Dallas Verdict In: Ex-Officer Amber Guyger Guilty of Murder; Sentenced to 10 Years
[guest post by JVW]
Yesterday afternoon a Dallas jury reached a guilty verdict in the charge of murder for ex-Dallas Police Department officer Amber Guyger. Returning home from duty on evening thirteen months ago, Ms. Guyger shot and killed Botham Jean, an accountant who was an immigrant from St. Lucia, whom she believed had broken into her apartment. Tragically, Ms. Guyger was entirely mistaken and had wandered into Mr. Botham’s apartment, located one floor above hers. Panicking, Ms. Guyger had called the police and her partner (with whom she had been having a clandestine affair) rather than rendering aid to the fallen victim, who died shortly after other officers arrived on the scene.
The trial, featuring a black victim and a white defendant, was in front of a predominantly female and minority jury. Ms. Guyger’s defense focused on how common it was for those apartment tenants to access the wrong floor from their parking garage, and argued that Mr. Botham had risen from his couch in a threatening manner which had caused Ms. Guyger to believe her life could be in danger. Ironically, the defense invoked the Castle Doctrine by asserting that it did not matter that it was not in fact Ms. Guyger’s apartment, the very fact that she believed it was her apartment was justification for her to defend herself.
Earlier this afternoon, the same jury sentenced Ms. Guyger to ten years incarceration. It is expected that she will serve five years before being paroled. The sentencing, which took the jury only an hour to determine (deliberations on the verdict had taken four hours), followed the usual victim impact statements and the guilty party’s opportunity to address the court.
The most poignant moment came when Brandt Jean, the younger brother of Botham Jean, made his statement. Speaking quietly and slowly, he told Ms. Guyger that he forgave her and loved her, and expressed hope that she would turn her life to the Lord and pray for salvation. At the end of the statement, he stunned the court by making an unusual request. Watch below (fast forward to 2:50 if you don’t want to watch the whole thing, but it’s worth spending the entire four minutes):
In a world of Trumps and Schiffs, we need more Brandt Jeans.
– JVW
I had initially planned on framing this post around the question of whether the verdict and sentence just, hoping you legal experts could weigh in with your knowledge of things. There is already lots of debate all over the internet ranging from “the DA shouldn’t have even pursued charges” to “she should have been given a life sentence.” If you would like to engage in that sort of debate here, please feel free to do so.
But I was so impressed by Brandt’s Jean dignity and selflesness that I wanted to end the post on that note. There’s an old cliché where one says to another “you’re a better man than I.” At a certain age, you begin to understand just how true that statement really is. I can say without any evasion or reservation that Brandt Jean is, at his young age, already a better man than I ever was or could hope to be. In offering forgiveness and love to Ms. Guyger, he not only began the process of healing his own pain, which is no doubt vast, but he started to heal her pain too, which I really do sense has overwhelmed her. I hope Ms. Guyger takes his words to heart, and I hope all of us can learn from Brandt Jean’s simple grace.
JVW (54fd0b) — 10/2/2019 @ 8:03 pmMore Brandt Jeans, or more Botham Jeans?
Leviticus (da1f38) — 10/2/2019 @ 8:04 pmMy God that is beautiful.
JRH (91ac4f) — 10/2/2019 @ 8:13 pmMore Brandt Jeans, or more Botham Jeans?
Dangit, thanks for catching that. I’ll make the change.
I’m also using the awesome admin power to edit my comment in position number one above, for the same reason. I’m getting senile in my middle age.
JVW (54fd0b) — 10/2/2019 @ 8:14 pmThink of it as “acting presidential”.
Dave (1bb933) — 10/2/2019 @ 8:26 pmI do wonder whether murder was the right charge.
Learned opinions from our distinguished friends in the legal profession would be interesting to read.
Dave (1bb933) — 10/2/2019 @ 8:32 pmI’d love to have Brandt Jean as my neighbor.
norcal (eec1aa) — 10/2/2019 @ 8:33 pmJust click the link, Dave: https://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-second-degree-murder-laws.html
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2019 @ 8:43 pmLooks like second degree, its hard to forgive, now the fact that she made a tragic mistake rather than a deliberate act makes a differencs.
