Jump to content

Dallas officer kills man after mistaking apartment for her own, police say


'stache

Recommended Posts

Just now, boilerhorn said:

Question for the lawyers here:

Could allowing Guyger to testify be considered "ineffective assistance of counsel?"

Probably not.  Anything that's a reasonable judgment call can't be ineffective assistance of counsel.

While raised frequently, it's not frequently a ground for reversal of a conviction.  The law has kind of gone overboard to the point that it protects all but the most grotesquely negligent trial counsel.  On the one hand, you obviously can't second guess every tactical and strategic decision of trial counsel.  On the other, I think the law has gone too far and defendants aren't getting fair trials because of overextended and borderline incompetent indigent (and non-indigent) defense lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, and the thing is, it was an unforced error. it was not on cross - this admission was made on DIRECT.

how in the FUCK can the defense rehearse a direct with that fact as part of the testimony? 

the thinking i guess was to highlight that she was scared, but that was a fucking GROSS miscalculation. that admission got the jury to murder, i have no doubt about that now. hell, i said it at the time. shocking fact to reveal on direct. 

I assume there was no video from the hallway that would have brought that fact to light?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 


From the little I saw, I wasn’t overly impressed with Toby Shook and his defense team at all.

 

Agreed.  His role seemed pretty minimal, although he did handle the crucial Guyger direct where the massive dick stomping occurred.

As far as overall strategery, certainly in hindsight, the handling of the experts and the order of proof was FUBAR.

Maybe, just maybe, Guyger admitted to Armstrong that she heard something, so that was coming in either way and better to eat it on direct and try to spin it than have it shoved up your ass sideways on cross.  Which happened anyway.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

Question for the lawyers here:

Could allowing Guyger to testify be considered "ineffective assistance of counsel?"

No.

She had to testify because her only prayer was the mistake-in-fact or self-defense defenses.  Those are affirmative defenses, which means that she has the burden of proof.  She'd have no way to carry her burden of proof without testifying.

And so what're you to do as her lawyer?  She has to testify.  And you know that fact is going to come out.  Presuming that you're not going to suborn perjury, how do you deal with it?

You have two options: 1) hope the State doesn't ask the right question on cross-examination, or 2) try to get it out on direct and do your best to spin the fact so that when it does come up on cross, it lands with a thud to a jury who thinks "yeah, I already knew that."

The defense went with Option 2.  It's hard to fault them for that.  Perhaps they could have done a better job of framing the fact and inoculating her against it.  But it's real easy to back-seat drive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

seeing several Dallas defense attorneys on Facebook claiming "reversible error" not to let in Ranger Armstrong's opinion testimony.  they're hoping it's reversible error.

Seems very very very standard to not let in opinion testimony as to the actual question of fact the jury must answer. Otherwise, when does that end? Let's have the state call 500 experts that say it's their opinion it is unreasonable and the defense call 500 experts that say it is reasonable. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fuck Tim Beck said:

I hope this puts all cops on notice. 

Looking at you Art 

 

The one bright spot in this entire shit show.

 

 

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

justice but what a hollow victory.  so many lives destroyed.

 

Hopefully, this will save lives in the long run, if it reigns in out of control cops.

 

 

 

And yes, my faith in humanity is slightly bumped up, at least for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

I may be misremembering, but I believe she offered up the testimony about hearing someone inside on direct. 

 

Why did her defense lawyers let her testify? I rarely stay in a Hilton, but even I know you don''t take the stand if you are on trail.

 

edit: Not asking you specifically hookem, but the board in general.

 

 

Edited by High Plains Drifter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Seems very very very standard to not let in opinion testimony as to the actual question of fact the jury must answer. Otherwise, when does that end? Let's have the state call 500 experts that say it's their opinion it is unreasonable and the defense call 500 experts that say it is reasonable. 

Totally agreed as to the ultimate conclusion.  I think that was rightfully excluded.

The opinions preceding that, about her state of mind, etc. seem to be a closer call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

No.

She had to testify because her only prayer was the mistake-in-fact or self-defense defenses.  Those are affirmative defenses, which means that she has the burden of proof.  She'd have no way to carry her burden of proof without testifying.

And so what're you to do as her lawyer?  She has to testify.  And you know that fact is going to come out.  Presuming that you're not going to suborn perjury, how do you deal with it?

You have two options: 1) hope the State doesn't ask the right question on cross-examination, or 2) try to get it out on direct and do your best to spin the fact so that when it does come up on cross, it lands with a thud to a jury who thinks "yeah, I already knew that."

