Dallas cop claims self-defense in apt. mix-up murder trial

[marvin8]

Just because the Judge allows the jury to be instructed on a law doesn't mean the jury has to think it's appropriate to apply the law. The point is to make them aware of it. The combination of Castle Doctrine and Mistake of Fact don't float the boat because the jury didn't think that the officer was in danger . . .

Per the long interview video, the jurors did "apply mistake of fact" believing Amber thought she was in her own apartment, Jean was an intruder and shot Jean to stop the threat. The jurors said the prosecution did not disprove Amber's claim of "mistake of fact." Therefore, Amber should have been found not guilty by justified homicide. The jury accepting "mistake of fact," then convicting Amber of murder is taking away her right, not following the law and may be brought up in an appeal, per attorneys Tim Powers and Pete Schulte.

Anyway, you are still not answering my question. What do you think her sentence should be? No, not according to the law. That's such a lame copout. Lots of horrible things have been legal.

If not according to the law and evidence in the trial, then according to what?

[marvin8]

(Laws may need to change to address the recklessness of Amber leading up to entering the apartment. But, that is another subject.)

The jury accepting "mistake of fact," then convicting Amber of murder is taking away her right, not following the law and may be brought up in an appeal, per attorneys Tim Powers and Pete Schulte.

The following article explains that "mistake of fact" is inseparable from the Castle Doctrine. Therefore, not rejecting (accepting) "mistake of fact" should certainly result in Amber's acquittal.

Excerpt from "Guyger Guilty, But What Should She Get? (Update: 10 Years):"

The jury apparently rejected her “mistake of fact” defense, which would have inextricably led to invocation of the Castle Doctrine, which would have certainly resulted in her acquittal. This requires an exercise in distinguishing very discrete legal issues. One way to view the case is a continuum, starting with the mistaken entry and ending in the killing of Jean. But that’s not how the lawyers or the court viewed it, as well they shouldn’t.

There were two independent acts involved: first, the entry into the apartment. Second, the killing of Botham Jean. The entry was found to be unreasonable. The jury was not asked to find whether it was reckless as that was not in issue.

But the shooting? It was clearly an intentional act. Amber Guyger drew her weapon, aimed and, with every intention of putting her bullets into the body of the man before her, fired. There was nothing reckless about it, even if the body into which her bullets entered was not the bad man she might have believed him to be.

Excerpt from "Will “Mistake of Fact” Save Guyger?"

This is where the law gets hard to understand at a gut level, and requires one to leave the feelings outside. If Guyger can successfully prove her “mistake of fact” defense, it negates the mens rea element of murder. Her intentions were pure, even if wrong. She was merely defending herself from an intruder in what she believed to be her apartment, which would have been entirely lawful but for the fact that it wasn’t her apartment, but the man she killed.

Does it seem terribly unfair, particularly here where all sympathy flows toward Botham Jean, who should be alive today and enjoying his life but for Guyger’s bullets? Absolutely. There is nothing about the defense that’s “fair” to the victim or his family. But fairness to the deceased, Botham Jean, has nothing to do with whether Guyger’s conduct was murder. If her defense undermines the elements of murder, it makes the mistake no less tragic, but not criminal.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

You seem unable to present the facts of the case, even as they are presented in your own posts. You also really can't imagine making any sort of judgment on your own without the law? I guess you wouldn't have been an abolitionist.

RE: the location of the victim:

The medical examiner testified that evidence supports that Guyger shot Jean while he was bending over, trying to get up or lying down.

RE: The verdict and interpretation of the laws:

Guyger’s entire defense rested on mistaken fact. The jury likely determined the reasonableness of her defense or lack thereof. The jury reviewed Guyger’s actions of parking on the wrong garage floor with a different view than her floor; going to an apartment with a distinguishing bright red door mat on the outside; failing to recognize the different apartment décor inside until after she shot and killed Jean; failing to call for back up before shooting Jean.

Judge Tammy Kemp ruled the jury could consider the Castle Doctrine. It allows use of lethal force to protect one’s home when someone intrudes. Yet, Guyger was the intruder inside Jean’s home. Guyger admitted that she intended to kill Botham Jean — believing him to be an intruder in her home. Her admission likely aided in a murder conviction. Murder requires proof of an intent to kill. Manslaughter requires no proof of intent.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... -of-murder

Guyger's defense rested on a legal principle known as "mistake of fact." If a jury finds that a reasonable mistake led someone to commit a crime they wouldn't have otherwise in Texas, the state's penal code dictates that the person charged should not be found guilty of a crime.