Narciso (e7ef48) — 10/2/2019 @ 8:47 pmWow.
Still, Americans know how the supposed ‘Rule’ of law operates: Felicity Huffman and Amber Guyger will do more time than Donald Trump ever will- or Richard Nixon ever did.
[And lest you’re inclined to ignore The Trump Mob’s ‘Felicity-styled’ fleecings over the decades- don’t overlook the truth revealed within the Pentagon Papers and half the names– 30,000 or so- etched on the Vietnam War Memorial, murdered by ‘the secret plan’ of The Big Dick Gang.]
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/2/2019 @ 8:53 pmGreat post
Dustin (6d7686) — 10/2/2019 @ 9:29 pmWow. Powerful. Brandt Jean is quite the person. We could all be the kind of Christ follower as him.
Paul Montagu (f74687) — 10/2/2019 @ 9:54 pmI saw Ms. Guyger’s testimony yesterday and you could see her anguish and grief for what she did. You can’t help but wish them all well, and that they can move on.
That you went with this option speaks well of you, JVW. Brandt Jean’s act of forgiveness reminds us that there are courageous people determined to live out their faith even under the most extraordinary of circumstances.
Dana (05f22b) — 10/2/2019 @ 10:50 pmWell, it doesn’t really speak to the specific circumstances of this case.
For instance, that page says:
That would seem to be relevant here.
Guyger took the stand, and she testified that she intended to kill Botham when she pulled the trigger (thus, it seems to me, essentially handing the prosecution the most difficult to prove element of the crime).
I wonder if that was a smart move by the defense. Could her lawyers have mounted a viable defense without her testimony, and avoided that damaging admission?
Dave (1bb933) — 10/2/2019 @ 11:43 pmToo bad then that you ended it on this note:
Why drag them into this?
It was a great stand alone post.
BuDuh (f77cd2) — 10/3/2019 @ 12:23 amI’m glad that Brandt was able to reach beyond his own grief.
And, honestly, the results of the trial seem to be about right, IMO. (IANAL)
Nic (896fdf) — 10/3/2019 @ 12:31 amno doubt it was a mistake, but why was she shooting someone, even if they were in “Her Apartment”? She was able to retreat to safety and the man was unarmed.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/3/2019 @ 12:32 amI think the Castle doctrine only applies when its YOUR castle. Otherwise, we’ll have a raft of murders with killers claiming “Hey, I thought it was my house”. In this case, it seems like an obvious accident, but…
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/3/2019 @ 12:35 amIn Texas, you can kill somebody you see going away from your neighbor’s house with things they had burgled from it. Google Joe Horn. Or search on this site. But you better be right that they were in fact criminals absconding with your neighbor’s property.
In this case, the jury could have acquitted Guyger by finding that her belief that she was defending her own home was reasonable. The guilty verdict indicates that they thought it was unreasonable.
However, the 10-year sentence, that the jury also imposed, instead of 20 or 30 or 99 as it could have, indicates that they thought her belief was honest. It is the kind of sentence you see in a case of voluntary manslaughter involving honestly mistaken self-defense, as opposed to murder motivated by malice.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2019 @ 3:37 amBrandt Jean exhibited grace that I can only envy and aspire to.
Time123 (c9382b) — 10/3/2019 @ 4:34 amOver the course of trial, I started to think that the verdict and sentence commensurate with vehicular homicide while impaired may be more appropriate. Of course that would make the case somewhat parallel to the Joseph frugoli case in Chicago.
urbanleftbehind (1023e8) — 10/3/2019 @ 4:46 amFirst – I have to state that killing the young man was a major tragedy. Very sad to see an innocent person killed.
Second – the Sentence is extremely light for a first degree murder verdict, 10 years with parole after 5. perhaps the jury recognized that it wasnt first degree murder?
