Conflicts of Interest in Law Enforcement
When the notion of conflict of interest comes to mind among police enforcement, it suffices to maintain that the police will interfere with the investigation in an effort to protect their own. Given that police officers have immunity, justification for not prosecuting them is frequently given to the prosecution. As this paper will discuss, cases such as the Botham Jean are ideal examples of why law enforcement officers should not have the power to investigate their own. Although an outside agency might be involved, there could be a rise in the conflict and jeopardize the case. With this notion in mind, it suffices to maintain that this paper will explore the Botham Jean case, discuss some of the conflicts of interest that are associated with the case, analyze the role of the initial prosecutor on the case and her reluctance to bring forth the charges and provide an instance of how the initial contact helped Amber Guyger’s case.
Foremost, the Botham Jean case is a riveting one mainly because there was a conflict of interest. Amber Guyger provided testimony in court in 2019 that following a long shift at work on the 6th of September 2018, she went back to her apartment in Dallas. She was still in uniform when she went towards what she believed to be her apartment. Upon seeing a partially open door and a man inside, she deemed an intruder, and she unloaded her service weapon on the man. The twist in this is that she was in her apartment, but she had gone upstairs to another man’s apartment directly above hers. It belonged to Bothan Jean, an account at PricewaterhouseCoopers. The 26-year-old, as described by the prosecution team, was lying on the couch dressed in shorts, eating vanilla ice cream, and watching TV when Guyger intruded and shot him, mortally wounding him (Sanchez & Killough, 2021). By October 2019, she was found guilty by a jury of having murdered Jean, and she was given a 10-year sentence in prison. Her defense maintained that there was inadequate evidence to have her convicted of murder. The defense argued that the Fifth District Courts of Appeal in the City of Dallas, Texas either make a finding of negligent homicide that is criminal or acquit her. The defense’s argument would allow Guyger to undergo a punishment lasting six months to about two years and hold a new hearing on the punishment (Ortiz, E. (2018). Allison, Jean’s mother, was inevitable that the court of appeal would uphold the conviction of murder. Michael Mowla, Guyger’s lawyer, maintained before the three judges in the court of appeal that the belief that Guyger’s belief was mistaken negates the intention to kill. This mistaken belief should have negated the blame for murder because inasmuch as she intentionally fatally shot Jean, she was within her rights to act, using deadly force in the act of self-defense. After all, it was pertinent under that circumstance.
Besides, the numerous conflicts in the case added to the complications of the case. The major conflict of interest manifested in the murder of the key witness. He was expected to provide specific details of what happened during the night that Jean was killed. In the initial testimony, he said that after coming from watching a football match, he “…heard an exchange between two people who both seemed “surprised” while in the hallway of his building” (Kesslen & Stelloh, 2019). He said that it was at this point that he fled. The district attorney wanted to gain a serious charge against Amber Guyger and the murder of Jean. She also tried to deflect the criticism of the speculated special treatment in the court case against Officer Guyger to the Texas Rangers. They are the top law enforcement agency in Texas, which was summoned to investigate the shooting independently. The attorney further said that corroborated testimony said Guyger was heard asking to be let in and was also banging on the door.
Numerous theories were speculated, which led to the conflict of interest. The Texas Rangers postponed the arrest warrant for Guyger initially, which caused Botham’s family to demand she be treated like a shooting suspect. However, it is intriguing to note that the Texas Rangers insisted on treating her a little bit differently because she was a police officer and should not be taken as a normal suspect. The conflict of interest went further to the fact that after Guyger shot Botham in his house, she was visited by Dallas’s most prominent police union president. Also, the head of the Police Association in Dallas visited her and asked his subordinate to shut off the in-car camera system for him and Guyger to have a discourse in private.
