'I can't see less than 20': Lawyers Discuss Fate of Murderer Amber Guyger
Lawyers aren't surprised that ex-police officer Amber Guyger was found guilty of murder in the shooting death of Botham Jean in Dallas. While some predict a sentence at the low end of the 5 to 99-year punishment range, others expect to see the jury slap Guyger with at least 40 years.
October 02, 2019 at 09:34 AM
4 minute read
Attorneys are not surprised that a Dallas jury on Tuesday found ex-police officer Amber Guyger guilty of murder in the shooting death of Botham Jean.
As jurors continue hearing testimony in the sentencing phase of the trial for Guyger, some lawyers predict that she will receive a sentence on the low end of the five to 99 years punishment range. However, one prosecutor-turned-defense lawyer expects a sentence of at least 40 years.
Guyger has maintained that she accidentally entered Botham's apartment, thinking it was her own, and shot him because she believed he was a burglar.
"I think they got it right," Dallas criminal law solo practitioner Philip Ray said about the jury's verdict. "Anything else they would have considered would have been a sympathy vote for the defendant—which I understand—but it's not legally correct in Texas. If she points the weapon and shoots the gun, it means she meant to do what she did."
Because Guyger meant to shoot Botham, and jurors determined the shooting was unjustified, it qualifies under the definition of murder in Texas law, explained Ray, a former Texas prosecutor of 10 years and current criminal-defense attorney who's board certified in criminal law.
Ray said that Guyger's defense attorneys have an option of arguing that Guyger committed her crime amid "sudden passion," meaning she shot Jean in a moment of heated emotion. If the jury agrees with that defense, it would decrease the punishment range from five to 99 years, to two to 20 years, he explained.
"I can't see less than 20," he said. "I think it's going to be over 40 because I don't think the jury is going to feel that, even though they have the option to."
Other attorneys expect a lower sentence.
The topic of Guyger's guilty verdict Tuesday was trending on Twitter, and Texas Lawyer put out a call for the thoughts and reactions of attorneys who have followed the trial.
Here's what lawyers are saying about the news on Twitter:
- "I am normally very sympathetic to law enforcement, but if you enter an innocent person's home and shoot him dead while he's eating ice cream on his couch, then there simply must be criminal consequences. This Dallas County jury imposed those consequences. I will add that the jury now has very broad discretion in assessing punishment on Ms. Guyger, anywhere from 5 to 99 years in prison. It seems to me that given all of the unusual circumstances in this case, a sentence on the lower end of that range would be appropriate." @chris_kratovil
- "In my view, this case was always going to turn on whether the jury believed that Guyger's mistake was reasonable. They obviously did not. With that and Guyger's admission that she intended to kill [the person who turned out to not be a burglar], the murder verdict makes sense. But I agree with @chris_kratovil that the facts of this case suggest a sentence on the low end. There's no evidence that Guyger intended to kill Botham Jean. She intended to kill a burglar, but was reckless in determining that the person in her apartment was a burglar." – @jaddmasso
- "Should have been manslaughter w/20 yrs. She had no premeditation or willful intent." – @themarylbishop
- "That's not how Texas law works. Neither 'premeditation' nor 'willful intent' are a part of the definition of murder in Texas." – @DefendInDallas
- "My money was on a hung jury. This was a good result, though. I don't think it deserves to be flipped on appeal." – @WiseWyzard
Read the full conversation and contribute your tweet here:
I'm curious to know the legal community's reaction to the #AmberGuygerMurderTrial. Collecting tweets for a possible story. @jaddmasso @Justice4WomenJD @lizettms @JHuggler pic.twitter.com/Aomqg8LiAy
— Angela Morris (@AMorrisReports) October 1, 2019
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute read'Courts Do Get It Wrong': Legal Experts Discuss State-Law Certification Pros and Cons
9 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250