Case Highlight: Our client acted out of fear and instinct, not intent to harm. Our client was charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer after a routine traffic stop went sideways. When the officer attempted to handcuff her for a misdemeanor warrant, she instinctively pulled away, an act of fear, not aggression. The government argued she intended to cause harm, but the evidence told a different story: bodycam footage showed confusion, panic, and defensive movement, with no deliberate attack. Intent is the key element in an assault case, and the prosecution failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. After reviewing the evidence, the jury returned a not guilty verdict.

 

Before I launch into the remarks, I did want to take a few moments, and I know [THE JUDGE], thanked you right from the jump, but I wanted to thank you as well for your service today. Just to get a little sense of perspective, what we've done today and what we're doing right now doesn't exist in most of the rest of the world. So if you're one of the billions of people who live in Russia, China, North Korea, among many other places, and the government comes after you and they want you to be convicted of something, there is no meaningful opportunity to have a fair trial. There is certainly no right to have the case vetted and decided by a jury of your peers from the community. It's so woven into the fabric of our country that, like the judge said, it's in the US Constitution, it's in the Virginia constitution. But what I want to tell you is, it's just words on a piece of paper, no matter how sacred the document might be, unless and until people like you answer the call you took time out of your family obligations, your work obligations, and so I wanted to offer you my very genuine thanks, because it wouldn't have happened without you. And I'm sure the government does likewise, and certainly [THE DEFENDANT] does as well.

 

She's been waiting two and a half years to get to today, this guillotine has been hanging over her head for two and a half years, waiting and wondering every day in the back of her mind whether she might be convicted of this extremely serious crime that in no way, shape or form matches what actually occurred. Let me make it very clear, we're here for one simple reason. She was overcharged, overcharged dramatically. All right, so this case is not about the distraction about did she handle the situation perfectly? Should she have just complied with the officer? Hindsight 20/20 of course she would have, that's not the issue. The issue is, have they proven an assault and battery of a law enforcement officer? And the very simple, very resounding answer to that question is no. And they've come absolutely nowhere close. And that's for one simple legal and factual reason they are required to prove which they just glossed over during their presentation, an intent to inflict bodily harm. It's not just a question of was some contact made. It has to be contact coupled with an intent to inflict bodily harm on [THE OFFICER], and they have utterly failed to prove that.

 

This could not be a more simple factual case. Most cases, we're talking dozens of witnesses and sometimes hundreds of exhibits. In this case, you have a nice luxury, which is you can review all the relevant evidence. It's about five minutes of body cam. You can do it two, three times as many times as you'd like, freeze frame it if you need to. And that's a nice luxury to have, because you can review the whole case very simply, very easily. Again, when you're viewing that video, I would ask that you laser focus on the one singular issue here. What was her intent? When we're talking about intent, intent is obviously, necessarily, it's invisible because it's a state of mind. It only exists within a person's head, so you can't see it. So in order to have any sort of meaningful analysis about intent, what that requires you to do is to make your best effort to put yourself in [THE DEFENDANT]'s shoes and to try to experience what she was experiencing. It requires empathy.

 

When you're looking at the body cam, you're going to see [THE OFFICER], obviously, approach the vehicle. This could not have been a more mundane traffic stop. It's an issue with stickers on the license plate being expired. And in fact, she did have a current registration. She just hadn't put the new stickers on. You'll see that she appears mildly nervous. Obviously, that's completely normal. Probably everybody here has experienced it. If you have red and blue lights flashing behind you, it's not pleasant. It's nerve wracking for anybody, your heart rate's going to go up a little bit, adrenaline starts flowing. And I think that's precisely what you see exhibited when [THE OFFICER] approaches the vehicle. She's smiling. It's almost overly smiling, kind of clenched teeth smile. She's talking fast, sort of telltale signs of mild nervousness, which I think any reasonable person in her position would feel. Where it begins to take a turn is when [THE OFFICER] commands her to get out of the vehicle. And I'd ask that you pay close attention to her body language, her facial expression, her tone of voice. You'll see she furrows her brow, her eyes widen wide, and you can almost see the gears turning in her mind at that point, this doesn't seem normal. It's an issue over the stickers on my license plate. Why am I getting out of the vehicle?