Third – Based on the publicly available information, I would have convicted on manslaughter.
fourth – There were a lot of positive comments regarding the high quality of work done by the judge. However, there were numerous appealable errors from letting prejudicial testamony into the record to not alowing defense testamony into the record. The judge allowed racially charged texts into the record. The judge allowed a prosecution “expert ” to testify that the use of force was not reasonable, but did not allow a defense “expert ” to rebut the prosecution expert. over the couse of 2 years, there were 250+ incidences of tenants attempting to enter the wrong appartment is a similar fashion as happened in this case – that testimony was not allowed to be entered. With the multitude of errors, this case is ripe for appeal.
Fifth – given the light sentence, she is probably better off not risking an appeal, new trial, conviction of the lesser manslaughter and the corresponding risk of the maximum 20 year sentence with manslaughter.
joe (debac0) — 10/3/2019 @ 6:03 amjoe (debac0) — 10/3/2019 @ 6:03 am
How would that help the defense? That helps the prosecution.
250+ incidences of tenants attempting to enter the wrong apartment is a similar fashion none of which resulted in the wrong tenant shooting the rightful tenant, even though a good number of people in Texas carry arms.
Now of course it helped that she was a policewoman, so she wouldn’t easily retreat. But she also seems to have lied about how bad her judgement was. He wasn’t standing up when he was sot to death.
She definotely lied right at the start when this happened because the police department came out with a wrong story.
Look how stupid she was. Not only does she go to he wrong floor – possible in that buildin, but the door has adoor a rug in front of ti she didn’t put there, and her key actually doesn;’t work, except that the latch is it. And the look of the entrance hall couldn’t have been exactly the same.
Maybe she thought a squatter had moved in and was going to defend the apartment.
There is a big argument for extreme, criminal negligence. Maybe you’re not allowed to be that stupid. Not only about the wrong apartment, but perceiving the person there as a threat. Or her whole approach to policework was wrong, as seems to be the case.
With the multitude of errors, this case is ripe for appeal.
Fifth – given the light sentence, she is probably better off not risking an appeal, new trial, conviction of the lesser manslaughter and the corresponding risk of the maximum 20 year sentence with manslaughter.
Sammy Finkelman (00fff5) — 10/3/2019 @ 7:03 amWith the multitude of errors, this case is ripe for appeal.
Fifth – given the light sentence, she is probably better off not risking an appeal, new trial, conviction of the lesser manslaughter and the corresponding risk of the maximum 20 year sentence with manslaughter.
I read before the sentence that the sentence might compensate for the conviction. The criminal justice system had pressure put on it.
Sammy Finkelman (00fff5) — 10/3/2019 @ 7:05 am24. Texas is kind of an odd creature that way. Capital Murder, murder, or manslaughter. They don’t make a lot of distinction that way in charging.
Gryph (08c844) — 10/3/2019 @ 7:45 amI’m surprised she was charged with Murder 1. This is an obvious accident and a case of bad judgement.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/3/2019 @ 7:47 am26. She wasn’t charged with capital murder. The death penalty was never on the table. Texas doesn’t do murder charges like most other states do.
Gryph (08c844) — 10/3/2019 @ 7:48 amThis may not seem relevant, but follow along as I make it subject to connection.
About two years ago there was this trial in Harlingen. It involved a man, an employee of the Cameron county judicial branch, whose job it was to make daily food deliveries to the juvenile detention center. What this guy did was form a scheme. He started ordering fajitas and over time exta orders of beef, chicken, sausages, and other meats, which he secretly set aside before making his appointed delivery. He then took these hidden meats and set up his own delivery service on the side, traveling to various restaurants around the Rio Grande Valley and offering them meats at discount prices. In other words, he fraudulently used county funds to pay for his products, thus guaranteeing him a 100% profit margin, minus delivery costs of course. Over ten years, he made $1.2 million.
Then one day, he called in sick. His replacement driver, unaware of the scam, delivered the whole shipment. At the juvenile detention center, the cook said, wait a minute, this is way more meat than we need, and we don’t serve fajitas. That’s what led to the criminal’s arrest.
