Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p3

Twitter legal folks are speculating that the Judges controversial decision to include instruction to the jury about Castle Doctrine was actually done to help make sure the charge survived an appeal.

By including this instruction in the original trial, it removes the ability of a later appeal to argue that the jury may have come to a different conclusion if they had known that information. Since they already knew, the verdict is more secure. Certainly a more charitable interpretation, though no real way to know this.

https://twitter.com/Ugarles/status/1179064811038134275
 
Bob001 said:
But jury nullification always refers to a jury letting someone off even when the evidence points to guilt. But it doesn't work the other way: If a jury convicts someone, they have concluded that the prosecution proved its case. They don't say "We think he's innocent, but we'll convict him just for fun."
Click to expand...

They might say, "we don't think the law finds her guilty, and we don't think you proved her guilt under the law, but we think she deserves a guilty verdict anyway, so that's our decision."

Which is not "nullification" as it's conventionally used, but I think the basic concept is applicable here: The jury reaching a verdict that is at odds with the due process of law as such.
 
plague311 said:
Which, in the jury instructions, was not relevant. They stated that it doesn't matter how they come to the conclusion, just that the conclusion is the same for everyone.

She murdered someone and I'm glad she got what was coming to her.
Click to expand...

A-friggin-men. I hope it sets a strong precedent for future cases
 
theprestige said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Google would probably have answered this question for you a lot faster, though.
Click to expand...

I don't get how this would apply to her though? She's obviously guilty by the letter of the law. Her intent was to kill him, she admitted as such. She aimed her gun and fired at him twice. A reasonable person wouldn't have entered the apartment, and they certainly wouldn't have shot him. That's what made it murder.

It's the right verdict, justice is served. I can't wait to watch her cry during sentencing.
 
Bob001 said:
But jury nullification always refers to a jury letting someone off even when the evidence points to guilt. But it doesn't work the other way: If a jury convicts someone, they have concluded that the prosecution proved its case. They don't say "We think he's innocent, but we'll convict him just for fun."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was answering a question, not supporting the usage in this case.
 
theprestige said:
As I understand it, this is purely a question of what the law prescribes. And as I understand what the law prescribes, if she reasonably believed she was in her apartment, then the law does not require any further due diligence, and cannot properly hold her responsible for not doing any further diligence before shooting.

And while my sense of justice does not begin nor end with the law, I think that upholding the law as written is important to getting justice, and should not be lightly set aside even in cases of life and death.
Click to expand...

I think you are understanding this wrong.

There are two caveats to the Castle Doctrine in Texas. If a property owner provokes an individual and that leads to violence or if the property owner is taking part in any criminal activity, the owner is not protected.

Under section §9.42, the property owner is further protected if he or she uses deadly force to prevent criminal activity.
Click to expand...

Castle Doctrine doesn't apply to Guyger, which is why I didn't personally see the judge's decision as all that controversial. The argument that Guyger was taking part in criminal activity, and provoking are pretty strong.

You are implying the jury got this wrong, but they didn't. This was the proper outcome based on the evidence. I know you've made excuses for her the whole time, but the law was applied and it worked.

**** her.
 
theprestige said:
They might say, "we don't think the law finds her guilty, and we don't think you proved her guilt under the law, but we think she deserves a guilty verdict anyway, so that's our decision."

Which is not "nullification" as it's conventionally used, but I think the basic concept is applicable here: The jury reaching a verdict that is at odds with the due process of law as such.
Click to expand...

But "due process of law" has already included an arrest based on probable cause, an arraignment before a judge, a grand jury indictment (typically), a judge allowing the trial to move forward and ultimately go to the jury, and a defense attorney challenging the prosecution's case at every step and probably asking for a dismissal, a mistrial and a directed verdict of acquittal. There are certainly bad defenses and unjust convictions, and juries can certainly buy into bad arguments, but there's just no basis for claiming that a jury would unanimously say "We know he didn't do it, but let's send him to prison anyway." When has that happened? The police and the prosecution believe she committed murder, and the judge allowed the charge to stand. That's all part of the due process of law.
 
Manslaughter = 2 to 20 years.
Murder = 5 to 99 (life) years.

There is overlap in the sentencing. We don't know what her sentence is until later today. But it seems possible that the jury could have found her guilty of Manslaughter and given her the same sentence that they might do this afternoon.

There are differences with probation and parole.

Let's say today they sentence her to 20 years. They could have also given her 20 years for a Manslaughter conviction.
 
theprestige said:
They might say, "we don't think the law finds her guilty, and we don't think you proved her guilt under the law, but we think she deserves a guilty verdict anyway, so that's our decision."

Which is not "nullification" as it's conventionally used, but I think the basic concept is applicable here: The jury reaching a verdict that is at odds with the due process of law as such.
Click to expand...

