The case is a bitter reminder of the ways LGBTQ people have had their identities weaponized by the courts in the past, most notoriously through a legal defense tactic known as gay or trans “panic.”
The Tennessee Court of Appeals should be held accountable for its blatant disregard for a jury’s decision. To use the transgender issue as an excuse to undermine a jury’s verdict is absolutely absurd and raises serious questions about fairness, equal treatment under the law, and judicial integrity. A jury’s decision should not be cast aside simply because the case involves a transgender person. Justice must be based on the evidence and the law—not prejudice against an entire community. When courts allow bias to overshadow fairness, public confidence in our justice system suffers. No one should be denied equal justice because of who they are.
This is positively disgusting!!!! Just imagine claiming that you "had to" kill someone because you found out that they are left-handed. Imagine claiming you "had" to kill someone because you found out that they had big feet. Oh, here's one. Imagine claiming you "had" to kill someone because you found out that they were christian. I wonder how THAT one would go over?
Holy shit this is sickening. Replace the word “trans” with “black” or “Latino” and it’d be unquestionably racist and tossed out as defense immediately. I’m honestly very shocked by this genuine evil decision to believe trans panic is a viable incitement to violent by any court of law.
"Even before killing Lee, Ward was a known entity to trans women in the area, according to Kayla Gore, who is the executive director of My Sistah’s House—a Memphis-based organization that supports Black and Brown trans people fleeing violence. Gore said Ward largely pursued relationships with transgender women."
If Ward was known to frequent and had previously dated or had sex with trans woman, there's no effing way he was in a state of 'trans panic'. This entire charade was a convenient excuse to kill a black trans woman, and - in fact - and I'm totally speculating here - Ward could have intentionally provoked the argument so the killing could take place.
I suspect the entire case hinges on why Paris Lee felt the need to draw the weapon. We can all speculate that it was she wanted to disengage contact with him. He was asked to leave and he tried to force himself on her.
But I doubt we will hear the actual truth since Paris is not with us.
I agree with others it does not sound like a trans panic defense would stand at all. But using her gender as a way to negate or lessen Wards responsibility is awful.
So, Ward goes to Lee's house and they have an "altercation" and she asks him to leave, but he doesn't, so she pulls a gun and Ward falls backwards down the stairs where he fears for his life where he pulls out his own gun and shoots Lee.
Man, that is some fucked up logic that let's someone invade YOUR space and then they kill YOU and they then get to claim they where in fear for their life...
Unfortunately gun laws are messed up. Once they start to retreat you no longer have the right to shoot. Then if you pursue you become the aggressor. I think it depends on where is the threshold of Paris' house. At the top of the stairs or bottom, or some other place.
As a transwoman and an appellate attorney (not in Tennessee), I admit being conflicted by this ruling. But as a question of law, I think the appellate ruling is the only legally proper conclusion. The defendant stated he wanted to testify but the judge restricted him from presenting his case in its entirety. This is an error.
The conviction was manslaughter, not murder. The proof required between the two is greatly different. Manslaughter is not usually planned but a violent act committed in an emotional state, without adequate time to calm down. The prosecution ADMITTED that this evidence would be relevant to a mandatory element of a manslaughter conviction ("adequate provocation"). So here the defendant is saying he wants to testify about this evidence, and the prosecution concedes that evidence would indeed be relevant. I do not see how an appellate court could have reached a different conclusion.
However, the defendant likely will be convicted again because of his lack of credibility and the crime scene investigation showing that his story contradicts the physical evidence of the shooting. Plus, he had a known habit of socializing with trans women so he should get nowhere trying to say this was relevant in any way, other than her physical ability to harm him so he shot her in self defense (IF he could prove that).
I am not justifying him in any way. I hope he gets what he deserves. But he is entitled to a fair trial, and the appellate court properly found he was denied that right.
I can see a hypertechnical view of the law where -- if juries are to "fully informed" -- then a fair trial was denied. Trouble is I'm quite sure that for example an affair between a "white" and a "black" being potentially discovered is no grounds for a defense should the "White" person carry out the murder to try to keep the affair concealed, or, the "white" person discovering their lover was an "octaroon". Is it your opinion I have the law correct in such an instance?
Thank you, S. Baum, for reporting this important story.
Few things reveal the depth and hypocrisy of anti-trans attitudes in certain parts of the world than the legality in so many US states of the "Panic defense".
The people engineering, funding, and carrying out the propaganda campaign and enacting the laws and policies against transgender people must face 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 241, & 18 U.S.C. § 242 prosecution.
“I don’t know what happened, officer. I remember them telling me they thought coriander tasted like soap, and I panicked! I don’t remember anything after that!”
Thank you again, Baum, for opening my eyes to yet another injustice we need to see righted. The use of Trans-panic as a defense reminds me of blaming a woman’s sexual assault on how she was dressed. Victim blaming never will continue as long as it is allowed. 20 states have banned the Trans- panic defense? I’d say we’re a few stayes shy for this country, don’t you think? Let’s get to work!
The Tennessee Court of Appeals should be held accountable for its blatant disregard for a jury’s decision. To use the transgender issue as an excuse to undermine a jury’s verdict is absolutely absurd and raises serious questions about fairness, equal treatment under the law, and judicial integrity. A jury’s decision should not be cast aside simply because the case involves a transgender person. Justice must be based on the evidence and the law—not prejudice against an entire community. When courts allow bias to overshadow fairness, public confidence in our justice system suffers. No one should be denied equal justice because of who they are.
