Amber Guyger Found Guilty of Murder In Fatal Shooting of Neighbor Botham Jean

Amber Guyger’s fate was left in the jurors’ hands after defense called it a day, beginning the first of deliberations. Now, after several hours of deliberation, the jury has found Guyger guilty of murder. 

Guyger faces the maximum sentence of life in prison. 

According to the Dallas Morning News, her defense said: “a series of horrible mistakes” led to her shooting Botham Jean out of fear for her life, during their closing statements. However, prosecutors said claims of self-defense don’t apply in Guyger’s case because Jean was not a threat to her; stating she had other options besides killing him and that she acted unreasonably by failing to notice she wasn’t even at her own apartment.

The 31-year-old Guyger said she mistook Jean’s apartment for her own on the night of Sept. 6, 2018, and fatally shot 26-year-old Jean, thinking he was a burglar.

Prosecutor Jason Fine began the state’s closing arguments by reading something Guyger said during her testimony: “I never want anybody to have to go through or even imagine going through what I felt that night.”

“Are you kidding me?” he said, as the Dallas Morning News described him then crumpling up the paper he was reading from and tossing it in the trash. “That is garbage.”

Prosecutor Jason Fine began the state’s closing arguments by reading something Guyger said during her testimony: “I never want anybody to have to go through or even imagine going through what I felt that night.”⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

“Are you kidding me?” he said, as the Dallas Morning News described him then crumpling up the paper he was reading from and tossing it in the trash. “That is garbage.”

He then urged the jurors to put themselves in Jean’s shoes and imagine themselves coming home from a long day and sitting down with a bowl of ice cream when they’re shot by an intruder.

Detailing all of the five key clues Guyger missed as she stood outside of Jean’s door: the apartment sign, his red doormat, the blinking red light signaling her key wasn’t recognized, the lack of a whirring motor sound from the key and the feeling of walking from concrete onto carpet as said in the report.

“I mean, my God. This is crazy,” Fine said. “It was unreasonable — she should’ve known she was in the wrong apartment.”

Despite Fine’s telling arguments, a judge ruled that jurors may consider the “castle doctrine,” which details the right to defend yourself in your own home. In response, the defense said it still applies to Guyger because she believed she was in her apartment.

Nevertheless, Fine further argued the doctrine did not apply to Guyger. He told the jury it would have applied to Jean, but he was unarmed, and there is no evidence he tried to defend himself.

“Who does castle doctrine protect? Homeowners. It protects homeowners against intruders, and now, all of a sudden, the intruder is trying to use it against the homeowner. What are we doing?” Fine asked.

He said before she went inside Jean’s apartment, Guyger decided that she would “execute” whoever was in there, adding that had Guyger retreated, Jean would still be alive.

Fine then begged the jurors to “do the right thing,” telling them they are the voice of the community.

“I believe that y’all will do the right thing, that y’all will follow your oath, that y’all will follow the law, apply it to these facts, and render the only, only true verdict, the only just verdict,” Fine said, “and that is that this defendant murdered an innocent young man in his home.”

Meanwhile, defense attorney Toby Shook advised the jury to not make the decision whether Guyger is guilty based on “emotion and sympathy.”

“That’s hard, especially in a case like this,” Shook said to the jury. “You’ll never see a case like this that’s so tragic. So tragic.”

Shook even suggested that Guyger couldn’t have done enough to save Jean, telling the jurors the “hard truth” that was no amount of first aid would have saved Jean. 

“He couldn’t survive because of the wound he received,” Shook said. “CPR wasn’t going to help.”

Another of Guyger’s attorneys then claimed prosecutors failed to “do their duty” and prove that Guyger wasn’t reasonable in her actions.

“We actually, even though we have no duty, we showed you how this was a reasonable mistake,” Robert Rogers said.

“Everything that they have done has been to try to distract you and trick you from looking at the law in this case because they know that if you apply it correctly, that Amber Guyger is not guilty,” Rogers added,  according to the Dallas Morning News. 

In his rebuttal, lead prosecutor Jason Hermus said that self-defense as her team of attorneys tried to argue doesn’t apply in this case. Adding, Guyger had other options available when she thought she was at her apartment, confronted by a burglar. 

Hermus highlighted Guyger’s police training, saying she’s trained to get in a position of concealment and cover in such situations. The former officer could have called for assistance, but Hermus argued she made the decision to kill while outside Jean’s door, according to the publication.

“She decided from outside, from a position of safety, that she was going to engage what she called ‘the threat,’ ” Hermus said.

In his final remarks, Hermus spoke directly to Guyger, “By God, in Dallas County, Texas,” he said, reports say he then pointed a finger at Guyger, “there will be a consequence for you shooting an unarmed, defenseless man.”