Case Highlight: A Traumatic Brain Injury That Never Happened. This transcript captures the closing argument in a high-stakes domestic violence case where our client faced an aggravated malicious wounding charge built on the claim that he bashed the complainant's head into a bathroom floor, strangled her, and left her with a permanent traumatic brain injury. We kept the focus where it belonged — on cold, hard facts: a floor without a scratch, a neck without a mark, a clean MRI, and the Commonwealth's own medical experts conceding there was zero objective evidence of any brain injury, all against a documented history of pre-existing conditions and medications that fully explained her symptoms. With the government's theory contradicted by virtually every medical record, the jury reduced a charge carrying to 20 years to life to a misdemeanor, ending a two-and-a-half-year nightmare for our client.

​

Thank you, Judge. Not a big fan of podiums. Good afternoon, everyone. Just before I begin my remarks, I did want to thank you for your jury service. Just to give some sense of perspective. What we've done over the last three days and what we're doing right now doesn't exist in most of the rest of the world. In most of the rest of the world, if the government tries to come after you, tries to claim that you did something, there is no meaningful opportunity to have evidence vetted by a jury of your peers. There's no opportunity to challenge evidence and have your attorney make arguments. And so from my perspective, it's something very special about this country. It's foundational to the country, really. It's in the US Constitution, it's in the Virginia Constitution as well. But I also know that no matter how old rights are and no matter how sacred the piece of parchment that they're written on, it's just words on a piece of paper at the end of the day. Unless and until people like you show up to do your civic duty. And you gave us time away from your family obligations and your work obligations, and I just wanted to let all of you know it is genuinely appreciated. And I think that's shared by everybody in the courtroom.

​

No one more so than [the defendant], who's been waiting a long time for this day, waiting and wondering with a guillotine hanging over his head for a long period of time. Wondering if he's going to be convicted of extraordinarily serious crimes that there is no remote basis in fact to support. That did not occur. The stakes today really cannot be any higher. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that this is the most important day of this man's life. When the stakes are this high, when the accusation is this serious, when the government comes before you with something like this, this is serious business. When they charge somebody with an offense of this nature, they're making you a promise. They're making you a promise that they have evidence that is so compelling, it's so clear, it's so consistent that after you've heard it all, you're going to be in a state of virtual certainty as to what occurred. Well, right now we've heard everything they've got. It's all come, it's all gone. They've proven no such thing, and come nowhere remotely close. This case was a complete face plant from start to finish. Frankly, an embarrassment.

​

When you view the evidence in this case, let me suggest to you where your focus should be. I am going to review the evidence in this case, but when you're evaluating this case in the jury deliberation room, where should your focus be? On facts. None of us were there that day. Not the prosecution, despite whatever vivid fantasies they might have. I wasn't there. None of you were. None of us know the complaining witness. All right, let's stop talking fantasies. Let's stop talking consulting the tarot cards. Put the focus on facts, because this is what I know about human beings, and we're all adults here. Every single one of you knows it. Human beings, they're complicated. Human beings have agendas, they have biases, they tell half truths, quarter truths, they exaggerate, and sometimes human beings outright lie. You know what doesn't do any of those things? Cold hard facts. And so that's where the focus has to be. Not on trying to look into somebody's eyes and ascertain, can I read their soul? We don't know this woman. Facts. And if you put your focus on facts where they belong rather than blind faith. Not only do the facts directly contradict the narrative that the government is selling you, they glaringly contradict it. Their story is not possible. All right, so let's talk about real facts.

​

All right, we've got to compare the facts to her story and see if they align. So, what's her story in a nutshell? My deranged boyfriend grabbed my head, a 200 pound man, and with 10 out of 10 force bashed my head into the ground at least half a dozen times on the hardwood floor. That's the story in a nutshell. All right, so let's compare that to facts. Fact number one, we'll just start from the beginning. They didn't bother to show these photos, but you'll have them in the jury deliberation room. There are two photos of the bathroom in question. She told you precisely where she said that her head was impacted. Right by the base of the toilet. Take a look at those photos, not so much as a scratch on the floor, not a dent, not a blemish, not a spot of blood, not even a hair, nothing. Zilch. A skull is pretty hard. The comparison I've always heard is that it's like a coconut. You take a coconut and bash it into the ground, 10 out of 10 force. It didn't leave anything. Miraculous. Is that possible? Probably not.