Call it the Great Fajita Robbery. He was found guilty within minutes; I don’t think the jury deliberated for even half an hour. At sentencing, the prosecuting ADA asked for court-ordered restitution and recommended five years in county jail. The district judge ordered the restitution and sentenced him to fifty years.
FIFTY years! My mother and I were both shocked at the severity of the sentence when we heard it on the news. I mean, rapists, murderers and drug dealers rarely serve that much time. Ever since, whenever there’s a court case in the news (there have been several for far more serious and heinous crimes), and the sentence is announced, we joke, well, at least he or she wasn’t convicted of stealing fajitas. Recovery of stolen taxpayer funds we can understand, but fifty years for stealing fajitas? People take their fajitas very seriously down here, as a source of pride because the Rio Grande Valley is where the whole fajita craze started. (Yeah, it was in 1972, at Smith’s Meat in Pharr; that’s where my father shopped. Most butchers then would throw away skirt steak and only sell choicer cuts. But Smith said, I’m not going to throw away this meat, it’s good meat, and he was the first to sell it under the name “fajitas.” He should have copyrighted the name, because it spread like wildfire across the country and indeed the world, mainly due to the tens thousands of Winter Texans who come down here every year from all parts of the country, then return home asn ask, why can’t I get food like that here? In fact, that’s how “Mexican” food became so popular. It really isn’t Mexican food, which is more European, coming from Spain and Italy, but what we call Norteño–all the recipes and seasonings originated in a few counties in South Texas and North Mexico, and was spread throughout the United States by Winter Texans hungry for their favorite meals, which at the time they could only find here but not in their home states.) I get that. my question is, since when is the value of a fajita more than that of a human life?
As to this case, both my mother and I have serious questions about both the prosecution’s and the defense’s arguments, and we’ve talked about it. Some things just seem a little more than off.
For example, how is it that this police officer went to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor. ? It’s possible that she got off on the wrong floor in the elevator from the parking garage, but it is not possible the number on the apartment door was the same as hers. How could she not know she was at the wrong apartment? Reports are that she was disoriented from having worked long hours on double shifts. Maybe, but she had the wherewithal to text her partner, with whom she was having an affair, which is against department policy, while driving home, saying she was feeling “horny” and asking him if he wanted to “touch,” meaning hook up.
Now, here’s a scenario. What if he declined, saying something like “not tonight”? She’s admittedly feeling horny and wants to hook up. Was she also having a secret affair with the victim, as was that why she went to his apartment? Investigating detectives should have looked further into whether the two had a clandestine relationship, kept secret. If that were the case, she would have just knocked, unless she had a key. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have been able to open the door, because the key to her apartment wouldn’t work. That alone proves that she should have known she was at the wrong apartment.
Reports are that the door was ajar, not fully locked, so she pushed it open. Now, who leaves their apartment without locking and securing it? The argument that she arrived at what she thought was her apartment, found the door ajar, entered and saw a black man sitting on her couch, eating iec cream, who stood up and threatened her, just doesn’t seem plausible
She shot him twenty times! That means she had to reload and empty two magazines. Why would she do that? If he really were an intruder, one or two shots would have sufficed. But twenty? Shooting him over and over again strongly suggests a crime of passion, or of rejection.
What if she went to his apartment, felling horny and wanting to hook up, and he said he was tired of being her secret “black buck”? And she shot him in a rage.
That’s what my mother thinks. And believe me, she is the absolute last woman you want on the jury in a trial like this, involving a female defendant accused of violence. She hates feminism, distrusts women in general, doesn’t believe their sob stories, because she knows that females are far more vicious than males. (I certainly agree with her on that point.) She says she would have convicted in a moment’s notice and voted for the most severe penalty allowed.
Fifty years for stealing fajitas vs. ten years for unloading two magazines into an unarmed black man, eating ice cream on his couch. None of this makes any sense, and the storyline doesn’t match up. But, hey, this is your judicial system.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 10/3/2019 @ 7:51 amShe was not charged with murder 1. She was charged with and convicted of second degree murder.
nk (9651fb) — 10/3/2019 @ 8:05 am29. That’s not what they call it in Texas, but that’s the gist of it.