In Guyger's case, the jury of eight women and four men found that her mistakes — going to the wrong apartment and then deciding to use lethal force against Jean — were unreasonable.

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/for ... r-11769388

Seems pretty clear to me.

[roger hao]

Botham Jeans star witness was shot to death Friday.
This is the witness that contradicts Guyger's story of mistake of fact.
It seems that while there are witnesses that present a
story line that goes against Guyger's claim of mistake of fact
they are being ignored and possibly even murdered themselves.
This defense of mistake of fact is based on testimony of the only
eye witness who happens to be the murderer.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Botham Jeans star witness was shot to death Friday.
This is the witness that contradicts Guyger's story of mistake of fact.
It seems that while there are witnesses that present a
story line that goes against Guyger's claim of mistake of fact
they are being ignored and possibly even murdered themselves.
This defense of mistake of fact is based on testimony of the only
eye witness who happens to be the murderer.

I saw this in the news and was shocked. I really hope it's just a horrible coincidence.

[marvin8]

You seem unable to present the facts of the case, even as they are presented in your own posts. You also really can't imagine making any sort of judgment on your own without the law? I guess you wouldn't have been an abolitionist.

RE: the location of the victim:

The medical examiner testified that evidence supports that Guyger shot Jean while he was bending over, trying to get up or lying down.

A juror must put aside their feelings and follow the law as given in the court's instructions, regardless of whether they agree with the law.

The first shot may have went over his head. Jean could have been ducking away. It's the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what happened.

RE: The verdict and interpretation of the laws:

Guyger’s entire defense rested on mistaken fact. The jury likely determined the reasonableness of her defense or lack thereof. The jury reviewed Guyger’s actions of parking on the wrong garage floor with a different view than her floor; going to an apartment with a distinguishing bright red door mat on the outside; failing to recognize the different apartment décor inside until after she shot and killed Jean; failing to call for back up before shooting Jean.

Judge Tammy Kemp ruled the jury could consider the Castle Doctrine. It allows use of lethal force to protect one’s home when someone intrudes. Yet, Guyger was the intruder inside Jean’s home. Guyger admitted that she intended to kill Botham Jean — believing him to be an intruder in her home. Her admission likely aided in a murder conviction. Murder requires proof of an intent to kill. Manslaughter requires no proof of intent.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... -of-murder

Guyger's defense rested on a legal principle known as "mistake of fact." If a jury finds that a reasonable mistake led someone to commit a crime they wouldn't have otherwise in Texas, the state's penal code dictates that the person charged should not be found guilty of a crime.

In Guyger's case, the jury of eight women and four men found that her mistakes — going to the wrong apartment and then deciding to use lethal force against Jean — were unreasonable.

Right, the jurors said they found Guyger's "mistake of facts" reasonable. Therefore per TX's state penal code, Guyger "should not be found guilty of murder." Per this attorney, if the jury finds Guyger's mistakes are reasonable it's not legally proper to find Amber guilty of murder. It might be appealed.

Starting at 13:31, “But, the prosecution did not prove she did not reasonably believe that she was in her own apartment.” At 14:25, Interviewer: "When she said I thought it was my apartment, I thought he was an intruder. So, I shot him. Did you believe her?" Jurors: "Yes."

At 2:37, "We all felt like we didn’t have anywhere near the law experience to decide this. But, we had to because that’s how jury duty works."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYcfKor-5yI&t=13m31s

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

It's really strange to argue that the jury was not equipped to parse out the law, but then to try and use selective interviews to try and prove that they were able to do so.

You are trying to present your side as fact, while rejecting the other side. Really, you are just presenting conjecture to reinforce your own preconceived ideas.

[Steve James]

It's the jury that decides what's "reasonable." The defense will say that the jury was wrong and appeal.

On a cynical note, if the verdict is tossed, and there's a retrial, a key witness won't be able to testify.

[marvin8]

It's really strange to argue that the jury was not equipped to parse out the law, but then to try and use selective interviews to try and prove that they were able to do so.

