Officer Invades Apartment, Shoots Resident

[bbhack]

The sound bite I'm hearing has the jury foreman saying "No outbursts" after the verdict was read. Since when does the jury foreman control the courtroom? This is outrageous.

I read that it was a bailiff who made that statement.

That makes a heck of alot more sense.

Withdrawn.

[Papa_Tiger]

The sound bite I'm hearing has the jury foreman saying "No outbursts" after the verdict was read. Since when does the jury foreman control the courtroom? This is outrageous.

I read that it was a bailiff who made that statement.

That makes a heck of alot more sense.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/amber- ... index.html
30s into the video above is where the verdict is read. Multiple responses to the outbursts, but pretty sure the judge is the one stating, "No outbursts".

[WTR]

In the clip I saw of the reading of the verdict, it is clearly the judge saying “ no outburst”.

[C-dub]

WOW

WOW

WOW

When they appeal, I wonder how much of the testimony this jury didn’t get to hear will be presented or allowed. Then if this is overturned that’s it, right? It doesn’t go down to manslaughter, right?

And if that happens she is free because they dumped their mag in this trial with regards to convicting on murder instead of manslaughter.

[WildBill]

I'm curious how they got to "murder" - I had thought that that charge implies premeditation.

In the summation the prosecutor said that after she opened the door she drew her handgun and entered the apartment intending to kill the person.
I haven't seen all of the testimony of the defendant, but I think she said that she intended to kill him because he was coming toward her.

[WildBill]

Since the beginning of this case there have been not-so-subtle racial undertones. This really makes me angry.
I wish that people didn't try to make everything about race. Ben Crump, the Jean's family lawyer, even brought
up Trayvon Martin!

After the verdict, Ben Crump, an attorney for the Jean family, said 26-year-old Jean was a "near perfect" person.

"This jury had to make history in America today, because Botham was the best that we had to offer," Crump said. "Twenty-six year old,
college-educated black man, certified public accountant, working for one of the big three accounting firms in the world, PricewaterhouseCoopers."

"But it shouldn't take all of that for unarmed black and brown people in America to get justice," Crump said.

Crump said the verdict wasn’t just for Jean and his family.

“This verdict is for Trayvon Martin," he said, "it’s for Michael Brown, it’s for Sandra Bland, it’s for Tamir Rice, it’s for Eric Garner,
it’s for Antwon Rose, it’s for Jemel Roberson, for EJ Bradford, for Stephon Clark, for Jeffrey Dennis, Genevieve Dawes, for Pamela Turner.”

“O’Shae Terry,” interjected Merritt, who also represents the Jeans.

“For so many black and brown unarmed human beings all across America,” Crump continued, holding Allison Jean’s hand in the air, "
this verdict today is for them. Everybody can raise their hands — this verdict is for them. This verdict is for them.”

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/courts/ ... tham-jean/

[03Lightningrocks]

Since the beginning of this case there have been not-so-subtle racial undertones. This really makes me angry.
I wish that people didn't try to make everything about race. Ben Crump, the Jean's family lawyer, even brought
up Trayvon Martin!

After the verdict, Ben Crump, an attorney for the Jean family, said 26-year-old Jean was a "near perfect" person.

"This jury had to make history in America today, because Botham was the best that we had to offer," Crump said. "Twenty-six year old,
college-educated black man, certified public accountant, working for one of the big three accounting firms in the world, PricewaterhouseCoopers."

"But it shouldn't take all of that for unarmed black and brown people in America to get justice," Crump said.

Crump said the verdict wasn’t just for Jean and his family.

“This verdict is for Trayvon Martin," he said, "it’s for Michael Brown, it’s for Sandra Bland, it’s for Tamir Rice, it’s for Eric Garner,
it’s for Antwon Rose, it’s for Jemel Roberson, for EJ Bradford, for Stephon Clark, for Jeffrey Dennis, Genevieve Dawes, for Pamela Turner.”

“O’Shae Terry,” interjected Merritt, who also represents the Jeans.

“For so many black and brown unarmed human beings all across America,” Crump continued, holding Allison Jean’s hand in the air, "
this verdict today is for them. Everybody can raise their hands — this verdict is for them. This verdict is for them.”

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/courts/ ... tham-jean/

Trayvon Martin was a thug who got what he earned. This is a totally different scenario. Someone posted above that testimony said she drew her gun and entered the apartment with the intentions of killing the intruder. If this is the case, she is guilty of murder and got what she earned. I also think that her being a cop gave her a sense of entitlement that the average citizen would not likely had.

[Soccerdad1995]

WOW

WOW

WOW

When they appeal, I wonder how much of the testimony this jury didn’t get to hear will be presented or allowed. Then if this is overturned that’s it, right? It doesn’t go down to manslaughter, right?

And if that happens she is free because they dumped their mag in this trial with regards to convicting on murder instead of manslaughter.

IANAL, but I think that if there was a procedural error, such as improperly excluding testimony, then the case gets reverted back and can be re-tried (with the relevant testimony included). So not a complete reversal and freedom, but definitely a better outcome for the defendant than where she is at right now. Worst case, she ends up in the same exact spot.

[03Lightningrocks]

I wonder what she chose for lunch as her last meal while free? She is going to be eating lots of baloney sammiches for the next several years.
I would go with steak and lobster.

[Soccerdad1995]

I wonder what she chose for lunch as her last meal while free? She is going to be eating lots of baloney sammiches for the next several years.
I would go with steak and lobster.

Unfortunately, her stomach was probably in knots. I know mine would have been.

[03Lightningrocks]

I wonder what she chose for lunch as her last meal while free? She is going to be eating lots of baloney sammiches for the next several years.
I would go with steak and lobster.

Unfortunately, her stomach was probably in knots. I know mine would have been.

It was just one of those things that come to mind randomly. It hit me that with a murder conviction, you would never again get to eat a well cooked meal. I mean...NEVER is even possible. Knots or no knots, I would be thinking realistically that I am hosed. I would be eating the steak and lobster.

[RoyGBiv]

I'm curious how they got to "murder" - I had thought that that charge implies premeditation.

Not in TX. "knowingly causes the death" is all it takes in TX.
Note that TX has "Capital Murder" which can include premeditation. (see PC 19.03(2))

FYI... It's easier to understand clearly if you skip reading the definitions. The definitions 1 and 2 only apply to subsection d.

IANAL. Just my opinion.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER.

(a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

[WildBill]

WOW

WOW

WOW

When they appeal, I wonder how much of the testimony this jury didn’t get to hear will be presented or allowed. Then if this is overturned that’s it, right? It doesn’t go down to manslaughter, right?

And if that happens she is free because they dumped their mag in this trial with regards to convicting on murder instead of manslaughter.

IANAL, but I think that if there was a procedural error, such as improperly excluding testimony, then the case gets reverted back and can be re-tried (with the relevant testimony included). So not a complete reversal and freedom, but definitely a better outcome for the defendant than where she is at right now. Worst case, she ends up in the same exact spot.

I think that is why the judge allowed the castle doctrine defense, so the defense couldn't use that on appeal.
I am not sure about the other testimony - she did allow some testimony from DPS that related to state of mind.
The figures about how many other people went to the wrong apartments is a different story. I guess we will have to wait and see.
I understand why the defendant was allowed to testify, but I think it may have backfired. Although I don't know what else they could
have done to present their side of the story.

[ELB]

She was convicted of the same offense - first degree murder - that Gerald Goines (of "botched raid" infamy) is facing in Houston.