​

Fact number two, there are photographs taken by her daughter of any markings on her body. And you'll find remarkably, that despite this entire case revolving around a head injury. They allege he caused a traumatic brain injury causing permanent cognitive damage. There's not a single photo of her head. Why? Because there was no damage to her head. There's no injury to her head. It's pretty amazing, considering that's the entire reason you've been here for three days. Because of a so-called traumatic brain injury. Amazing. Okay, those two things seem pretty hard to explain.

​

All right, what's fact number three? She told the treating neurologist that during the assault she was strangled. Let's see if the evidence aligns with that. Well, we've got the urgent care clinic medical records. Those are from the following day. Take a look at them, they're going to be back there in the jury deliberation room. And you will see a very specific notation. They examined her head to toe. There is a notation for neck: full range of motion, that is the notation. F R O M. No bruising, no marks, no scratches, nothing. So where are we at now? She's been strangled without leaving marks on her neck of any sort. Her head's been bashed into the ground repeatedly without leaving any noticeable damage to her head. Somehow the bathroom floor has miraculously suffered not so much as a scratch. Maybe they haven't addressed any of this because they can't address it. You can't explain the unexplainable. And so sort of like a magician, they say: don't consider any of that, we'll just sweep it all under the rug.

​

What's the next fact? Are there any findings whatsoever to her face or her head as she's being gripped by the man with the black eyes, who is enraged beyond belief, as he bashes her head into the ground too many times to count into unconsciousness. Forget the fact that she also told multiple people she didn't lose consciousness, and that story has changed all over the place. But take that for whatever it's worth. Look at the urgent care clinic records. Nothing, her face had no damage at all. Period. To her head? No bruising, no abrasions, no lacerations. The only notation was a small bump. No attempt to date it, no attempt to say it's a fresh injury, no attempt to link it to any assault on January 11. A small bump on the head that could have been sustained at any point in time. We have no clue, and this is a woman who has fainting episodes. She's been hospitalized for it multiple times within the past month. She was just discharged from the hospital for suffering fainting episodes less than three weeks prior. The Commonwealth's medical expert even said it. Of course that could cause a small bump on the head. We've all had small bumps on the head. One thing I think we can all agree on is that it is not remotely consistent with the severity of this savage attack that she has described. Not in any way, shape, or form.

​

What's the next fact? Cold, hard, inconvenient fact for the government. There's brain imaging. We live in miraculous times with technology that allows physicians to see inside the skull to see if the brain has suffered any form of injury. And you've heard that there were CT scans done, and also an MRI. An MRI is the more sophisticated, more sensitive of those. The treating neurologist told you it's an amazing tool. It allows you to see brain matter down to the millimeter. And amazingly, again, despite this savage attack, where she has her head bashed into the ground to the point of unconsciousness, and according to their theory, has suffered a traumatic brain injury. Everybody across the board agrees the brain imaging shows zero damage. Nothing. Remarkable. Amazing. Okay, that seems like a lot of problems. The government hasn't even attempted to address any of them. Just sweep it all under the rug and believe her.

