Again, not a lawyer, but AIUI, allowing the ‘Castle Doctrine’ to be mentioned in the charge to the jury means inserting the following language from justification in the Texas Penal Code at section 9.32(b)(1)(A)
It’s a presumption that, if the bad guy is unlawfully in your habitation, and used force to get there, using immediate deadly force against that bad guy is presumed to be reasonable. It’s a big win for Guyger, as it means she doesn’t need to show that Jean was a immediate threat to commit a serious bodily injury against Guyger. It can be presumed he was, if she reasonably believed that Jean unlawfully broke into her apartment. Regardless of whether he was actually in her apartment or not; she just has to reasonably believe that he had.
From the sites I’m seeing, the judge’s instructions to the jury allow them to consider a manslaughter charge. My guess is that’s where they end up, given that the defense argued the Castle Doctrine, even though this wasn’t her own home.
That’s really surprising. I had thought it settled case law in Texas that the state could not charge the jury to determine offenses whose elements had not been stated in the indictment. Not the first time a judge bollixed up procedure in her rulings though.
It’s a big jump from seeing someone already in your apartment as you enter, and assuming that he “unlawfully broke in”. Maybe he came in through an open door to the wrong apartment? It could happen!
Agreed, and before this, I had thought lesser culpable mental states, like negligently or recklessly, were included within an indictment for murder, that stated the accused knowingly or intentionally unlawfully caused the death of another. Then I saw some case law that, for example, overturned convictions for manslaughter because the indictment did not specifically indicate ‘sudden passion’ or other required elements of manslaughter in Texas. Other cases did the same for a negligent homicide conviction.
So I dunno. Judge allowed it, guess it’s going to be before the jury. I guess Neg. Homicide didn’t make the cut though.
Imagine that he’s a visitor from overseas who thought he was in his friend’s apartment but it was actually hers. Would the castle doctrine have allowed her to kill him without even attempting to talk to him to find out why he was there? I think the shoot first, ask questions later mentality bothers me the most. (See also the murder of Yoshihiro Hattori, from 1992, although the circumstances are different.)
As I said upthread, identical floors are very common in apartment buildings (as well as hotels, dorms and other such buildings). Most of us manage not to kill strangers. I don’t see how the apartment building is liable.
Actually, the apartment building might be liable if the door lock was faulty and that permitted her to enter an apartment not her own. But not simply because the floors looked the same.
If the cop walks, it is because of her gender not the race of the victim. If the posts here on SDMB are indicative of the jury’s mindset, there is a distinctive desire to ameliorate Ms. Guyger’s actions. Males are generally considered disposable, and there is an instinctive desire to protect females especially younger attractive ones.
The political optics are also playing a role. No one wants to be too harsh on Ms. Guyger because it will be considered misogyny. and that somehow critcizing her behavior undermines all women especially ones that work in law enforcement. All women are to be considered victims; thus, we must blame the apartment complex, the faulty locks, and the police department for working her too hard but not so hard that she still had energy to sext.
On a Facebook page I follow someone posted a long explanation from someone who used to be a cop in Texas, got his law degree and has been a prosecutor and defense attorney. He makes a pretty good case citing Texas specific statues as to why he thinks she will be found not guilty. I wish I could post the whole thing here but I can’t find where it was published originally and I don’t want to quote it without attribution. I still think she will be found guilty of manslaughter but after reading that I will understand why she isn’t.
Of course she’ll be found not guilty; she’s a white woman who shot a black man. There was never any doubt the trial’s a sham. The judge has told the jury to acquit her by ordering them to “consider” Castle Doctrine, which is, in effect, telling them to believe Guyger’s absurdities.
There were previous reports from witnesses claiming they heard knocking and a woman’s voice yelling “Let me in!” That is in direct contradiction to Guyger’s account. Did those witnesses testify?