You are trying to present your side as fact, while rejecting the other side. Really, you are just presenting conjecture to reinforce your own preconceived ideas.

No "argument." There is only one 58 minute jurors interview video which I posted quotes from. I posted the jurors interview, TX law, attorney videos (explaining law), podcasts, etc to present the facts.

It's the jury that decides what's "reasonable." The defense will say that the jury was wrong and appeal.

Right, the jury decided Guyger's mistake of facts were "reasonable." The defense will say the jury is right. Therefore, Guyger should not be found guilty of murder per TX law. There are other reasons to appeal that they might use.

On a cynical note, if the verdict is tossed, and there's a retrial, a key witness won't be able to testify.

I don't think his testimony was key. Amber was off duty and I don't believe one needs to give commands when defending oneself in their own home.

[Steve James]

I don't think his testimony was key.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFo3chsxo_E

Fwiw, it was me, not Ian who called him a key witness because that's how he was reported in the news called him. Secondly, you seem to think you have the last word on what was important and what was not. Anyway.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

you seem to think you have the last word on what was important and what was not.

No kidding. Marvin likes to quote from the trial footage and from legal experts to show the "facts." Strangely, when I do the same, they are somehow not given the same weight. An interesting tactic.

As I said, Marvin came in with an (authoritarian) agenda (the law is all that matters and I can't be bothered to address any questions regarding the moral or ethical appropriateness of any outcomes) and clearly intends to stick with it.

[marvin8]

I don't think his testimony was key. Amber was off duty and I don't believe one needs to give commands when defending oneself in their own home.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFo3chsxo_E

Fwiw, it was me, not Ian who called him a key witness because that's how he was reported in the news called him. Secondly, you seem to think you have the last word on what was important and what was not. Anyway.

Not at all. I gave a reason. Feel free to give yours.

you seem to think you have the last word on what was important and what was not.

No kidding. Marvin likes to quote from the trial footage and from legal experts to show the "facts." Strangely, when I do the same, they are somehow not given the same weight. An interesting tactic.

Please, quote where I did that (news to me) and comment. Then, I will address it.

As I said, Marvin came in with an (authoritarian) agenda (the law is all that matters and I can't be bothered to address any questions regarding the moral or ethical appropriateness of any outcomes) and clearly intends to stick with it.

No agenda. I asked, "If not according to the law and evidence in the trial, then according to what?" But, you never answered. So, I left it unanswered.

If you have other points, please post, comment and I will address them. Those are easier to reply to than vague characterizations.

[Steve James]

You said that you didn't think he was a key witness. Your reasons are irrelevant. The prosecution and the news called him a key witness. Sure, you can say that he wasn't a key witness in your opinion; but, your opinion has nothing to do with whether he was a key witness to the jury, judge, or others. Iow, your opinion is not the last word.

Do I think his testimony was key to the verdict? I have no idea. I didn't watch it. But, as I said, if there's a new trial, he won't be able to give any testimony.

[Steve James]

The attorney for Botham Jean’s family is also the attorney for Brown and says he should have been protected after he testified at [ex Dallas cop Amber] Guyger’s murder trial. The Jean family has filed a civil case against the city of Dallas for the murder of their son Botham. [Attorney Lee] Merritt says Brown would have been one of their first witnesses.

“To have a key witness, suddenly be killed is suspicious. Was this related to the trial? There is no clear indication,” Merritt told CBS News’ Omar Villafranca.

[marvin8]

You said that you didn't think he was a key witness. Your reasons are irrelevant. The prosecution and the news called him a key witness. Sure, you can say that he wasn't a key witness in your opinion; but, your opinion has nothing to do with whether he was a key witness to the jury, judge, or others. Iow, your opinion is not the last word.

No. I said, "I don't think his testimony was key." Even though he was a key witness, his testimony wasn't that valuable to the case for the reasons given.

"I don't think . . . " and "I don't believe . . . " does not mean "you (I) have the last word." They mean: I gave a reason. Feel free to give yours.

Do I think his testimony was key to the verdict? I have no idea. I didn't watch it. But, as I said, if there's a new trial, he won't be able to give any testimony.

Right, I don't think it matters. Because, I don't think his testimony was key to the trial.

Note that the conspiracy theories roger hao posted may be false. If you look at the sources of the news headlines and Joshua Brown's background, there may be other reasons he was murdered.