​

What about their own experts? Listening to that, I was flabbergasted at how they characterized [the medical expert's] and [the treating neurologist's testimony]. What did we hear from [the Commonwealth's medical expert]? I agree with you, there is zero objective medical evidence that would support the notion this woman suffered brain injury. There's nothing. I cannot point to a single medical record that would indicate she suffered brain injury. The entirety of that diagnosis, 100% is based on her word being accepted at face value. That is it. No medical evidence. What else did she tell you? She told you, yes, I was aware that the complaining witness had pre-existing PTSD prior to any event on January 11, 2024. And PTSD is a serious psychological diagnosis that carries with it profound cognitive impairments. Interesting, because when [the complaining witness] testified, she said, "Oh, I didn't have PTSD until post this incident, this is what caused my PTSD." Okay, so she lied. We know that through [the medical expert's] testimony. What else did [the medical expert] tell you? Getting a full, complete, and accurate medical history is crucial to providing any accurate, reliable diagnosis. And what did she tell you? I had nothing. The government, all of these records that have been admitted into evidence, I didn't get any of it. I don't know anything about this woman. The only thing I know is she self-reported a select portion of her university medical center records, but I know essentially nothing about her medical history. And I asked if she would provide it to me, and it was not provided. Frankly, I felt somewhat bad for [the medical expert]. By the end of her testimony, she said "I don't really even want to be here." That was awkward. And you see the email exchange she has with the prosecutor. She fully acknowledges, if the defense asks me about whether 50+ surgeries being put under could cause cognitive issues. I'm not going to have a very good answer. And if I get asked, could PTSD be causing these cognitive issues, I'm not going to have a great answer. So, maybe you ought to consider using somebody else, not me. You've got to be kidding me.

​

[The treating neurologist] told you that 95% of what he does is based on medical history, and again, same as the medical expert, if you're going to have a reliable, accurate diagnosis. You have to have a full, accurate, complete medical history. And what did he tell you consistently? I didn't know anything about her history. I didn't have a single medical record. I didn't have the urgent care clinic records. I didn't have her primary care doctor records. I didn't have records from her hospitalization at the local hospital. I didn't have any records from her hospitalization at the university medical center. I didn't have any of her psychiatric records. I had literally nothing. I didn't have a single medical document to consult. What else did he tell you? Again, the second expert that the government themselves put on when I asked him very directly, do you have a single shred of objective medical evidence to support that this woman has a traumatic brain injury? He said "no, absolutely nothing." And in fact, he disagreed with the medical expert. He said, "I definitively ruled out a traumatic brain injury." He called it post-concussive symptoms. Okay. I asked him again directly, what is your conclusion for that? Where is the medical basis for that? He said, "I don't have one." There is again not a single objective medical record that would support the notion this woman had her head bashed into the ground and suffered a brain injury. I am relying completely on her word. I also felt a little bad for [the treating neurologist], because he's been signing off on her disability paperwork. And he strikes me as a good man. I'm sure a hardworking man, enjoys working with his patients. I'm sure wants to do the right thing. And he is signing documents that dictate whether all our taxpayer money goes to somebody, where he is attesting this person is incapable of working. What did he tell you? I was never told this woman was working as a nanny. Take a look at the medical expert's records. She disclosed to the medical expert she was working, starting in October 2024. 24 hours a week, as a nanny. So she lied again. Maybe it's a lie of omission, but it is a lie. You're enlisting your neurologist to sign paperwork indicating you're not even suitable for trial employment. No accommodations could be made. You're completely helpless. It was a lie.

​

Okay, what else do they have, if anything? Well, what about the 911 recording? They conjure up a version of the 911 recording as somehow supporting their version of events. Well, I beg to differ. And I certainly invite you to listen to both of those calls again. The entirety of both calls only takes about six minutes, and the first one is made by the complaining witness, and you've heard her testimony very clearly. I wasn't able to complete the call because I was actively under assault. He was hitting me and pushing me and striking me. Listen to the call. Her tone is calm. You could even say serene. You hear no commotion whatsoever. She never reports that she's being actively assaulted. She never says anything to that effect. I candidly don't know what the government is talking about when they say that there is a commotion on that 911 reporting. Listen to it. I guess they're just saying, "Don't believe your own lying ears, believe us." C'mon. It speaks for itself. Listen to it. There's no commotion. You do hear [the defendant] say, "I'm just trying to get my stuff." He says it a couple of times. So again, we don't have the 911 recording supporting what happened. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say they don't have one iota, they don't not have one piece of evidence, literally not a single one remarkably that can support their version of events. And in fact almost all of the facts, they don't address. Because they can't. Not only don't they support her story, they glaringly contradict her story. Her story is irreconcilable with the actual facts. This is a woman with a repeated history of lying.