Gryph (08c844) — 10/3/2019 @ 8:16 amWhere did you read that? This is the first I have heard of this.
BuDuh (f77cd2) — 10/3/2019 @ 8:35 amGuyger shot twice and Jean was shot once, GG, not twenty times. But the bullet did a lot of damage.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/3/2019 @ 9:42 amI don’t agree with the author’s conclusions at my first link but I think his facts are correct.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/3/2019 @ 9:45 amI think Guyger and her attorneys based her defense on Mistake of Fact which, had they succeeded, would have been a complete defense to any Texas charge — murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide. Thus, she admitted she intended to shoot Jean but she did it because she thought she was in her apartment with an intruder who was moving toward her.
The key to a Mistake of Fact defense is that the mistake was reasonable, and a defendant bears the burden of proving that to the jury. The defense probably focused on the defective door lock that enabled Guyger to enter Jean’s apartment, that both apartments were the same floorplan, and the confusing layout of the apartments that caused many people — even the lead investigator — to get confused about which floor they were on. The prosecution probably emphasized the differences in the apartments, including that Jean’s apartment had a bright red doormat and very different furniture than Guyger’s.
I suspect the jury felt Guyger’s mistake was not reasonable but also that these facts were more like manslaughter or negligent homicide than murder — hence the shorter sentence.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/3/2019 @ 10:11 am28:
I’d have given the felonious fajita thief 60 years! Stealing from the public-to the tune of $1.2 million–means deterrence becomes a big part of the sentence.
This Texas officer seemed genuinely remorseful; stunned at what she had done; stunned even more that she was being called to account (“I told him ‘show me your hands,” she said as if that should end the matter).
She seemingly had a hard time grasping that it wasn’t his fault for not “showing his hands,” etc.
Cops have been trained to shoot too damn fast. But it wasn’t malicious. The son, an incomparably decent man, and the black judge saw that ( I think she also hugged the cop). The courtroom officer, also black tried to comfort that officer. It was a horrible error resolved by decent people. But also a message to cops: don’t be so fast on the trigger pull, guys.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 10/3/2019 @ 10:19 amI think the jury expected her to be more careful before using deadly force. Maybe they felt that way because she is a trained police officer, or maybe because in this incident she was off-duty and thus basically a civilian with a gun. Either way, IMO this case suggests Texas juries may believe off-duty police and civilians better be sure before they shoot. On duty police may get more latitude because their jobs require them to engage, even when the circumstances are chaotic.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/3/2019 @ 10:35 amI watched the majority of the trial.
It’s very clear the jury saw what I did; her mistake of fact was not reasonable, there was some bad character in general and mendacity in her behavior and story after the fact, and that Botham did not rush her as she claimed.
It’s very plain she did think it was her apartment, at least at first; however she missed clues an ordinary, reasonable person would not have missed, and she had reason to excercise greater care before acting. When she heard unexpected shuffling noises within, her immediate reaction should not have been to unholster her weapon, push open the door, locate the already perceived “threat” and “eliminate” it (words her attorney should never have let her use). And then, her tale of “he was coming right for me” was not supported; to the contrary, first responder video, various forensic evidence in clouding the testimony of the medical examiner favored a scenario where she shot the surprised Botham rising from the couch where he had been seated, eating vanilla ice cream in quiet enjoyment of his own home.
because she was cognizant she was tired, she should have excercised more caution,not less, when she encountered an unexpected noise beyond the door of her apartment. Any reasonable person would, especially one relatively new to her building, and taken a moment to look up down and around to be sure that she was in the right place. if it had been her apartments, T wouldmake still be improper to react as she did, landlord or his agents may enter a dwelling in certain circumstances without notice. She was behind the door, still, and had its protection. A moment ofobserving her surroundings, including the doormat under her feet, or a quick glance at the lit up unit number, would have eliminated the threat, which was herself.