This is positively disgusting!!!! Just imagine claiming that you "had to" kill someone because you found out that they are left-handed. Imagine claiming you "had" to kill someone because you found out that they had big feet. Oh, here's one. Imagine claiming you "had" to kill someone because you found out that they were christian. I wonder how THAT one would go over?
Holy shit this is sickening. Replace the word “trans” with “black” or “Latino” and it’d be unquestionably racist and tossed out as defense immediately. I’m honestly very shocked by this genuine evil decision to believe trans panic is a viable incitement to violent by any court of law.
I call bullshit!!
Quoting from S. Baum:
"Even before killing Lee, Ward was a known entity to trans women in the area, according to Kayla Gore, who is the executive director of My Sistah’s House—a Memphis-based organization that supports Black and Brown trans people fleeing violence. Gore said Ward largely pursued relationships with transgender women."
If Ward was known to frequent and had previously dated or had sex with trans woman, there's no effing way he was in a state of 'trans panic'. This entire charade was a convenient excuse to kill a black trans woman, and - in fact - and I'm totally speculating here - Ward could have intentionally provoked the argument so the killing could take place.
I suspect the entire case hinges on why Paris Lee felt the need to draw the weapon. We can all speculate that it was she wanted to disengage contact with him. He was asked to leave and he tried to force himself on her.
But I doubt we will hear the actual truth since Paris is not with us.
I agree with others it does not sound like a trans panic defense would stand at all. But using her gender as a way to negate or lessen Wards responsibility is awful.
So, Ward goes to Lee's house and they have an "altercation" and she asks him to leave, but he doesn't, so she pulls a gun and Ward falls backwards down the stairs where he fears for his life where he pulls out his own gun and shoots Lee.
Man, that is some fucked up logic that let's someone invade YOUR space and then they kill YOU and they then get to claim they where in fear for their life...
Unfortunately gun laws are messed up. Once they start to retreat you no longer have the right to shoot. Then if you pursue you become the aggressor. I think it depends on where is the threshold of Paris' house. At the top of the stairs or bottom, or some other place.
He didn't retreat, he fell down the stairs. He was looking for an excuse to pull the trigger.
Sounds like the fella knew she was Trans. So I don’t think it’s going to help his retrial any.
But also this sucks.
It's just another way that we are misgendered even after death. This weighs on my heart for Paris. 💔
This kind of thing makes me physically sick. Protect the dolls!
Can’t spell boTched without a big capital T for Tennessee.
The poor woman’s mistake wasn’t pulling the gun…
As a transwoman and an appellate attorney (not in Tennessee), I admit being conflicted by this ruling. But as a question of law, I think the appellate ruling is the only legally proper conclusion. The defendant stated he wanted to testify but the judge restricted him from presenting his case in its entirety. This is an error.
The conviction was manslaughter, not murder. The proof required between the two is greatly different. Manslaughter is not usually planned but a violent act committed in an emotional state, without adequate time to calm down. The prosecution ADMITTED that this evidence would be relevant to a mandatory element of a manslaughter conviction ("adequate provocation"). So here the defendant is saying he wants to testify about this evidence, and the prosecution concedes that evidence would indeed be relevant. I do not see how an appellate court could have reached a different conclusion.
However, the defendant likely will be convicted again because of his lack of credibility and the crime scene investigation showing that his story contradicts the physical evidence of the shooting. Plus, he had a known habit of socializing with trans women so he should get nowhere trying to say this was relevant in any way, other than her physical ability to harm him so he shot her in self defense (IF he could prove that).
I am not justifying him in any way. I hope he gets what he deserves. But he is entitled to a fair trial, and the appellate court properly found he was denied that right.
I can see a hypertechnical view of the law where -- if juries are to "fully informed" -- then a fair trial was denied. Trouble is I'm quite sure that for example an affair between a "white" and a "black" being potentially discovered is no grounds for a defense should the "White" person carry out the murder to try to keep the affair concealed, or, the "white" person discovering their lover was an "octaroon". Is it your opinion I have the law correct in such an instance?
I appreciate you spelling out the logic here. I felt similarly conflicted.
Thank you, S. Baum, for reporting this important story.
Few things reveal the depth and hypocrisy of anti-trans attitudes in certain parts of the world than the legality in so many US states of the "Panic defense".
Paris Lee deserved better than this.
Alternate headline: "Appeals Court Lets Murderous Chaser Walk."
Well, there it is.
The people engineering, funding, and carrying out the propaganda campaign and enacting the laws and policies against transgender people must face 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 241, & 18 U.S.C. § 242 prosecution.
And that must includes these "justices".
Thank you for the reporting, Baum.
“I don’t know what happened, officer. I remember them telling me they thought coriander tasted like soap, and I panicked! I don’t remember anything after that!”
Thank you again, Baum, for opening my eyes to yet another injustice we need to see righted. The use of Trans-panic as a defense reminds me of blaming a woman’s sexual assault on how she was dressed. Victim blaming never will continue as long as it is allowed. 20 states have banned the Trans- panic defense? I’d say we’re a few stayes shy for this country, don’t you think? Let’s get to work!
WTAF?
Disgusting.