The defense went with Option 2.  It's hard to fault them for that.  Perhaps they could have done a better job of framing the fact and inoculating her against it.  But it's real easy to back-seat drive.

Someone said earlier that it's not technically an "affirmative" defense as it concerns the burden of proof, but it's still a defense that requires evidence of her state of mind, and only she can testify to that. So your premise, I think, is still correct that she had to testify to have any chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Twice now in the last year, Dallas County juries have held cops accountable for bad shoots.

This ain't Henry Wade's Dallas anymore.

 

And on both occasions, "brother officers" tried to rig the investigative process in the cop's favor at the very beginning of the process.  Don't forget that.  Juries are OVERCOMING crooked policing.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Someone said earlier that it's not technically an "affirmative" defense as it concerns the burden of proof, but it's still a defense that requires evidence of her state of mind, and only she can testify to that. So your premise, I think, is still correct that she had to testify to have any chance.

Yeah--I think that's right.  At least it's ringing a bell.  It's an affirmative defense from the standpoint that she has to plead it.  But a criminal defendant never has the burden of proof.

Oops.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Totally agreed as to the ultimate conclusion.  I think that was rightfully excluded.

The opinions preceding that, about her state of mind, etc. seem to be a closer call.

If disallowing opinion testimony about what the defendant's state of mind might be after the defendant already testified as to what her state of mind actually was, is reversible error, then we are back to the CJ system being totally fucked.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn’t realize the trial happened, so now I’m 30 pages behind and can’t read it all, but I want to talk about some things that maybe have been discussed wrt being a cop off duty. 

1) should cops be allowed to wear the uniform and badge and gun when off duty, or should they have to get out of uniform at the station and leave their service weapon there as well so that there’s no confusion over official capacity or not?  If they choose to carry a personal weapon, then they do so and their LEO status allows for it but they are citizens at that point.  If 10 hour shifts are so demanding and exhausting, we shouldn’t let them continue their police duties after hours when they have lowered their concentration 

2) if she gets legal help from dpd and the officers union because she’s in uniform, then she needs to be held to the dpd standard of conduct. You can’t say she’s just a citizen at that point, but she gets all the benefits of being on duty. 

......

so can I get a summary of any damning testimony?

my personal feeling all along is that going up to, and even into, the wrong apartment is reasonable but the actions taken once she sees the victim are not. Does that stil hold up with the facts of the case out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) That is very inefficient and inconvenient to make them robe/disrobe at the station.  Not really feasible or necessary for anything.

2) They did use her training in de-escalation, protocols, CPR, etc against her in this case as she failed to follow her training.

Most damning bits came out in her cross-examination.  She admitted to hearing noises coming from her apartment before she entered.  She admitted that she intended to kill him when she engaged him.  Those two things likely convicted her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Didn’t realize the trial happened, so now I’m 30 pages behind and can’t read it all, but I want to talk about some things that maybe have been discussed wrt being a cop off duty. 

1) should cops be allowed to wear the uniform and badge and gun when off duty, or should they have to get out of uniform at the station and leave their service weapon there as well so that there’s no confusion over official capacity or not?  If they choose to carry a personal weapon, then they do so and their LEO status allows for it but they are citizens at that point.  If 10 hour shifts are so demanding and exhausting, we shouldn’t let them continue their police duties after hours when they have lowered their concentration 

2) if she gets legal help from dpd and the officers union because she’s in uniform, then she needs to be held to the dpd standard of conduct. You can’t say she’s just a citizen at that point, but she gets all the benefits of being on duty. 

......

so can I get a summary of any damning testimony?

my personal feeling all along is that going up to, and even into, the wrong apartment is reasonable but the actions taken once she sees the victim are not. Does that stil hold up with the facts of the case out?

What most people feel is the key testimony is her admission that while she was futzing with the doorknob, she heard movement inside, and went in anyway "guns a blazin."

The defense did a pretty decent job making it seem reasonable-ish to go to the wrong apartment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

If disallowing opinion testimony about what the defendant's state of mind might be after the defendant already testified as to what her state of mind actually was, is reversible error, then we are back to the CJ system being totally fucked.

I don't see that timing issue as material.  Seems like an expert ought to be able to explain how her perceptions and decision making processes were affected by stress, and even her recollection of events.

Not that that should be particularly credible with the jury, but I'm not sure it's properly excluded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Holy.  Fuck.

Gotta admit, I'm blown away.  Even though I -- for the first time -- thought there was a path to guilty once the testimony came out that she knew there was something up inside the apartment, and then consciously CHOSE to make entry (that is, she wasn't surprised AFTER she entered the apartment....I still didn't think they'd come back with guilty on murder.

Outstanding.