What haven't I even discussed yet? The medical history. Both of the doctors told you we don't even know much about her medical history. It seemed like they were learning things for the first time on cross examination. To say that she had a complex medical history would be an understatement. And let me make it very clear, I have sympathy for her. People don't choose to have to be sick, to need a pancreas transplant, to need immunosuppressants, to have profound psychological issues. I do have sympathy for her. I wouldn't do this job if I didn't have sympathy for those people, because plenty of my clients have those issues. And I believe people with psychological problems, they are genuinely suffering. But my sympathy does not extend so far as to say we should engage in blind belief, and sweep inconvenient facts under the rug. That is not what a court of law is about. It is about an objective, sober evaluation of facts. All right, so let's talk about her medical history. It's hard to even summarize it, because it's so lengthy. As far as her psychological history, she has PTSD, which we know causes profound cognitive impairments. She has ADHD. She has panic attacks. She has anxiety disorder. She is taking multiple medications associated with her psychological issues, including Adderall, including Xanax. What about her physical issues, which we heard, clearly physical issues can be linked to brain issues, because a person suffering physical issues is also going through mental anguish. But as far as physical issues go, this is a woman who had a pancreas transplant. She is actively on immunosuppressants. This is somebody who has a fainting disorder, documented multiple episodes of losing consciousness with no trauma whatsoever, just within the preceding month. This is a woman who has had over 50 surgical procedures being put under. And we have a candid admission by the Commonwealth's own expert, both in email form and in her testimony that being put under that many times can absolutely cause cognitive impairments. All of this pre-dating anything that we're discussing in this courtroom. We know that she suffered migraines, and she was on a drug called Topamax. A drug that's cognitive side effects are so notorious, their neurologist agreed people call it Dopamax. Topamax dopiness. It refers to the significant cognitive impairments that result from a person taking this medication. That's really just the tip of the iceberg, as far as the medications that she's on. She was on so many. Taking uppers, taking immunosuppressants, taking benzodiazepines, taking Topamax, Dopamax. The list of medications is too long to list. Shockingly, it wasn't even provided to her treating neurologist. That blows my mind. He doesn't even know what medications his own patient is taking when he's prescribing her dementia meds, to a 41 year old. That is mind blowing to me. But in any event, the medical expert agreed, and it's frankly common sense that not only can each of these medications individually cause cognitive problems, if you add six together, a dozen together, it's more than a dozen. It has an, in the medical expert's words, an additive effect. Meaning they pile on top of one another. This was a woman who was suffering. She was suffering severe medical problems, severe cognitive problems before any events on January 11, 2024. And yet, the government says again, don't consider it. We're not even going to address it. It's inconvenient. We can't explain it. It's irreconcilable with our version of the case.

​

Which takes me to [the daughter]. Truly, I am not going to run her down, even a little bit. A 14 year old child, now 16, getting dragged into the courtroom like this is gross. I feel terrible for her. I have three daughters of my own, four children, three daughters. All pretty close in age to her. I've got an 18 year old, 16 year old, and a 12 year old daughter. And the idea that any one of them would be subjected to this sort of thing, it makes me angry. It's upsetting. I feel terrible for that girl. But what did she tell you? She told you I didn't see anything. They fought on a regular basis. I was in my room upstairs. It took place downstairs. I heard a commotion, I heard screaming, I heard [the defendant] saying liar, liar, but I didn't see anything. When you listen to her 911 call, you'll hear her say I was outside the whole time on January 12. So the idea that she saw anything in the home on that day is just strictly not true. You heard her say that. Yes, my mother was describing that she was suffering head pain. We also know this is a woman with a history of migraines who's on a hardcore migraine anti-seizure medication. Again, I'm not blaming the daughter. I'm not here trying to call her a liar at all, but again, just common sense. I'm sure many of you have children. The idea that you would have this two+ year ordeal. That your daughter is subpoenaed and is going to be a witness in a trial. And you, as the mother, never had a conversation with her about it. I think that's hard to believe.

