective.
This, judging one as an adulterer, can be argued is akin to judging one by the color of their skin or by their sexual orientation or by any other significantly differentiating factor.
While adultry might not work in Los Angeles, Las Vegas or NYC, in conservative Baptist Dallas, Texas this argument carries weight.
In my opinion, it would constitute “ineffective assistance of appellate counsel” if not raised on appeal.
Gosh even if I thought it was my apartment the first thing I’d do is turn on the lights. When a neighbor’s door was slightly ajar (I was delivering a newsletter and had never seen it open before) I called the police to make sure the inhabitant was all right. They didn’t go in with guns blazing. But they did come by and check that there was no intruder.
In the hypothetical what-Guyger-may-have-believed-at-the-time scenario, would it be like finding a burglary suspect who had unlawfully entered the then-unoccupied apartment (before Guyger got there)? If so, then wouldn’t the word “occupied” in Texas Penal Code 9.32(b)(1)(A) be relevant in determining whether the castle doctrine can be applied?
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.32
I don’t care if she was texting, eating taco Bell or picking her nose when she entered the apartment. She did enter knowing the door was ajar and went in and shot him. Murder, imo. End of story.
@mathmom: Very reasonable perspective. Nevertheless, the Castle Doctrine exists as a legal defense in Texas. ( The more encompassing Stand Your Ground exists as a law in Florida.)
It doesn’t get mentioned but the bias still exists. In fact, people are unaware of and don’t even recognize their own biases yet they still exist. There are all kinds of biases with juries all the time (racial is one you yourself point out) and cases don’t get overturned. It’s not that easy, that obvious, or easy to pinpoint. It’s not like jurors go around stating their subliminal biases.
@doschicos : Never stated or indicated that it would be easy; just that you raise a very real & relevant concern.
" If any juror echoes this sentiment, then the verdict is likely to be overturned"
My point is this statement of yours ^ isn’t that likely to happen. So, again, good luck with that. But enough armchair attorney…
Related is a report on police fatigue and recommendations for the Dallas Police Department to reduce police fatigue, which is associated with a higher rate of accidents, injuries, excessive force incidents, inappropriate uses of control, and deaths in the line of duty (i.e. fatigued officers are worse officers, both for themselves and the general public). Guyger had just finished a 13.5 hour shift when she was returning home, apparently mistaking Jean’s apartment for her own one floor different.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2018/11/10/dallas-cops-are-working-too-much-at-off-duty-jobs-and-city-lacks-controls-to-prevent-it-audit-says/
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/the-problem-of-tired-cops-and-what-to-do-about-it-974865
The judge allowed it as a defense for the jury to consider. That didn’t mean they had to accept it was reasonable that she believed it was her own apartment and entered shooting first. It would always be an issue to convince most people that the castle defense applied, IMO because it wasn’t her castle. She claims she thought it was, but she was wrong. If I drive 55 through a school zone and get a whopper of a ticket because I didn’t know it was a school zone, I don’t get leniency. Same goes for other laws IMO.
I also suspect that throwing both the training and the castle defense at the wall in hopes that one will stick also caused a problem for the jury. It does for me. Pick one. If your training doesn’t cover it being your own home, then you can’t claim you fell back on your training while simultaneously claiming castle defense. Which is it?
Toss in the distraction over texting with a romantic partner while trying to claim work fatigue? If you are too tired from work to be aware of your surroundings then texting while you are doing so and carrying a gun is reckless. Adding that the romantic partner is a co-worker (leaving out other levels) is relevant in that it would make the jury wonder how much of the rest of the time the officer put the public in danger with her romantic distractions.
Which also violated training, the training that she tried saying she relied on when shooting an unarmed man in his own apartment.
I owuld have put money on her being high. Her mug shot does her no favors. Glad the screening was clear though.
Yeah, this whole thing could have been very different if he’d even brandished his Butter Pecan at her, but there’s not even any evidence of that. The poor guy is sitting on his couch and Officer Shootfirst rolls in and kills him, no room lights, no backup, no pause for reflection, no taser, just gun and noise and mistakes. Tragic and dumb.
For all the talking by law enforcement about how hard the job is to do, and I believe that’s very true, they do a poor job of throwing out the folks that aren’t up to the job. Maybe it’s the union that feels obliged to help its members or something, but other groups like, say, the military indict or throw out bad actors all the time. When the Army says “Not everyone can do this job” I have a bunch of examples that prove their standards are real. Way too often law enforcement finds itself lining up behind some people that pretty clearly panicked or have some issues to resolve.
I hope one decent thing that comes from this tragedy is that cops think about potential outcomes before acting. And by thinking about outcomes I mean considering their responsibility for actions, not if they’ll be seen as cautious or weak.
In court the prosecutor showed the red door mat that was outside the man’s apartment. The woman’s apartment did not have a red mat.