Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

[Thermal]

It's all character assassination to put the image of a big scawy drugged out black guy in the jury's mind.

And so the prosecution needs to counter with the image of some psycho intruder firing at YOU, the jury.

Which image will be more convincing to the jury?

 

[plague311]

Prosecution just brought up texts and phones calls with her sister. I wonder what that's all about?

 

[theprestige]

Prosecution just brought up texts and phones calls with her sister. I wonder what that's all about?

Prosecuting her, I should think.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I meant to get in before that trial started that my money is still on a hung jury. I think there is a small chance of a murder conviction; I just don't see a clear argument for that charge. Criminally negligent homicide would not be unlikely. But I think the best bet is that 12 jurors won't be able to agree.

I would not be surprised by any outcome.

I just started watching the trial video.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Wondering how long this trial might last. Most of the facts are not really in dispute. I guess the defense will be putting forward some legal theory why this isn't murder, but the broad strokes of the killing are largely agreed upon. Maybe it will be fast?

Probably 5 days or so.

Even though there aren't many facts in dispute, the prosecution has to prove all of the elements of the crime. That means everything. Was Jean a living person? Is he now dead? Did he die of a gunshot wound? Did she fire a gun? And so on. We know all that, but the prosecution has to present evidence.

And they will present evidence of the events leading up to the shooting. And probably some events afterward. And present evidence of how we know those facts to be true. What did she do at work that day? How long did she work? When did she leave? How do we know? When did she get to the apartment? What kind of car does she drive? Where did she go? And so on...

And expert witnesses on locks, and lighting, and maybe marijuana. And police procedures. And so on...

A lot of it will probably seems minor or even irrelevant. It just takes a long time to establish evidence.

Plus arguments about including lesser charges. And a bunch on instructions to the jury on mistake of fact, self defense, duty to retreat, castle law, etc.

Most sources are saying two weeks. Probably doesn't include deliberation.


ETA: Judge told jurors to pack bags for two weeks. So apparently the 2 week estimate does include deliberation.

I should have read your post before replying. That's a bit longer than my guess, but certainly possible.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Still, they would have to put her on the stand to see what she said happened, and I don't think they want to do that.

Why not? This seems like a case where the defense would want Guyger to testify.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I got through the motions in limine. Not really many surprises. Except that Guyger had plans to meet her partner/boyfriend that night.

It seemed like the prosecution and defense were both somehow arguing against each other to be able to present evidence that she was tired and distracted. That seemed a bit strange.

 

[pgwenthold]

I got through the motions in limine. Not really many surprises. Except that Guyger had plans to meet her partner/boyfriend that night.

It seemed like the prosecution and defense were both somehow arguing against each other to be able to present evidence that she was tired and distracted. That seemed a bit strange.

Distracted? Yes, apparently so. Distracted with flirtatious texts.

I really want to here a serious defense of this as being a legitimate excuse for the "mistaken fact" of going to the wrong apartment.

"I was too busy trying to arrange a booty call to realize where I was. So I shot the guy."

This takes out the whole "anyone could make that mistake" defense. If you are too busy texting to notice where you are, that's not a "whoopsie" mistake, that is totally negligent. She wasn't paying attention to where she was. She wasn't overly tired, she just wasn't paying attention.

Use that as an excuse with the judge. Sorry, judge, I didn't know the speed limit. I wasn't paying attention....

 

[Thermal]

Well in fairness, haven't we all been willing to gun down an innocent bystander for a piece of grade A tail?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I really want to here a serious defense of this as being a legitimate excuse for the "mistaken fact" of going to the wrong apartment.

What would you consider a legitimate excuse for mistakenly going to a wrong apartment? Wouldn't being distracted be one of the primary causes of such a mistake?

"I was too busy trying to arrange a booty call to realize where I was. So I shot the guy."

That is obviously a mischaracterization of the argument.

This takes out the whole "anyone could make that mistake" defense.

That seems to be where the prosecution is going. But it could be argued that anyone could make that mistake. People do get distracted. That certainly is not hard to believe. And when people are distracted, they make mistakes. That is also not unreasonable to believe.

If you are too busy texting to notice where you are, that's not a "whoopsie" mistake, that is totally negligent.

If this was a result of negligence, it wasn't murder. That what my position has been all along.

Use that as an excuse with the judge. Sorry, judge, I didn't know the speed limit. I wasn't paying attention....

That's mistake of law, not mistake of fact. And speeding is a limited liability crime.

And Guyger's defense is not mistake of fact. It is self defense. The concept (not the defense) of mistake of fact is only a necessary part of the self defense claim.

 

[pgwenthold]

What would you consider a legitimate excuse for mistakenly going to a wrong apartment? Wouldn't being distracted be one of the primary causes of such a mistake?.

Negligence is not a mistake.

Others have claimed that "the mistake of fact" only gets her to the door. Now, it is negligence that gets her to the door. Her actions from there cannot be blamed on a mistake of fact in any way.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Good opening arguments by the prosecution. Very nice presentation. But I'm not sure where they are going.