​

The last witness was [the supervisor]. [The supervisor] told you that [the complaining witness] was a valued employee. There was a period of time where she was doing a great job, and I take that at face value. I have no doubt that at some point she was doing a good job at the state forensic laboratory. But what the supervisor could not dispute is that in the past year there obviously had been profound issues with her ability to do her job. She had missed over 650 hours in one year. I know the supervisor had quibbled with how you wanted to frame the leave. FMLA is called FMLA Leave. She took 480 hours of that, about 170 other hours, and if you listen to the complaining witness's own testimony, she owned all of it. She was out of work more than 650 hours in 2023 which translates to 81 and a half work days out in one year. She had missed pretty much the entirety of December, the month immediately leading up to this event. And the supervisor knew absolutely nothing about her medical condition, and rightfully so. She's not a treatment provider, she's a forensic chemist. She knows absolutely nothing about the complaining witness's medical history. To the extent she knew anything about it, it sounds quite concerning that there were incidents where she's passing out in her own closet. But this idea, this narrative that the government has attempted to paint, that she was a total all-star employee, and there were no issues, and then she promptly fell off the cliff post this incident. And therefore you should draw causation between her inability to work and whatever happened on January 11. Give me a break. She was out all of December, missed 81 and a half days, and so the idea that she was a rock star employee is just simply not supported by the record, all right.

​

So I've probably gone through it too thoroughly, and I'm sorry if I bored you, but it's important that we get through all the facts. Those are the facts as best as I can recite them, and so now it's your job shortly to take those facts and determine whether the government has met their burden in this case. So, let's talk about the burden that they have. The burden the government has is to prove every single one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sure every single one of you has heard that phrase. I doubt you've given it a whole lot of reflection until now, because you simply haven't been put in this position before. You are in an incredibly powerful position today. Beyond a reasonable doubt. You will get a jury instruction. And just in case you were worried, you do not have to memorize all of that, all those instructions go back there with you. The instructions will tell you some of the things that beyond a reasonable doubt is not. It will tell you that a suspicion, no matter how strong, is not sufficient for the government to meet their burden. So, even if, hypothetically, you said, "You know what, I'm going to sweep everything under the rug: her medical history, the fact that the MRI is totally clean, the fact there's no marks of any significance on her face or her head, there's no damage to the floor. I'm just going to ignore all of the various inconsistencies with the doctors. I'm just going to ignore all of it. I want to improperly try to stare somebody in the face and blindly believe them. And I say, "I strongly suspect." That's not enough. You can shut down your deliberations right then and there. They haven't proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It tells you that a probability of guilt isn't enough. So the same thought exercise. You come to the conclusion, I think he probably did it. They've come absolutely nowhere close to that, but even if somehow you did come to that conclusion, they haven't proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It's over.

​

I'll put it to you another way that makes it more impactful to me. The burden they have today is the highest burden that exists in this country. You could walk into any courtroom in this country, federal court, state court, Alaska, California, Texas. The burden that they have that is before you today is the highest burden that exists in this country. We're not always here about criminal cases. Courtrooms host disputes about money, property, custody of children. The burden they have today is higher than what's required to take your money from you, your property from you, your children from you. And the reason the burden in a criminal case is that extraordinarily high, we don't guess people into criminal convictions in this country. We don't guess people into prison in this country. We're a country that's founded on notions of freedom and liberty. We sure as hell haven't always lived up to it, but that is the ideal that we strive towards. And we don't take away people's freedom lightly. And so we demand overwhelming evidence. And when you're talking about the highest burden that exists in the entire country, it logically flows that it demands the highest quality of evidence. And the simple question for you is, "Has the highest quality of evidence been presented to me to corroborate this version of events?" And I think the very simple, very emphatic, and resounding answer to that question is no. Not anywhere close. Not only have they not provided that level of evidence, they've provided no evidence. To the extent they have provided evidence, not only does it not support their theory, it contradicts their theory.