 

But she complies. She's polite. She gets out, and then [THE OFFICER] tells her to step around to the rear of the vehicle, which she complies. And it's really just a matter of seconds, maybe less than five seconds, before he tells her, I'm going to put you in handcuffs because there's a warrant, a misdemeanor warrant, for reckless driving. And I ask that you pay very close attention to her reaction, instantaneously. What? Why? I wasn't reckless driving. She's confused, and at that point, [THE OFFICER] goes hands on and puts his hand on her arm to put her in handcuffs. I think this is an extremely important point in the body cam, and you might want to take a look at it more than a few times. She immediately says, No. She yanks away from his grasp and she turns to go in the other direction. Let's just pause for a moment here, because, again, the singular issue is intent. I mean, this is the thing with human beings. We are the peak of the intellectual food chain on this planet. But we're still animals, and like all animals, we have instincts. One of the instincts baked into the DNA of every single one of us is a fight or flight instinct. Doesn't matter who you are, it's true of all living beings. If you perceive a threat to your body, you will react. It is an instinct, and it's very clear that she had an instinctual reaction to being grabbed by [THE OFFICER], and it wasn't a fight instinct. She didn't square up to fight him, she didn't raise her fist, she didn't make any threats to him. It was a flight instinct. She's trying to get away from him. She pulls away. She starts moving away from him, because she's scared. It's very clear she's scared. She's screaming. It's only just a matter of moments before she's taken to the ground. Face first, her clothes are getting hiked up. Abrasion on her elbow that's bleeding, and she's screaming at the top of her lungs, help me. Help me. Help me. She's asking for a female officer. It's abundantly clear what she's experiencing in that moment is pure terror.

 

Now there could be a reasonable conversation about, well, how reasonable was that? It's her subjective experience that you have to consider, and it's abundantly clear this isn't being faked. It's a very authentic reaction. She's terrified. So again, let's just circle back to what intent is. Intent is conscious reflection. You're thinking about something, and then you're making a choice. You're making a decision. Intent is not instinct, intent is not fear. Intent is not screaming, help me. Help me. This was instinct, not an intent to commit bodily harm. I appreciate [THE OFFICER]'s candor in testifying that he had no injuries whatsoever, not a bruise, not a scratch, not any minor redness. They don't have to prove a physical injury. I still think it's relevant to your analysis. If you take a look at the body cam as many times as you want, perhaps you'll disagree with me. From my perspective, I see no slap as described. And I get it the body cam can't capture everything, but you never see an arm rear back. You never see the officer jerk in either direction. It's certainly not clearly reflected. Now that being said, I'm not calling him a liar. Okay, I don't think he would just make it up to go through all this, so I take him at his word that some sort of contact happened. Whether it was a deliberate slap, I might take issue with. I mean, that's for you to decide on, but whether a slap happened or not, quite frankly, isn't the issue. The issue is the intent. Even if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that a slap occurred, which I don't think that it has even been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but even assuming that you find that it did, they certainly haven't proven intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Let's talk about beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sure all of you have heard the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt. I doubt you've given it much deeper reflection, because you've never been in the position that you're in today. You heard the jury instructions that [THE JUDGE] read. There's two of them that touch on what beyond a reasonable doubt, what that burden means. That's the burden the government has today. They more tell you what it's not. The jury instructions tell you that a suspicion, no matter how strong, is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So in other words, if you go back into the deliberation room and you determine man, I really strongly suspect her intent was to commit a bodily injury to [THE OFFICER], but I can't get beyond that. The case is over, you can stop deliberating. It's not guilty. That's the only appropriate verdict. The probability of guilt is not enough. So exact same thought exercise, you conclude she probably intended to commit bodily harm to [THE OFFICER], but can't get beyond probably. The case is over. Not guilty, done. Let me describe beyond a reasonable doubt in a way that makes it a little bit more meaningful to me. It is the highest legal burden that exists in the US legal system. You could walk into a federal courtroom, a state courtroom, Alaska, California, Texas, New York. Doesn't matter where you go. The burden the government has today is the highest burden that exists in this country. Put it one more way that makes it even a little bit more meaningful to me, these courtrooms don't always host criminal cases. Obviously, there are cases that involve disputes about money, disputes about property, disputes over custody of a child, the burden the government has today is higher than the burden required to take your property from you, your money from you, your children from you, the most precious thing that any of us can have. And why is the burden of proof in a criminal case so extraordinarily high in this country? Because this country is founded on freedom and liberty. We haven't always lived up to those ideals, but those are the ideals that we strive towards, and we don't take away somebody's freedom and their liberty unless there has been overwhelming evidence. That's why the evidentiary standard they have is the platinum standard, because the stakes are high today. Make no mistake about it, I'm not exaggerating when I tell you this is one of, if not the most important day of this woman's life. Everything is on the line for her today. And so the simple question for you is, have they proven, through that video, to the highest legal standard that exists in this country that both a a deliberate slap occurred and that two, it was done with the intent to commit bodily harm to the officer? The very straightforward, very simple, very resounding answer to that question is absolutely not and they came nowhere close.