Also, the lead prosecutor in this case, Jason Hermus, maintained that Guyger was asked not to say a thing whilst the camera was on, adding that by turning it off and giving her the chance to interact with other police officers provided her with the preferential treatment, which would not have been offered to an ordinary citizen in the custody of the police. Jason firmly believed that “…this investigation, from the very beginning, treated Amber Guyger differently because she was a police officer” (Smith et al., 2019) regardless of the defense attorney Robert Rogers maintaining that his client was waiting for an attorney to come and that what Mata did was to protect her right to an attorney as any other American. This conflict of interest was raised by State Judge Tammy Kemp, who was the one presiding over the case and asked the defense lawyers whether Mata was an attorney and if he was even licensed at all and in addition to being a police officer, to which Hermus said he doubted that attribute. Kemp further added that he did not believe that Mata had the right to preserve the client’s rights. It was intriguing to note that Sergeant Breanna’s testimony said that once she was aware that Guyger was responsible for the killing, it was her mandate to take the suspect to the patrol car and isolate her from the incident. However, the prosecuting team quickly pointed out the conflict of interest in this incident because the suspect was not made to do what the witness had testified. It was disconcerting that Officer Valentina maintained that she would have the car camera running; would she have known that the suspect had been off-duty following the shooting incident? Just before the camera went off, Guyger was seen typing on her phone. The policy in the Dallas Police Department states that officers can consult another officer present during a shooting occasion. However, Guyger’s case did not fall under this category at all.
The conflict of interest manifests more, especially because the initial contact allowed Guyger’s case to hold due to the assumption that she thought it was her floor. From Brown’s testimony, it was clear that he also went to the wrong apartment at some point, which helped solidify Guyger’s case. Since this prior contact could have bolstered her case, there are loopholes to this case because there are also factors that would make her notice that she was indeed on the wrong floor.
It is also crucial to understand that the prior contact was a major bolster to the Guyger case because, from her testimony, she believed that Jean was the intruder in the apartment that she thought was hers. Brown confessed to missing his own house as well and testified that he also had at certain times gone to the wrong floor, and even the wrong apartment as well, when he realized that it was not the floor he lived on. Also, the fact that the door was slightly ajar was proof that she did not need the keys to the apartment.
In conclusion, the discussion above proves that cases such as the Botham Jean are ideal examples of why law enforcement officers should not have the power to investigate their own. Although an outside agency might be involved, there could be a rise in the conflict and jeopardize the case.
References
Kesslen, B., & Stelloh, T. (2019). Why Joshua Brown’s testimony was key in Amber
Guyger’s murder trial. https://nbcnews.to/3n4nBjP
Ortiz, E. (2018). Prosecutor suggests stronger charge against Dallas officer who
killed neighbor. https://nbcnews.to/3vqUTxi
Sanchez, R., & Killough, A. (2021). Former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger asks appeals court to throw out murder conviction for killing Botham Jean. CNN. https://cnn.it/3aIViRZ
Smith, L., Emily, J., Jaramillo, C., & Branham, D. (2019). Police treated Amber Guyger special on the night of the shooting, prosecutor argues. https://www.dallasnews.com/. https://bit.ly/3BJEvu1
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Conflicts of Interest in Law Enforcement
Students will analyze the conflict that law enforcement officers pose when investigating one of their own. Because police officers have immunity, justification for not prosecuting is often given to the prosecution. The Botham Jean case is a perfect example of why law enforcement officers should not have the power to investigate their own. Even when an outside agency is involved, other corresponding conflicts arise and could put any potential case headed to trial in jeopardy. Students should be able to identify conflicts of interest in law enforcement and the reasons that investigating your own is not in the best interest of the case.
Write a 1,000–1,300-word essay describing conflicts of interest in law enforcement addressing the following:
• Research the Botham Jean case.
• Discuss some of the conflicts of interest associated with this case.
• Analyze the role of the initial prosecutor on the case and her reluctance to bring charges.
• Provide an example of how the initial contact helped Amber Guyger’s case.
• Provide at least 3 references to bolster your claim.