​

A visualization that I've had about beyond a reasonable doubt since early in my career. Maybe it's a little bit cheesy, but just stick with me through it for a moment. The way I visualize it is the government's case is a boat. And it starts at the port of the presumption of innocence. That's where every person accused in this country starts. That's where he remains throughout the entirety of a trial. That's where he is right now. And they've got to navigate that boat across a vast ocean, the greatest legal burden that exists in this country, beyond a reasonable doubt, to get to the destination of a conviction. And in order to do that, their boat, their case had better be really strong. It had better be near perfect. And when I visualize it in those terms, this falls apart pretty quickly. The boat comes out of the port, all right. Photos of the scene show no damage to the floor whatsoever. Well, that's at least a hole in the boat. We're taking on some water, the crew's bailing out water. Okay, what's the next thing? Well, she said she was strangled. There's absolutely no marks on her neck. That's a little bit bigger hole in the boat. More water pours in. Okay, well, she was gripped by her head, by her face, supposedly, and had her head bashed into the ground. There's no findings of any significance to her face, her head, her neck. Seems pretty unexplainable. That's more of a cannonball-sized hole in the boat. The water's just gushing in now. It's pretty safe to say it's underwater. The case is over. And yet, you just keep going. The woman is on too many medications to count, all of which contribute to cognitive impairments. Now the boat's just splintering and falling apart to the bottom of the ocean. I won't go through the whole thought exercise with every fact that I've already discussed, but you get my point. Not only did they not manage to navigate their boat across the greatest legal burden in this country, I don't think it made it barely off the dock. This thing didn't make it out of harbor before it sank.

I am going to wrap up momentarily. To the extent I talked too long already, I apologize. It's hard. It's hard as the defense attorney, because this is the last time I get to talk to you. And like I said, this is probably the most important day of my client's life, and I take my responsibility to him seriously. It's hard, because when I sit down, I don't get to say anything else. They get to get back up, and I guarantee you, they will say things, and I will want to say no, that's not what the evidence showed. I'll want to make counter arguments, but that's not the way the rules work. I sit down, I have to be professional, I've got to be quiet, and I'm going to do that. But the point I want to make to you is just because they say it lasts, it doesn't make it so. Alright, the government does not get the final word, I don't get the final word. You do, and your final word comes in the form of your verdict. And when 12 of you go back into that room momentarily, your verdict is required to be unanimous. That means all 12 of you will have to agree on what the appropriate verdict in this case is. But let me put it to you in a way that I think makes it more meaningful. There is no hiding behind anybody else. Every single one of you individually holds the outcome of this case in your hands. Every single one of you, not only can, but in fact, you have an obligation to stand up and to say, I'm not going to be a party to this. I'm not going to rubber stamp a government theory that makes absolutely no sense. That is contradicted by every single medical record. I am not going to engage in blind belief. Every person making an allegation in this country is entitled to two things: being listened to and being taken seriously. Nothing more, nothing less. [The complaining witness] received both of those things. What no man, no woman is entitled to is blind belief. This situation, frankly, should be terrifying to every single one of you, because what it shows is that every single one of us, all that is standing between us and being at a defense counsel table with our life on the line, is an ex-girlfriend, an ex-spouse, a disgruntled neighbor pointing the finger of accusation and saying you did something. Even if there's zero evidence to support it. That's all it takes. It's terrifying.

 

The only appropriate verdict in this case is not guilty, and when you walk out of the deliberation room and hand a piece of paper with that verdict to the clerk, you can feel good, you can feel proud, you can walk out of this courthouse with your head held high. Because you will have accomplished several things. One, you will have done the job that you swore to do when you raised your right hand and were sworn in as jurors. It is the only appropriate verdict in this case, and it is not particularly close. Two, you will have demonstrated that a man in this country will get a fair trial. The presumption of innocence will be honored. The demand for proof beyond a reasonable doubt will be honored. And you will have accomplished justice. You will have ended a two and a half year nightmare odyssey for a man that did not commit the crime that he's accused of. If any of the evidence had been vetted properly, as it should have been before today, we wouldn't be here. We're relying on you to do the vetting that nobody from the government has bothered to do. The nightmare ends now. He is not guilty. The only appropriate verdict is not guilty. I appreciate your time again. I appreciate your attention to my arguments, and again, thank you for your service.