 

I probably talked too long already for what, frankly is a very simple, singular issue. And I've probably already beaten a dead horse. I think you all understand what the relevant issue in the case is. It's just it's always a very frustrating time when I sit down, because this is the last opportunity I have to address you. And I've done it long enough to know, every single time, invariably I sit down, I immediately think to myself, you forgot this great portion of your closing argument, or your wording in this section was terrible, and it's painful, and then the prosecution gets to get up and to speak. And again, almost invariably, I want to stand up and say, No, that's not so, you're misconstruing it. Or I want to make a counterpoint, and I can't do that. I have to sit down. I have to be stoic, I have to be professional, and that's exactly what I'm going to do. But that being said, they don't get the final word. I don't get the final word. You all get the final word, and your final word comes in the form of your verdict. You have all the power here. None of us do you all have all the power. It's one of the very rare moments in your life where you get to tell the government what to do, and they've got to do it.

​

When you go back into that deliberation room. Another thing I would remind you is that your verdict is required to be unanimous. Put it another way that I believe makes that more meaningful. Each and every one of you individually holds the outcome of this case in your hands. Every single one of you has the power. You, in fact, have the obligation to stand up and to say, I'm not going to be a party to this. I will not blindly do the government's bidding. I will not convict a woman of a charge that is drastically beyond what the facts in the law dictate is an appropriate outcome. And when you come back out of that deliberation room with the verdict form checked not guilty, you can feel good. You can feel proud. You can walk out of this courthouse with your head held high, because by returning that verdict, you will have accomplished several things. One, you'll have done the job that you swore to do when you raised your right hand and you were sworn as jurors on this case, it is the only appropriate legal outcome in this case. Two, you have demonstrated something very powerful, which is the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the demand for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They're not just words on ancient pieces of parchment hanging in a museum somewhere. When people from the community are called to duty, they will make them real. Three and perhaps most significantly, you'll have ended this woman's two and a half year nightmare. It never should have gone down like this. They have total charging discretion. This is not a resisting arrest. It's not an obstruction of justice. It's charged as assault and battery of a law enforcement officer. It's important to hold people accountable for what they've done. No question about that. What is equally important is holding them accountable for the right thing. It's also important to protect people from our community when they have been overcharged. And that is what we are asking of you, to be the voice of common sense. And to end this. You get to write the final story here, the ending to this story. And I'd ask that you make it the right one, the legally appropriate one. She did not commit an assault and battery. There is no legal justification for that charge. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your service.