Difficult shooting case in Texas on trial right now

D

Deaf Smith

New member
"Authorities say when Terry Graham returned home to his farm, there was a car he didn't recognize. The door to his home had been kicked open. That's when he and a ranch-hand found Josh Chambers. At the time, Chambers was an alleged cocaine addict on probation for a previous burglary. Chambers was able to make it to his car outside of Graham's home with a stolen bag packed with cash, guns and a bottle of alcohol. But, Chambers would not make it out of the driveway alive."

The owner shot the thief in the head. DRT right there.

Now in Texas, with the Castle Doctrine, if someone is inside your house you are presumed in danger and can use lethal force. The bad guy and his relatives cannot sue. BUT, outside your house it ain't like that. Now you can use lethal force to retreive property you feel cannot be retreived any way else. BUT.. again, you still can be sued for 'wrongful death'. In this case below, the owner is being sued for just that!

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10765354

Notice the "ex-wife's" lawyer is saying all kinds of awful things about the owner and how the poor old crack head didn't need killing. Like, "There's no death penalty in Texas for burglary or for being a drug addict".

Just to let you guys know and understand that while I'm actually in favor of protecting property as needed, you can still get your self in a world of hurt.

I'll keep on this trial and see just how it ends, then post it here.
 
More on the trial. The poor ex-wife says he was not a violent man... but when she divorced him she stated he was a 'unpredictable and violent man'. Ops.....

http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090723/NEWS08/907220350/0/FRONTPAGE


Ex-Wife Testifies In Wrongful Death Case

By REGIS L. ROBERTS
Staff Writer

"Amanda Whitsell Wednesday testified that her former husband, Joshua Chambers, was not a violent man.

However, in a petition for divorce filed by Mrs. Whitsell against her husband she described him as unpredictable and violent."
.
.
.
.
"When Crawford asked her to explain the difference between the two statements regarding Chambers' capacity for violence, Mrs. Whitsell said, "At the time I signed that, I believed it to be true," and that she was fearful that he could be violent.

Judge Randall Lee Rogers excused the jury and reminded Mrs. Whitsell that she had a Constitutional right not to incriminate herself by saying things that may be used against her in perjury charges."
 
And more...

http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090723/NEWS08/907220352/0/FRONTPAGE

"Contention came from determining whether Chambers was trying to flee in his white Ford Taurus or trying to run Graham over. When Crawford asked Graham why he shot Chambers as he was driving away, Graham said, "I wanted him stopped; I wanted him arrested; and I wanted my property back."


Graham said when asked the same question later on, "I was afraid of my life and the life of my employee."


He was referring to Guy Osborn, whom Graham employed as a ranch hand on his property in Bullard."

*********

Now this is one reason after you are involved in a shooting, YOU SHUT UP TILL YOU TALK TO A LAWYER. I have no doubt he was very upset and shocked. He could have shot the thief for many reasons, both to get his property back AND to keep him from running over his employee.

But by blabbing away at the first opportunity, he got himself into a world of trouble.
 
Anyone can sue anyone, and in some circumstances prevail regardless of the facts or the law. I think your first statement, that Graham should have shut the hell up until he talked with an attorney, was spot on. Shootings necessarily involve potential criminal AND civil liability, and before you say word one to anyone about one you're involved in, you should obtain the advice of competent counsel. They can't hold what you don't say against you.
 
I just realized that is in Tyler (in east Texas, and not terribly far from where I live). Mr. Graham shouldn't have too much difficulty with a jury from east Texas.
 
Chambers was able to make it to his car outside of Graham's home with a stolen bag packed with cash, guns
Click to expand...

I think it was a good thing the man was stopped. The stolen firearms could have been sold on the street or traded for drugs. Or Chambers could have used them to commit another crime for his addiction. He would have created more danger to the public had Graham allowed him to leave.
 
Yep- cleared criminally, then cleared civilly as well.

Anyone want to find out how much his legal costs for the two trials were?

lpl
 
Guys,

I'm going to bump this one down to L&CR, since from this point on it's going to be a discussion of legal concerns rather than tactical ones.

Thanks,

pax
 
hotdogs said:
"Okay who here is correct?"
Click to expand...
Its in the last sentence: The grand jury declined to bring charges in the criminal proceedings: "The civil ruling mirrors the result of the prior criminal proceedings. In that case, a Smith County grand jury refused to indict Terry Graham for Chamber's death."

Its sometimes difficult to weigh right and wrong for some folks, but one thing for sure is that after being shot in the head Josh Chambers hasn't broken into and robbed anyone else's homes, cars, or businesses. That's likely a win/win situation for all concerned.
 
Graham did the world a favor. Lets all remember how to act responsible when we are on jury duty. This dirt bag is now where he belongs, six feet under.
 
The gene pool is cleaner and the family of the deceased perp lost the civil suit.

OK law has an edge on TX. The OK prosecutor is not required to take a righteous shoot to the grand jury. In OK the family of the late perp is not allowed to sue in civil court in a righteous shooting case.
 
Last edited:
Lee Lapin said:
Anyone want to find out how much his legal costs for the two trials were?
Click to expand...

Lee, Technically based on the reports he was never "tried" in criminal court but his case was taken to the Grand Jury. I am sure he hired a lawyer to represent him thru that process and probably had to pay that out of his pocket.

Based on what Deaf said based on the fact that the perp was shot outside the home for stealing then I guess Texas Law does not bar civil suit (strange law) so Ms. Whitsell went dialing for dollars.

Depending on his homeowners policy Mr. Graham may have been covered for defense costs there. So, he couldn't sue to recover those costs from Whitsell.

My uneducated speculation is that Graham at most had to pay for a criminal lawyer to counsel him thru the Grand Jury process but that is only a SWAG.

I suspect if Graham had fallen under the protection of what many states call "the Good Samaritan Law" Whitsell would have been barred from suit but Graham may still have incurred costs with a criminal defense lawyer for the grand jury process.

I am not sure how you can prudently avoid hiring a lawyer for advice if you ever shoot someone no matter how righteous the shoot if for only advice and someone to talk for you to the cops. Of course that is a personal preference.
 
I am not sure how you can prudently avoid hiring a lawyer for advice if you ever shoot someone no matter how righteous the shoot if for only advice and someone to talk for you to the cops. Of course that is a personal preference.
Click to expand...
First you have to make sure that the bad guy cannot testify against you.

Then you say: "I was afraid for my life and I shot back, I have nothing more to say".*

It is that simple. No need for a lawyer unless they decide to indict you, but with a statement like that they really have nothing on you. And best of all, no witnesses.

*Not legal advice, readers of these forums assume complete, exclusive, and personal responsibilty for all of their choices and actions in this hypothetical scenario.
 
Last edited:
It's my understanding that Terry Graham had to pay his own legal expenses. The plaintiff alleged an intentional tort, not a negligence theory, and that gave the homeowner's liability insurance carrier an out.

The civil jury in my opinion delivered a proper and just verdict, and the grand jury before them came to the right conclusion, too.
 
Mas Ayoob said:
The plaintiff alleged an intentional tort, not a negligence theory, and that gave the homeowner's liability insurance carrier an out.
Click to expand...

Mas, actually I have since learned another thread on here that some insurance carriers WILL cover you for CIVIL costs associated with legal shootings. However, generally that is contained in the Umbrella policy. My carrier is USAA and they WOULD cover me (I asked) thru the umbrella for only the civil suit. They also cover slander and liable.

However, I realize that many other policies do not cover such. Folks would be prudent to ask your agent about them and get an umbrella (they are typically cheap) if need be.

Most state laws prohibit coverage of criminal acts however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top