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.
No, it’s implicitly saying the murderer was ‘right’ to kill her because she was ‘really a black man.’ The jury was ‘deceived, by omission, into thinking this was about a woman being murdered.’
[Single quotes indicate their expressed beliefs, not direct quotes.]
Not quite but pretty much. The judge originally said no you can’t bring up she was trans as part of your defense, which I think was an okayish decision. But then another court found that this information should have been provided to the jury and as such a retrial is needed.
It does reek on anti trans sentiment masked in procedural bullshit, and I wonder while we’re having this conversation it seems like everyone is talking about this guy killing a trans lady because she was trans and wanting that to be his defense, but isn’t that just admitting to a hate crime?.. I mean I guess that’s essentially what you’re saying, the court says no no no, this man should be able to use him transphobia as his defense.
Well, I guess I agree. This country is so fucking stupid and hateful.
That’s not the actual ruling at all.
https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/W2025-01186-CCA-R3-CDOPN.pdf
It’s a dangerous and scary path to go down to make it illegal for a defendant to present their side of things. This was the correct ruling, and there will possibly be a conviction on retrial.
It might not be the justification used in the ruling but it’s what the defense argued.
And, for the record, defendants can’t speak about all kinds of things to the jury. “Dangerous precedent” lmao buddy.
It’s an attempt to legalize trans panic as a legal defense, no more and no less.
That all said these things are complicated. The initial judge was worried the TN jury would be too bigoted to treat a trans woman as a victim, the defense clearly thought so too, but you could also argue that all the accused would be doing was admitting that it was actually a hate crime to a “reasonable jury.”
It’s not a trans panic case if defendant was fucking trans woman over and over and over again. This is not a situation where defendant suddenly discovered the victim was trans.
This defendant liked fucking trans women. And apparently, he was scary to some of them, allegedly. That means he was creepy and possessive possibly, it does not mean he didn’t realize she was trans, found out, and panicked, thereby removing culpability somehow.
Defendants not being able to speak about all kinds of things to a jury is EXACTLY what is wrong with society. A defendant, on the stand, should be able to say whatever the hell they want, especially in cases that carry decades in prison. If the defendant is guilty, the DA should be able to bring that out on cross.
I also already think jurisprudence in the USA has gone down a dangerous path where more and more rights of defendants are systematically being removed. You see this all the time in cases: defendants can’t argue this, they aren’t allowed to present that, anyone on the jury pool who is black is removed, anyone who knows someone close who has been arrested gets removed, defendants rights are violated over and over and it’s “harmless.” The only jury left supports police and is a certain kind of jury and the only arguments that can be made to a jury are former-DA-turned-judge approved. It’s atrocious. (And please don’t tell me removing black jurors is actually illegal; it happens anyway all the time.)
I didn’t say we aren’t already on the path.