Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excuse me but wouldn't that type of warrant have specific limitations to those particulars and not the nightstand in his bedroom where his stash of pot would be expected to be?
If the judge authorizing the search gave them a blank cheque to allow them to roam at will and look in the guy's toilet tank, he's just added another level of proof of the existence of a two layer system.
Tables being turned; that lady cop would not have her apartment searched if she were not a cop and the victim of similar circumstances by someone other than a cop.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of the law about crime scene investigations, but I'm wondering why a search warrant would be necessary for a crime scene investigation unless the intent was to go beyond the boundaries of a crime scene investigation.
Did you not read your own reference? It says exactly what I'm saying and that what you're saying was an error.
Quote:
That is, the statute requires the accused to have had a particular mind set (i.e. either intentional or knowing) viz the prohibited result. Given this, it is error to inform the jury that it can convict one of the offense if it finds that the accused acted either intentionally or knowingly with regard to the conduct that ultimately lead to the result. Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d at 639-40. And, the State concedes as much here.
So too does the State concede that the abstract definitions of "intentionally" and "knowingly" provided by the trial court in the charge at bar included references to the mind set of the accused in both undertaking the conduct that resulted in death and in causing the death itself.
You have to have both an intentional or knowing mindset and intentional or knowing conduct, not just intentional or knowing conduct.
In other words you have to intentionally shoot and also with the mindset of intending or knowingly not killing in self defense.
And that would be because it better meets the definition of manslaughter in Texas.
No, it wouldn't.
It's a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Either it's because she's a cop or it's because the prosecutor thinks a murder charge is too harsh for anyone under the facts. But it's not because it "better meets the definition of manslaughter in Texas".
In fact, it better meets the definition of murder. If you won't believe me, listen to other lawyers:
But defense attorneys who've handled hundreds of murder cases say murder is the charge that best fits the case against Amber Guyger, who says she mistook Jean for an intruder.
"She intended to kill the burglar," defense attorney Brad Lollar said. "Her thought process was 'I'm going to shoot the bad guy.'"
Quote:
Longtime defense attorney Brook Busbee said the manslaughter charge doesn't fit what law enforcement said happened in Guyger's arrest warrant affidavit.
"We don't know all the facts, but the facts in the affidavit don't appear to match the manslaughter charge, because the act of shooting him wasn't reckless," Busbee said. "According to the affidavit, in her mind, it was intentional."
Defense attorney John Creuzot, a former judge and prosecutor running against Johnson for district attorney, said in similar cases, suspects are charged with murder. The Guyger case is a "deviation from the norm," he said.
"I am not aware of a case in which a person shoots another person in the torso, with death as the result, and is charged with manslaughter," Creuzot said. "In Dallas County, the longstanding practice of our law enforcement agencies, in similar cases, has been to charge suspects with murder."
It's a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Either it's because she's a cop or it's because the prosecutor thinks a murder charge is too harsh for anyone under the facts. But it's not because it "better meets the definition of manslaughter in Texas".
In fact, it better meets the definition of murder. If you won't believe me, listen to other lawyers:
Those lawyers are just claiming she wasn't intending or knowingly acting in self defense. That doesn't mean their claim is true. Some lawyers will say anything.
Those lawyers are just claiming she wasn't intending or knowingly acting in self defense. That doesn't mean their claim is true. Some lawyers will say anything.
No, they're reading the statute as it's written and telling you how it is applied in practice. They don't mention self-defense because that is a separate issue.
These are lawyers with nothing at stake. Why would they make it up? The law says what she did was murder, and you just heard a bunch of Texas criminal defense lawyers agree on that point.
Creuzot, by the way, has more than three decades of experience in the criminal justice system, including more than 21 years as a felony district court judge, first appointed by Democratic Governor Ann Richards in 1992. His background also includes seven years of service as a Dallas County Assistant District Attorney and Chief Felony Prosecutor, and private practice as a criminal defense lawyer.
It looks like accidental murder, can happen in Texas then.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