They didn't bring up any self-defense issues, so I'm guessing there is some stipulation that those issues can't be brought up in opening arguments. They are probably waiting on a hearing on jury instructions for that. I guess. I haven't heard. For some reason the commentators (I'm watching WFAA on YouTube), despite trying to fill time, didn't address that.

I wish he would have brought up the paintings on the wall above the couch, because that's a big stickler for me.

We found out that the bullet entered at a downward angle. But that is consistent with my theory that Jean was putting the bowl down on the ottoman and Guyger thought he was reaching for a gun. We'll have to wait to hear more on that.

I don't think the booty call is a big deal, because I don't think the issue that she was tired is really significant. It explains why she may have made the mistake of going to a wrong apartment, but the important thing is whether it actually was a mistake rather than intentionally going to the apartment. But I guess with he direction the prosecution is going, it could be a bigger issue. But then they are arguing that she did actually make a mistake because she was distracted, but that wasn't "ordinary and prudent".

He portrayed her as cold and calculating and shooting without retreating or calling backup or giving Jean a chance. That scores some emotional points, but I wonder if that will have any actual legal relevance in their arguments.

He seemed to focus on the idea that she SHOULD have known she was going to the wrong apartment. No implication that she did know that she was wrong before shooting. I don't know how that gets to a murder conviction. We'll have to wait an see, I guess. Which is a bit strange for an opening argument, which usually outlines exactly what the argument is going to be.

 

[quadraginta]

Negligence is not a mistake.

Others have claimed that "the mistake of fact" only gets her to the door. Now, it is negligence that gets her to the door. Her actions from there cannot be blamed on a mistake of fact in any way.

Criminally negligent homicide, when carried out with a deadly weapon, can draw a sentence of up to ten years in Texas.

I'd be satisfied with a ten year sentence as a resolution to this case.

 

[quadraginta]

Telling comment by defense lawyer Robert Rogers in his opening statement.

"Rogers said Guyger feared for her life and felt she had to use lethal force to defend herself." ...​

The all-important "feared for her life", which cannot be disproved and is always the money shot in a case where cops kill civilians.

And to make sure that the "cop" button got pushed;

... "She reacts like any police officer would who has a gun when confronting a burglary suspect," Rogers said.​

 

[Elagabalus]

Shouldn't this thread finally be placed in the Trials and Errors section?

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The most strange thing from the defense opening arguments is that he says that Guyger did not have her dog in her apartment because maintenance was coming over and she didn't want the dog to get out or hassle the maintenance guys. She took her dog to her mom's place.

That would explain why she didn't think it wasn't her apartment because there was no dog there. But it obviously introduces significate other concerns.

She knew that a maintenance man was coming to her apartment that day. When the door was open and a strange man was in her apartment, why wouldn't her first thought be that the man was the maintenance man?

The "maintenance man in the house" is a hypothetical, imaginary, fantastical scenario we have talked about multiple times in this very thread. Now the defense is saying that this was actually a possible situation in this case.

How could she not think that the door was open because a maintenance man was there? How could she not think that the man in her apartment was the maintenance man that was scheduled to be there?

Didn't the defense just shoot themselves in both feet?

 

[Darat]

Why not? This seems like a case where the defense would want Guyger to testify.

Especially after all the work done on her make over.

 

[Darat]

Distracted? Yes, apparently so. Distracted with flirtatious texts.



I really want to here a serious defense of this as being a legitimate excuse for the "mistaken fact" of going to the wrong apartment.



"I was too busy trying to arrange a booty call to realize where I was. So I shot the guy."



This takes out the whole "anyone could make that mistake" defense. If you are too busy texting to notice where you are, that's not a "whoopsie" mistake, that is totally negligent. She wasn't paying attention to where she was. She wasn't overly tired, she just wasn't paying attention.



Use that as an excuse with the judge. Sorry, judge, I didn't know the speed limit. I wasn't paying attention....

This is where I think the prosecution is going, not even accepting there could be a mistake of fact up to the door.

I think it's a good way to counter a defence of mistake of fact.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Especially after all the work done on her make over.

I don't think there was a makeover. If there was, it was just to tell her to dress normally and not try to look like a severe looking cop. At most, the lawyers told her to dress as she normally does outside of work and not try to present a fake "hard cop" look.

I don't see any issue there.

 

[Darat]

I don't think there was a makeover. If there was, it was just to tell her to dress normally and not try to look like a severe looking cop. At most, the lawyers told her to dress as she normally does outside of work and not try to present a fake "hard cop" look.



I don't see any issue there.

I do, as we know what you like look like effects your chances of being convicted, severity of sentence and so on.

What can be done about this bias is obviously outside the scope of this thread about her trial but given the defence looks as if it is going to go with a "fear of life" we would be naive to think the defence hasn't considered how her appearance can be used to influence the jury.