I hope you'll at least post "I WAS WRONG" for every single post you made where you assured the entire world that she'd never be convicted. Say, 1,000,000 to start with? :) 

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What most people feel is the key testimony is her admission that while she was futzing with the doorknob, she heard movement inside, and went in anyway "guns a blazin."

I think many are forgetting that she was interviewed shortly after the shooting.  My guess is she disclosed that she heard him while still outside during that interview.  If you know it's going to come out anyway, wouldn't you introduce it on direct?  

Edited by AggieFactFinder
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AggieFactFinder said:

I think many are forgetting that she was interviewed shortly after the shooting.  My guess is she disclosed that she heard him while still outside during that interview.  If you know it's going to come out anyway, wouldn't you introduce it on direct?  

I wondered this too. But why wouldn’t the state have introduced that evidence during its case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AggieFactFinder said:

I think many are forgetting that she was interviewed shortly after the shooting.  My guess is she disclosed that she heard him while still outside during that interview.  If you know it's going to come out anyway, wouldn't you introduce it on direct?  

Kind of my guess also.

But, GoLL points out that even if nothing requires you to admit that on direct, there's a risk that the state gets that out on cross.  And then it could be a an even bigger shitshow.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

I wondered this too. But why wouldn’t the state have introduced that evidence during its case?

That would have been kind of awkward, as it would have been hearsay "Did Officer Guyger tell you that  . . . " to which there might have been exceptions, but still.

The state focused on the elements of its burden of proof, an intentional act resulting in death, rather than anticipating and defeating the defenses.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And on both occasions, "brother officers" tried to rig the investigative process in the cop's favor at the very beginning of the process.  Don't forget that.  Juries are OVERCOMING crooked policing.

I aint forgetting that, or excusing it  You assured me this was a show trial.🤬🤬

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

That would have been kind of awkward, as it would have been hearsay "Did Officer Guyger tell you that  . . . " to which there might have been exceptions, but still.

Party opponent statements always get in (unless the rules are different in criminal). “Ms. Guyger admitted to you that she heard someone inside the apartment before she entered, corrrect?” Seems straightforward, but that’s why I don’t practice criminal law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Didn’t realize the trial happened, so now I’m 30 pages behind and can’t read it all, but I want to talk about some things that maybe have been discussed wrt being a cop off duty. 

1) should cops be allowed to wear the uniform and badge and gun when off duty, or should they have to get out of uniform at the station and leave their service weapon there as well so that there’s no confusion over official capacity or not?  If they choose to carry a personal weapon, then they do so and their LEO status allows for it but they are citizens at that point.  If 10 hour shifts are so demanding and exhausting, we shouldn’t let them continue their police duties after hours when they have lowered their concentration 

2) if she gets legal help from dpd and the officers union because she’s in uniform, then she needs to be held to the dpd standard of conduct. You can’t say she’s just a citizen at that point, but she gets all the benefits of being on duty. 

......

so can I get a summary of any damning testimony?

my personal feeling all along is that going up to, and even into, the wrong apartment is reasonable but the actions taken once she sees the victim are not. Does that stil hold up with the facts of the case out?

The weapon many LEO's carry is their own personal weapon.  Many departments do not supply a standard issue weapon, they allow the officer to select their weapon and the dept stamps approval.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

So when's the civil trial gonna start?

The federal civil case has been pending for a long time now, but I'm sure was stayed pending the completion of the criminal trial.  It will be another year or two at least, assuming it doesn't settle promptly.

I think her liability is pretty clearly established, so it's whatever "policy limits" Texas Municipal League will tender.

The bigger question that may "need" trial is whether DPD/City of Dallas has a problem with training, policy, and procedure.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

I think the O/U should be set at 9.5 years.  My money is that she gets 10 years.  Any more doesn't do anything to alleviate the pain of the deceased's family, nor is she more likely to be rehabilitated.  Honestly, 5 years probably gets the job done, but because of the optics of the case, they bump it to 10 years.  The verdict was more important than the sentencing IMHO.

I agree with your line of thought. In instances like this, how they determine how many years the juror should assign. I gather there will be testimonials by the families and other info given. But is there any guidelines provided to say. if this = 5 years, or if this = 20 years. 

If there are no guidelines, so many things come into play. the persons believe in does jail ever work as far as rehab.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

Party opponent statements always get in (unless the rules are different in criminal). “Ms. Guyger admitted to you that she heard someone inside the apartment before she entered, corrrect?” Seems straightforward, but that’s why I don’t practice criminal law. 

I think you are right, that it could have come in that way, but the state didn't ask Armstrong about anything she told him in their interviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...