Tex McIver called his wife, Diane, the love of his life. But after shooting her to death in the back while their friend drove them home, he seemed most concerned about her money and his future. The question that haunted the case: were these the actions of a grieving husband or a cold-blooded killer?
Background
Tex and Diane McIver married in 2005. Friends described them as deeply in love — he always called her "Darling," and they never spoke a cross word to one another in public. The couple lived in a Buckhead condo and owned a ranch. Tex worked at a law firm; Diane was a professional with colleagues who adored her.
On the night of the shooting, Dani Jo Carter — Diane's friend of 40 years — drove the couple home. According to Tex, he was reaching for a gun in his bag when it accidentally discharged, striking Diane in the back. The Fulton County District Attorney's Office disagreed, charging him with murder.
The murder trial lasted 25 days. The prosecution called 70 witnesses, many of whom encountered Tex in the minutes, hours, and days after Diane's death. Their testimony painted a portrait that seemed inconsistent with a husband who had just lost his wife in what he claimed was a tragic accident.
The Investigation
The prosecution's case hinged not on what happened before the shooting, but on how Tex behaved afterward. Witness after witness took the stand and described interactions that seemed surprising for a man whose wife had just died.
Dani Jo Carter, who drove the couple home and then took Tex to his condo, testified that she never saw him "break down." "He appeared calm," she said on the stand. Carter noted he did not appear to be in shock.
Less than 48 hours after Diane died, two of her colleagues visited Tex to offer condolences. Both testified that Tex asked them about his wife's Social Security benefits. As colleague Jay Grover testified, Tex said, "I wonder if I can collect her checks now." Later that night, Grover overheard Tex mention a job in Oklahoma he was interested in.
The other colleague, Ken Rickert, testified that after asking about Social Security benefits, Tex began complaining about his salary being cut at the law firm and the cost of maintaining his ranch. "I expected at that point in time, he would tell me how sorry he was and how it was a terrible, tragic accident, and say how much he loved Diane. But I never heard that," Rickert said.
The Charges
In 2018, a jury convicted Tex McIver of felony murder. The conviction carried a mandatory life sentence. But the case took an unexpected turn when McIver won an appeal in 2022. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that jurors should have been able to consider the lesser charge of misdemeanor involuntary manslaughter.
On January 26, 2024, McIver pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter in exchange for a prison sentence of eight years. With credit for time served, he was released in January 2025.
Key Takeaways
- The prosecution called 70 witnesses during the 25-day trial, but only one testified to seeing Tex show signs of sorrow
- Within 48 hours of Diane's death, Tex asked colleagues about collecting her Social Security benefits
- Two days before Diane's memorial service, Tex wondered aloud to Diane's assistant if he could get his former girlfriend back
- Tex sold Diane's clothes, shoes, hats, purses, and furs in an estate sale just over two months after her death
- A month later, he auctioned off her jewelry
- The prosecution never called the couple's masseuse to testify, but the defense did; she denied any sexual relationship with Tex
- Only one witness — Rachel Styles, who coordinated the McIvers' wedding — testified that Tex grieved "properly," describing him as crying uncontrollably
What's Next
With McIver's release in January 2025, the criminal case has reached its conclusion. The questions raised by his conduct after Diane's death — whether his grief was genuine or performative, whether the shooting was accidental or intentional — may never be fully answered. What remains is a case that illustrates how post-offense behavior can become evidence, and how optics in the wake of tragedy can shape a jury's perception long before deliberations begin.