Kayla Giles Case Gets a MASSIVE UPDATE!
July 7, 2025
The Louisiana Supreme Court has vacated the second-degree murder conviction of Kayla Giles – an outcome criminal defense attorneys Marc J. Victor and Andrew C. Marcantel have long argued was the only just result. This development marks a significant chapter in the highly publicized case that has raised questions about self-defense laws, adequate legal representation, and the obligations of self-defense insurance providers. The attorneys discuss the implications of the court’s decision and the ethical issues exposed.
“So, this case really got a major gut punch by the Louisiana Supreme Court. And it wasn’t just this case that got a gut punch. It was the USCCA that actually deserved a gut punch for not only dropping their client in their time of need but then trashing her on the internet.”
– Attorney Victor
Background
Ms. Giles was involved in a self-defense incident during a routine custody exchange with her ex-husband. According to official records, she shot her estranged husband as he opened the door to her vehicle. Immediately after the incident, Ms. Giles contacted the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), an organization she had trusted to provide legal protection. Despite having paid approximately $50,000 in legal fees, USCCA abruptly withdrew its support and ceased funding her defense before the trial. This sudden withdrawal raised concerns among followers of the case, many of whom believed the shooting constituted an act of self-defense. Nevertheless, Ms. Giles was convicted of second-degree murder at trial.
“It was our opinion after reviewing that file, talking to Kayla, talking to her trial lawyer, talking to her appellate lawyer, that this was certainly a defensible case of self-defense.”
– Attorney Victor
USCCA’s Response
After USCCA withdrew its support from Ms. Giles, attorneys Victor and Marcantel decided to meet with the attorney originally assigned to the case by USCCA. The attorneys wanted to understand why the organization had dropped its support. According to the attorneys, the trial lawyer was also confused by the decision, as he believed the case was defensible and saw no apparent reason for USCCA to withdraw.
“His exact words were, ‘This was one of the most defensible self-defense cases I’ve ever had in my career.’ That got our attention.”
– Attorney Victor
The head of USCCA, Tim Schmidt, attempted to justify their actions by publicly claiming it had become “perfectly clear” Ms. Giles had committed “premeditated murder.” The attorneys emphasized that premeditated murder refers to deliberate and planned killing, typically prosecuted under first-degree murder statutes. However, Ms. Giles was charged with second-degree murder, which generally includes some sort of intent but not premeditation. That distinction alone undermines USCCA’s public position.
“That wasn’t even clear to the prosecutor . . . That’s why they brought a second-degree murder charge, not first degree.”
– Attorney Victor
The attorneys describe how USCCA’s influencers further defamed Ms. Giles and The Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm (AFF), alleging anti-Second Amendment biases, which Marc and Andrew vehemently denied. In response, AFF released a video to clarify and defend our views on gun rights and self-defense laws. USCCA escalated by sending cease-and-desist letters to suppress the circulation of the clips from their video, effectively erasing those statements from public access online.
“So, of course, the very worst thing that could have happened to USCCA happened. The Louisiana Supreme Court just entirely vacated Kayla Giles’ second-degree murder conviction.”
– Attorney Victor
Significant Legal Errors Exposed
Amid growing public scrutiny, the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed Ms. Giles’ case and expressed skepticism about the evidence presented at trial. The court identified two key reversible errors that had occurred during the original proceedings.
“First of all, there was a jury instruction that was given that shouldn’t have been given. And second of all, there was a jury instruction that should have been given that wasn’t.”
– Attorney Marcantel
- An Erroneous Jury Instruction: The jury was wrongly instructed that they could disregard Ms. Giles’ claim of self-defense if they found her to be the aggressor. Yet, the Louisiana Supreme Court found no evidence that Ms. Giles was the aggressor, making the instruction improper.
- A Missing Jury Instruction: The trial court failed to instruct the jury on Louisiana’s Stand Your Ground law. Under Louisiana law, when a person is inside their vehicle and someone unlawfully attempts to enter, the law provides a presumption of reasonableness for the use of deadly force.
“She was legally permitted to use deadly physical force to stop that unlawful entry into her vehicle, which nobody really disputed in this case.”
– Attorney Victor
The Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision means not only that the conviction was vacated, but also that any potential retrial must now include proper instructions reflecting these legal protections. The court also remanded Ms. Giles’ separate conviction for obstruction of justice back to the lower court, citing both questionable evidentiary support and disproportionate sentencing.
“The Louisiana Supreme Court is certainly not convinced that there’s enough evidence here for an obstruction of justice conviction. Nor are they convinced that the thirty-year sentence . . . is appropriate either.”
– Attorney Victor
The Next Chapter: A Dream Defense Team
Attorneys Victor and Marcantel confirmed they will now represent Ms. Giles going forward. The firm has already assembled a team of legal professionals and experts to prepare for a potential retrial. However, they hope to persuade the prosecutor not to pursue the case further, especially in light of the Louisiana Supreme Court’s findings and the now-recognized flaws in the initial proceedings.
“We’ve spoken to Kayla. Kayla is excited to have us as her counsel in this case, and we are going to bring it big.”
– Attorney Marcantel
If you want reliable legal defense for self-defense cases 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.
