GUILTY TX - Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger, indicted for Murder of Botham Shem Jean #6

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm already there so, if this happens, welcome to club.

Technically me too, I don’t know why I would even begin to think this is any different. Especially when a police department “plans for riots” after a trial. Some may call that smart planning, but I for one didn’t like that they put that out there like she was gonna be acquitted from the beginning
 
To the attorneys on here,

Is there any studies that show what a verdict could possibly be based on timing that they deliberate? Shorter or Longer?
Not an attorney but I’ve heard shorter the deliberation usually means guilty.

(Edit to say it was from people on Court Tv from other cases they have followed. )
 
Really? I'm going to need to watch this later.

I will be curious to see your opinion later, but they are trying to overzealously make her appear reasonable and prudent. "Was it unreasonable for her to dream of being a police officer?" "Was it unreasonable for her to go to college..." And they are bringing up so many things that hurt their case, like when you try to soften the blows before they come. Those blows already came, why keep bringing them up
 
To the attorneys on here,

Is there any studies that show what a verdict could possibly be based on timing that they deliberate? Shorter or Longer?

There are studies about length of deliberation - average length and what goes on- but I don't think they look at outcomes. I haven't seen any.
 
For those not watching, defense hammering that LAW is what must be applied. Doesnt matter if you hate her or not (said at the beginning). Reminding jury that they each swore to follow the law and the evidence is clear that AG firmly believed she was in our own apartment. Law is clear so duty is clear - not guilty. Trying to type fast.

Pros up
 
Not an attorney but I’ve heard shorter the deliberation usually means guilty.

(Edit to say it was from people on Court Tv from other cases they have followed. )

That's what's the Anthony prosecution thought. They were all smiles walking to the courthouse to hear the verdict.

But I think you're right.
 
For those not watching, defense hammering that LAW is what must be applied. Doesnt matter if you hate her or not (said at the beginning). Reminding jury that they each swore to follow the law and the evidence is clear that AG firmly believed she was in our own apartment. Law is clear so duty is clear - not guilty. Trying to type fast.

Pros up

I hope the jury follows that. Because IMO the LAW is very clear that her mistake as a LE officer carrying a loaded weapon was not reasonable. She had no business being distracted or failing to follow department protocol.
 
Personal opinion on just effectiveness - AG's testimony was not helpful to defense due to issues brought up on boards. For the weakness of the case after that, I think defense closing was much better for case. Not judging outcome but, as someone said, defense closing was stronger than testimony. Her testimony was necessary but rubbed people the wrong way due to presentation.
 
Q: has anyone heard the unredacted 911 call?

Because the prosecution just said that Amber told the 911 operator that she intended to kill him.
 
I hope you're right. It was a very dangerous move.

How common is it for the DA to not want ‘lesser includeds?’ I can remember another case where the defense didn’t want them—obviously rolling the dice and hoping for an acquittal.
 
Prosecution focusing on what she should have/could have done. Self defense is a last resort and "rightly so." It is not for people like her. Decided to shoot before she entered. She had options. Therefore self defense not "necessary" and does not apply. Typing fast....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
210
Guests online
3,523
Total visitors
3,733

Forum statistics

Threads
592,437
Messages
17,968,914
Members
228,769
Latest member
Grammy 4
Back
Top