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
[–] 33 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Wait, wtf? What does that have to do with anything?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 days ago* (2 children)

    if I'm being extremely generous their (still very fucked up) argument is that a jury would be more likely to believe there was an imminent threat of harm from a "biological male" than a "biological female". They might even be correct with regards to how the information would impact the views of a Tennessee jury.

    Still completely fucked and demonstrates a huge part of what's wrong with our judicial system. Everything a jury needs to know about whether a person would reasonably feel in imminent danger can be described without ever mentioning sex or gender.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    threat of harm from a “biological male” than a “biological female”.

    Seems to me basing that on gender is sexism. Absolutely statistically this is true, but the case was presumably based on the individuals in question, not on statistics. The evidence should determine the case not prejudice.

    The trial court’s judge had disallowed the defense from presenting the victim’s identity as a transgender woman in its arguments.

    That's a good call to avoid prejudice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    Exactly. This is what I meant with the end of my comment. If they really feel the need to get into physicality of the perceived threat they can talk about height, weight, BMI, and any number of other genderless metrics.

    But it's Tennessee so they're of course trying to use bias to their advantage in this case

  • source
  • parent