LEGAL ANALYSIS: Custody Argument Turns Deadly in Lubbock, Texas
March 18, 2024
AOR Program Update - 4/1/25
The Attorneys On Retainer Program has been updated since this video was initially released. The program is designed with the same strengths as the original program, particularly its close affiliation with the only law firm in the United States working solely on self-defense cases, and this new program includes much more! For additional information, click here.
The defendant in a high-profile case out of Lubbock, Texas, was cleared of criminal charges but now faces a civil case. Criminal defense attorneys Marc J. Victor and Andrew C. Marcantel discuss the legal and practical implications of the case, highlighting the ongoing legal battles that can follow a self-defense incident. They delve into the nuances of self-defense law, the role of the grand jury, and the complexities of civil liability even after a criminal acquittal.
Footage Overview
Video footage captured Chad Read in a heated argument with his ex-wife over custody of their son. During the altercation, Kyle Carruth, Mr. Read’s ex-wife’s boyfriend, emerges from the building holding a firearm and orders Mr. Read to leave his property. As Mr. Read approaches and attempts to grab the weapon, Mr. Carruth fires a warning shot near his feet. A physical struggle follows, with both men wrestling over the gun. Mr. Carruth is thrown aside but manages to maintain control of the weapon. The incident escalates further, culminating in Mr. Carruth firing two shots at Mr. Read.
Criminal Analysis
The attorneys acknowledge that Mr. Read appears physically larger than Mr. Carruth, and that his aggressive posture – puffing out his chest and threatening to take the gun – could reasonably be perceived as posing a risk of serious bodily injury. They agree that Mr. Carruth would have been justified in using physical force in self-defense. The attorneys highlight the warning shot as a critical moment in the incident, framing it as a measured escalation that demonstrates Mr. Carruth’s initial attempt to avoid using lethal force.
“He’s right in his face, he’s got the chest puffed out, he’s clearly threatening physical force, and he’s big enough that the threat could be perceived as a potential serious physical injury.”
– Attorney Victor
They also note that Mr. Read appears to be the initial aggressor, citing his threatening statements, including, “You better use [the gun]” and “I’ll take it from you and f*** you up.” Such verbal threats could be interpreted as creating an imminent threat.
However, the attorneys express some hesitation in fully endorsing Mr. Carruth’s actions. In particular, the moment after the initial shots, when he is seen pointing the gun at Mr. Read, who is briefly off-camera and unarmed. This raises concerns about whether the threat remained imminent at that point, which could complicate a claim of self-defense.
The Role of the Grand Jury
Rather than immediately filing charges, the prosecutor chose to present the case to a grand jury. This approach is often considered wise in contentious cases where the facts could be interpreted in multiple ways.
The grand jury reviewed the evidence associated with Mr. Carruth’s case for over three days and ultimately chose not to indict him. This decision means the jury did not find sufficient probable cause to move forward with formal criminal charges.
The Secrecy of the Grand Jury: A grand jury does not decide guilt or innocence. Instead, a grand jury’s role is to determine whether there’s enough probable cause to issue a criminal indictment. Grand jury proceedings are held secretly, and the defense is generally not allowed to participate or present evidence. While this confidentiality has drawn criticism for a lack of transparency, the attorneys commended the grand jury’s thorough review of Mr. Carruth’s case.
“Just to say a word about the level of secrecy of this hearing, in many jurisdictions it’s even a crime for the prosecutor to inform anybody when the grand jury hearing is going to be.”
– Attorney Marcantel
Implication of a Non-indictment: Although the grand jury chose not to indict Mr. Carruth, it does not necessarily close the door on a potential criminal prosecution. A prosecutor could bring the case before another grand jury or pursue a preliminary hearing. However, legal ethics discourage repeated attempts without new or compelling evidence.
Civil Liability and Wrongful Death Lawsuits
After the incident, Mr. Read’s mother and his widow filed separate wrongful death lawsuits against Mr. Carruth. These suits were combined into a single case by a judge. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages for Mr. Read’s death. Though the grand jury declined to indict Mr. Carruth, that does not shield him from civil liability. A civil jury could determine that his use of force was unjustified.
Criminal vs. Civil Standards: One significant difference between civil and criminal courts is the burden of proof. Criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard in the legal system. However, civil cases require only a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the evidence must be slightly more than 50%. Because the standard of proof is lower in civil court, plaintiffs may still succeed even when criminal charges are unsuccessful.
“The way it’s often described in law school is 50% plus a feather, so just a tad more than 50%.”
– Attorney Victor
Significance of a Witness Testimony: Testimony from eyewitnesses, such as Mr. Read’s wife, who was present at the scene, could play a crucial role in the civil case. Her account of Mr. Read’s posture and actions during the altercation could heavily influence how the jury interprets Mr. Carruth’s behavior and whether it was legally justifiable.
Length of Civil Cases: Unlike criminal cases, civil cases often take much longer to resolve. There is no right to a speedy trial, and proceedings can last for many months or even years. The attorneys emphasize that the decision may be delayed or settled before a verdict is reached.
Insurance Companies: Financial Factors
Source of Recovery: For a wrongful death lawsuit to proceed, there must be a viable source of financial recovery through assets or insurance. If a defendant lacks both, plaintiffs may decide it is not worth the time or expense to sue. In this case, Mr. Carruth is a land developer with considerable assets. That financial standing makes him a more likely target for a lawsuit, as there is a greater potential for monetary recovery.
Insurance Coverage Issues: Many insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for incidents related to criminal or domestic violence. This can leave defendants exposed to massive civil judgments.
“Some of these insurance-based coverages, some of them have come out and flat out said, ‘If you take a plea or you’re found guilty, all coverage ends.’”
– Attorney Victor
Judgment Proof Individuals: A person with no assets or insurance is considered “judgment proof,” meaning a court could rule against them, but the plaintiff may never collect a dime. This status can significantly influence whether a lawsuit is pursued at all. In contrast, criminal restitution orders are generally not dischargeable. That makes criminal convictions with financial penalties more effective in ensuring that victims receive compensation.
If you want reliable legal defense without all the unnecessary exclusions, be sure to check our Attorneys On Retainer Program. For more information, contact us by calling (866)-404-5112 or email us.