Not sure how'd you test this theory unless a jury member disclosed their decision making process.

Sure, what you suggest is possible. It is also possible, and to my view much more likely, that they decided that the mistake of fact was not reasonable.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Manslaughter = 2 to 20 years.
Murder = 5 to 99 (life) years.
...
Let's say today they sentence her to 20 years. They could have also given her 20 years for a Manslaughter conviction.
Click to expand...

So what? They don't consider the sentence until after they decide whether to convict her, and of what. They could give her five years either way, or 20. That doesn't have anything to do with the facts that supported her conviction.
 
plague311 said:
I don't get how this would apply to her though? She's obviously guilty by the letter of the law. Her intent was to kill him, she admitted as such. She aimed her gun and fired at him twice. A reasonable person wouldn't have entered the apartment, and they certainly wouldn't have shot him. That's what made it murder.

It's the right verdict, justice is served. I can't wait to watch her cry during sentencing.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it may not be the strict definition, but I think the concept is applicable. If the jury believes that the person should be found guilty, but the law doesn't support that or the prosecution fails to prove it, they can ignore the law to deliver a guilty verdict, in the same way that "jury nullification" consists of ignoring the law to deliver a not guilty verdict. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that nullification must necessarily swing both ways. Returning "guilty" in contradiction of the law is just as much a nullification of the law as returning "not guilty" in contradiction of the law.
 
More on the sentencing overlap...

Maybe they sentence her to 5 years for Murder. A Manslaughter conviction could have given her 20 years.

Which would you prefer?

Murder for 5.
Manslaughter for 20.
 
plague311 said:
I don't get how this would apply to her though? She's obviously guilty by the letter of the law. Her intent was to kill him, she admitted as such. She aimed her gun and fired at him twice. A reasonable person wouldn't have entered the apartment, and they certainly wouldn't have shot him. That's what made it murder.

It's the right verdict, justice is served. I can't wait to watch her cry during sentencing.
Click to expand...

Many posters beg to differ. 'Reasonable' does not mean perfect, or always using prudence or whatever. A perfectly reasonable person could wander up to the wrong door when their perfectly reasonable noses were trying to cop some ass on their phone. And if the door did not self close properly (as I theorized way back) just pushing the key in would swing it open. This could easily happen to an otherwise entirely reasonable person.

And yeah, baby, I want to hear the cell door clang into the general population with the other murderers. Not that that will happen, having used up our favors from god already this morning.
 
theprestige said:
.....
Returning "guilty" in contradiction of the law is just as much a nullification of the law as returning "not guilty" in contradiction of the law.
Click to expand...

It's not a "contradiction of the law" if the police, the prosecution and the judge don't think it is. The jury rejected the defense's claims; that doesn't mean they agreed with the defense and convicted anyway.
 
William Parcher said:
More on the sentencing overlap...

Maybe they sentence her to 5 years for Murder. A Manslaughter conviction could have given her 20 years.

Which would you prefer?

Murder for 5.
Manslaughter for 20.
Click to expand...

Or, Which would you prefer?

Manslaughter for 180 days.
Murder for 99 years.

With a chainsaw, baby.
 
Bob001 said:
But "due process of law" has already included an arrest based on probable cause, an arraignment before a judge, a grand jury indictment (typically), a judge allowing the trial to move forward and ultimately go to the jury, and a defense attorney challenging the prosecution's case at every step and probably asking for a dismissal, a mistrial and a directed verdict of acquittal. There are certainly bad defenses and unjust convictions, and juries can certainly buy into bad arguments, but there's just no basis for claiming that a jury would unanimously say "We know he didn't do it, but let's send him to prison anyway." When has that happened? The police and the prosecution believe she committed murder, and the judge allowed the charge to stand. That's all part of the due process of law.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about a scenario where the jury says, "we believe he did it, so even though we think the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof under the law, we're going to return a guilty verdict anyway."

Or even, "we believe this should count as a crime, so even though you've failed to show where the law says this is a crime, we're going to return a guilty verdict anyway."

I'm absolutely not talking about scenarios where the jury thinks the defendant is innocent but decide to convict anyway. I'm talking about scenarios where the jury thinks the defendant is guilty, or should be guilty, but the prosecution has failed to meet its legal burden of proving that guilt.
 
theprestige said:
...as I understand what the law prescribes, if she reasonably believed she was in her apartment, then the law does not require any further due diligence, and cannot properly hold her responsible for not doing any further diligence before shooting.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if this is correct. In his closing argument, the prosecutor emphasized that Guyger's actions didn't qualify as self defense , because she was under no immediate threat when she chose to enter the apartment with her gun drawn. She was safe, but chose to engage. There was nothing she needed to defend herself against, and she had no reason to believe there was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom