Discussion in 'Trials' started by Cobra Jet, Sep 7, 2018.
Thanks Crime Dawg!!
I'm so sorry for your loss. I think it is different when it is someone you love, especially your children. My son collapsed when he was 6 with what we thought was a seizure, I burst into tears and ran out of the room. My husband and my mum looked after him. I still feel awful and I panic about what I would do if something similar happened again although my husband assures me that I would have acted differently had I been alone with him, but who knows? I can only pray I don't have to find out. A few days ago an elderly man fell of his bike while I was passing, I was calm and did what I had to. It's a different situation with your loved ones.
Once again, my deepest condolences to you, it's brave of you to share that experience x
Watch Live: Former Cop Amber Guyger on Trial in Alleged Murder of Botham Jean
Prosecutor is exceptionally smart to argue to remove the lesser charges from the jury based on AG testimony that she intended to kill him. Super if he gets that through!
Can I just say how much I appreciate this judge calling it as she sees it? She just told the defense atty he was being disingenuous! So refreshing! How I wish more judges would be as direct with attys who purposely try to confuse and insult ppl’s intelligence with disingenuous arguments.
Likewise, Im sorry for your loss I couldn't imagine. Love and hugs
Is that photo on the stand supposed to be Botham Jean? Does anyone else find it to be deceivingly whitewashed?
So then the jury would have only murder or acquittal??? is that right? i don't like it. she already has the benefit of the doubt- she is a police officer- i am tired of seeing police officers who murder people walk because they are cops.
what do you mean by whitewashed?
I don’t know why but I feel really nervous about the outcome of this case. These instructions will be crucial. The castle doctrine is in - that worries me. But I get why it would be allowed.
State is fighting tooth and nail to exclude things for a reason.
Judge is allowing jury to consider castle doctrine when deliberations
He argued to remove manslaughter based on her admission on intent. He is correct in that if they believe she would be guilty of the lesser charge, her intent would automatically rise to the level of murder and giving the additional option would confuse the jury and allow a miscarriage of justice by sentencing her to the lesser charge when she was guilty of the heavier sentence.
But if they don't want to sentence her to murder- she will walk? the defense just needs one juror to hang----i would rather see a lesser sentence than no sentence
I believe so.
If the only options are murder or acquittal then she walks.
Yes that is a photo of Mr. Jean and the prosecution placed it there during opening statements. It doesn’t appear to be altered or manipulated,if that’s what you mean. IMO when I watch the live feed, it seems there is an overhead light glaring on it.
The DA wants her to be found guilty of murder.
They overcharged her and if he wants the manslaughter charge to be excluded then she walks.
This is absolutely a manslaughter or negligent homicide case, not a murder case.
I can't believe this DA!!!!!!
at least with manslaughter, she would probably be found guilty and sent to prison.
It's just her way of "grieving".
Wow so judge is basically allowing the jury to have instruction that says if they believe she was mistaken then they can acquit.
ETA: Basically the instruction does not treat her intent and decision to kill as a separate issue from her mistake. So if they believe she was genuinely mistaken then she can walk. Then you have the castle doctrine in there. So....
I can't believe the DA did not want to include the manslaughter charge.
I disagree. If he succeeds I believe he stands a very good chance of losing the case.