Tennessee court orders retrial in killing of trans woman, says jury was ‘misled’ on her gender
Paris Lee, who also went by the name Kitty Monroe online (Kitty Monroe/Facebook)
A Tennessee appeals court has overturned the voluntary manslaughter conviction of a man who shot and killed a Black trans woman. The court ruled that a jury should have been allowed to hear evidence about her sex assigned at birth as part of his self-defence claim.
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals filed its decision to remand Samuel Ward Jr’s case on 5 October and ordered a new trial in the June 2022 killing of Paris Lee. The three-judge panel found that the trial court had wrongly excluded evidence of Lee’s sex assigned at birth, which Ward’s lawyers argued was relevant to how much fear he experienced during the confrontation, as first reported by independent journalist Jamie Satterfield.
The ruling does not find that Lee’s killing was justified. Instead, it means Ward’s conviction has been vacated, and prosecutors have a legal entitlement to bring the appeal to a higher court.
The decision has raised concerns among LGBTQ+ advocates about the role a trans person’s identity can play in legal arguments about violence and the risk that stereotypes about trans women could be used to portray them as inherently threatening.
Court says evidence should have been admitted
Ward was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in May 2025 after a jury rejected his claim that he shot Lee in self-defence.
According to the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office, Ward went to Lee’s home, where an argument broke out. Lee asked him to leave, but he reportedly refused. Ward claimed Lee pointed a gun at him, causing him to fall backwards down a staircase. He said he then drew his own firearm and shot Lee from the bottom of the stairs.
Lee was shot six times. Prosecutors said the trajectories of the wounds contradicted Ward’s account, and Ward had no visible injuries. Investigators found one cartridge casing from Lee’s firearm. Ward left the scene and drove roughly 30 minutes home before calling 911, leaving Lee at the foot of the staircase.
During the original trial, the judge barred references to Lee’s sex assigned at birth, ruling that it was not relevant to whether a firearm posed a deadly threat. The court also redacted details from autopsy materials and photographs.
“A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon,” the trial judge said, according to the appellate opinion, arguing that a victim’s genitals did not change the deadliness of a firearm, as reported by Erin In The Morning via Substack.
The appeals court disagreed. It said the trial judge had failed to properly weigh the potential relevance of the evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice, and that excluding it had left jurors with the impression that Ward had killed a cisgender woman.
The panel also found that the ruling affected Ward’s ability to present his defence. During the trial, Ward declined to testify unless he was allowed to discuss Lee’s sex assigned at birth, saying he wanted to tell the “whole truth”.
The appeals court concluded that the evidence should have been admitted and that its exclusion had prevented Ward from fully presenting his case. It therefore reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.
Advocates warn of consequences for trans people
The ruling has alarmed LGBTQ+ advocates, who say it risks lending legal weight to the idea that a trans woman’s identity makes her more threatening than a cisgender woman.
Kayla Gore, executive director of My Sistah’s House, a Memphis organisation supporting Black and Brown trans people fleeing violence, said the decision sent a troubling message beyond the courtroom.
“What concerns me as a community organiser is what happens when a courtroom treats a Black trans woman’s identity as a material explanation for someone’s fears,” Gore told Erin in the Morning. “They want that as evidence presented to the jury or the judge as a deciding factor on whether or not this was self-defence. It sends a message far beyond the courtroom.”
Gore said the case had left people in the local trans community frightened. She added that while she understood the court was considering a defendant’s right to present a defence, there was an important distinction between deciding whether evidence is legally relevant and suggesting that a transgender woman is inherently more dangerous.
“There is a profound difference between saying evidence may be relevant to a legal defence, and saying that a transgender woman’s identity somehow makes her inherently more threatening,” she said.
Gore also warned that Black trans women are frequently stereotyped as “dangerous, deceptive, threatening”, and called the decision to order a new trial “a slap in the face of all survivors”.
What is the LGBTQ+ ‘panic’ defence?
The case has renewed attention on the so-called gay and trans “panic” defence, a legal strategy in which a defendant accused of violence argues that a victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity contributed to their fear, provocation or actions.
According to the LGBTQ+ Bar Association, the strategy can be used alongside other legal arguments, including self-defence or provocation, in an effort to reduce or avoid criminal liability. In self-defence cases, the argument can seek to portray a victim’s LGBTQ+ identity as making them more threatening than a cisgender or heterosexual person.
In Lee’s case, Ward’s lawyers argued that knowing Lee was assigned male at birth affected how much fear he felt during their confrontation. The appeals court held that this evidence could be relevant to assessing his claim.
The LGBTQ+ Bar Association says 21 states have laws barring the use of LGBTQ+ “panic” defences. Tennessee is not among them.
Michigan was one of the most recent states to ban the defence after governor Gretchen Whitmer signed a bill into law on 23 July 2024.
Actor Shia LaBeouf recently attempted to defend his alleged use of homophobic slurs following his February arrest for battery. In doing so, the 39-year-old claimed that “big gay people are scary” to him.
In Tennessee, Ward’s case now returns to the trial court, where prosecutors and Ward’s defence will have another opportunity to present their arguments.
