Posted on 10/02/2019 7:33:21 AM PDT by Meatspace
The judge did not allow the texts during Amber’s cross as they would have been prejudicial. They are appropriate in the penalty phase.
How so though?
They don’t have anything to do with the crime in question.
3. Murders a man in cold blood.
Isn’t murder if there is no criminal intent. Is manslaughter.
In Texas and most States, if you Kill someone during the commission of a Felony, it is Automatically MURDER
1. Armed Robbery
2.Armed Home Invasion
3, Armed Breaking and Entering
ALL FELONIES
The original charge was manslaughter. The DA (republican/black) upped it to murder because of upcoming election and large outcry by the black community for murder charge. The DA still lost to the Dem.
Look it up.
This makes absolute sense. It explains why she was charged with something that is significantly worse than what she actually did. This trial went into politics, and it shows.
In your view, a burglar can walk into your home, and when he is caught simply say, “I thought this was my house.”
Manslaughter is when you do something reckless and accidentally kill someone. Guyger testified that she intended to kill the victim when she shot him, believing him to be a threat.
Sure, if he actually lives in a nearby house that looks like mine and has a key that slides into my door, and the door opens for him when he does so, then yeah, he could plausibly say "I thought this was my house."
For what it's worth, I used to know a fellow that got drunk one night, went to what he thought was his girlfriend's house, walked in and laid down on the couch and fell asleep.
He woke up when someone smashed him in the mouth with a baseball bat and broke out all his front teeth. The cops were called, he was arrested and accused of "breaking and entering", and he went to prison for it.
I never liked him. He was a stupid dumbass who would do stupid dumbass things like that, and for all I know, he could be lying about the whole thing, though he told the same story for years.
I know this is in Texas but in California it is an abuse of judicial discretion.
Exactly what i've said. I think in their zeal to punish this bad thinking woman, they may have just f***ed up their case. She will clearly be able to argue to an appeals court that the state's actions were prejudicial to her sentencing.
No they are not, because they have nothing to do with the actual crime. They are disconnected from the actual crime, and have no bearing on it. They are simply designed to inflame the jury emotionally so that they will give her a harsher sentence.
And this has very likely given her an opportunity to escape punishment because they went too far.
Of course she intended to kill him, but she did not intend to commit any sort of crime. Her actions were based on a false understanding, and are therefore accidental, not intentional.
Mens rea is the entire foundation of criminal law, and I am shocked at how so many otherwise intelligent people seem to be totally unfamiliar with this very simple legal principle.
Yeah mistakes were made.
Indisputably. And now she is going to be paying for the mistakes she has made, that is, if they don't queer the whole trial by giving her grounds for appealing the verdict and the sentence.
Their actions are leading me to believe they might blow this whole thing if they keep pushing too far.
“They are simply designed to inflame the jury emotionally so that they will give her a harsher sentence.”
You mean to tell me that there are prosecutors who attempt to get a jury to sentence a convicted murderer to the the most possible years in prison?
Here's how the jury charge was worded:
"A person commits the offense of murder if the person 1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual or 2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits and act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.Guyger testified that she intentionally caused his death. She wasn't acting recklessly, she didn't "consciously disregard" that he might die as a result of her shooting him in the chest. Her own testimony took Manslaughter off the table."Our law provides a person commits the offense of manslaughter if she recklessly causes the death of an individual. A person acts recklessly or is reckless with respect to the result of her conduct when she is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint."
Excellent rebuttal. Shame on her lawyer for not getting a better jury. She should have known that group would not give her any chance and said something like firing her lawyers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.