372

Tennessee court overturns killer’s conviction because jury wasn’t told that the victim was transgender (www.advocate.com)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by Sunflier@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

75 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A Tennessee court has overturned the conviction of a man who killed a Black transgender woman, ruling that a lower court “erred” by preventing the killer from using the victim’s trans identity in his defense.

Samuel Ward Jr. shot Paris Lee six times outside her Memphis home in June 2022, according to the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office. He then drove 30 minutes home, leaving her to die. Ward was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in May 2025.

But the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in Jackson overturned that conviction on Monday and ordered a retrial. The trial court’s judge had disallowed the defense from presenting the victim’s identity as a transgender woman in its arguments.

“The trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s assigned sex at birth, [and] the evidence was insufficient to support [Ward’s] conviction,” reads the Monday appellate court decision. “Because we conclude that the trial court erred… we reverse and remand this case for a new trial.”

The defense had argued it would be more reasonable for Ward to fear Lee if jurors knew she was assigned male at birth, and said jurors would be more prejudiced against Ward for killing a cisgender woman, according to Jamie Satterfield, an independent journalist who first reported the ruling.

The gay panic defenses has not gone away. Also, this rings of saying its not murder because transgender people aren't people.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

He got 6 years for shooting a person 6 times to death in their own home.... In a state with the death penalty. While having a witness that heard them ask the person to leave.

This person got given the best case scenario it sounds like, and is asking for better. If possible they should retry it as first degree murder and the death penalty, the perpetrator would likely settle for 15 years very quickly

[-] someone@lemmy.today 1 points 3 hours ago

I completely agree with you. It's difficult because defendant with indicted for manslaughter, so the DA would need to request a new grand jury to try to get the charge added. It seems like TCA § 39-13-202 (first) could possibly apply due to a gun being brought and TCA § 39-13-210 (second) could easily apply since it only requires knowledge, not intent to kill. What's strange about this situation to me is I don't feel like the appeals court was being transphobic, but it feels like not having the trial include TCA § 39-13-210 (second) is very questionable if he was asked to leave and may either involve transphobia from the DA or the grand jury (and it's possible the grand jury was given the option for TCA § 39-13-210 and rejected it). I stand by the view that it was procedurally wrong to not allow a defendant to testify about their relationship, including that he liked trans women, his subjective views and concerns, and let a jury decide based on that. I am also not entirely sure if a new indictment can be done and then merged with a remanded case that was remanded for a new trial. I don't think Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) would apply since he was never charged with murder, this is a fairly difficult technical procedural question. It looks like they possibly can? (State of Tennessee v. Brandon Robert Vandenburg (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019), https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/court-of-criminal-appeals/2019/m2017-01882-cca-r3-cd.html) It may not matter because the DA is unlikely to consider it. I hope they do add charges. If she was telling him to leave, that's really a low amount of time. I'm not that familiar with Tennessee law.

this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026

372 points (98.4% liked)

politics

31362 readers

2390 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News