Unlike ordinary persons, she had not only 911 at her disposal, but a police radio and to her certain knowledge backup was mere blocks away. She could,have closed the door and announced her presence. She decided instead to enter, gun blazing. No one was able to corroborate her story of “issuing commands” of any kind. An unintelligible “surprised greeting” was as close as any witness came to describing any such possible interaction.
Once in the apartment, she homed in and shot on the figure, ignoring significant differences between the furnishing of the two units that would have been visible in available light; ( and it’s even possible she was aware of the mistake she had made but shot anyway, fearing the reaction of the tenant.)
The evidence she rendered first aid as claimed remained just that, a claim, which evidence tended to disprove. Her uniform was spotless, a wound patch in her pocket unused, her gloves unused, and there is evidence she was pacing,talking to 911 and texting her lover simultaneously, leaving Jean to exit this life without so much as his hand being held. IOW She held his life very cheap and was concerned mainly with job loss, not loss of life.
Her activities before and after the crime did nothing to soften the impression of selfish indifference or unconcern with harm she might cause.
But about the charge:
Murder was indeed the appropriate charge, because she intended to shoot and kill Botham Jean. Texas homicide law has some peculiarities; she could prove reasonable mistake of fact and walk away with a not guilty verdict, or at sentencing have the charge reduced to a kind of felony murder/ “crime of passion” with adequate cause murder.
SarahW (08f5d7) — 10/3/2019 @ 11:43 amGreat comment, SarahW. Thank you for that information.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/3/2019 @ 11:59 amYes, indeed, excellent comment SarahW. Thanks for your perspective, having followed the case.
JVW (54fd0b) — 10/3/2019 @ 2:04 pmThanks for the interesting and informative comments, all.
Does anyone think the very public gesture of forgiveness will forestall a wrongful death lawsuit demanding every cent Ms. Guyger owns or might someday own?
Dave (1bb933) — 10/3/2019 @ 2:56 pm40: Won’t bankruptcy be her way out? (they have great chapter 7 exemptions in TX). And won’t the building–that faulty lock- and city pay? (at least when their insurers get done jockeying for the position of least blameless).
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 10/3/2019 @ 3:24 pmDoes anyone think the very public gesture of forgiveness will forestall a wrongful death lawsuit demanding every cent Ms. Guyger owns or might someday own?
It seems to me that a more lucrative target would be the Dallas PD for deficient training of their police officers. Does the fact that she was coming home from a shift and still in uniform leave DPD at least partially liable? Regardless of that, I would argue that DPD clearly did not train her very well to handle the situation. I imagine DPD would quietly settle the case (and indeed, I think I read somewhere that they already have), especially given the sympathetic victim and his family.
As to Ms. Guyger, given that she was living in an apartment, is now unemployed, has likely spent a great deal of any savings she had on her defense (though I’m sure the police union helped too), and probably doesn’t have enough service to qualify for much of a pension, I doubt it would be worth going after her. But who knows.
JVW (54fd0b) — 10/3/2019 @ 3:26 pmSpeaking about punishing murder, someone I know has a complaint about how capital punishment was practrica;;y aboished by judicial fiat and wrote a self published book about that.
A murderer has a 99.83% chance of not losing his own life.
Here is a 32 minute speech Lester Jackson gave a while ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4df_luDz5EA
He speaks about victims rights and people don’t care about that until they are personally affected by amurder.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 10/3/2019 @ 4:35 pmHe says the problem lies in the defiance of public opinion. The people who oppose capital punishment are far more passionate and motivated thann the people who support it. Nobody cares until it hits them, he said.
There is a delusion that there is a debate. He says it is impossible to oppose capital punishment. because 17,000 people have been murdered in the past 47 years by previously convicted murderers. So te question is who will admiister capital punishment and to whom
‘What has to be done is that Supreme Court of the United States has to be exposed for the bunch of charlatans they are’ – dishonest frauds. He cites a court case in 1977 Coker vs Georgia,
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 10/3/2019 @ 4:43 pm