Case Highlight: Charged with Assaulting an Officer, But Intent Was Never Proven. The Commonwealth charged our client with assault and battery on a law enforcement officer, demanding the jury convict based on body camera footage showing a chaotic domestic situation. The prosecution's theory: he intended to inflict bodily harm on the officer. But the evidence told a different story. Two open-hand swipes, no injuries, not even redness. There no threats, no rage, just a reflexive reaction to being grabbed in his own home. Seconds later, he submitted to arrest without resistance. On the way to the police car, he expressed genuine surprise: "I punched you in the face? Seriously?" The jury saw what the prosecution refused to acknowledge: reflex is not intent, and overreaching on charges doesn't serve justice. Verdict: Not guilty.

​

Before I begin my comments, I did want to just start off thanking you. Just to give you some perspective, what we're doing right now, this doesn't exist in most of the rest of the world, so it's something special about our country. We put it in the federal constitution, the state constitution, but the reality is, it's just words on a piece of paper unless people like you give your time. So I do appreciate it, and I know everybody in the courtroom appreciates it. Right from the jump, I will tell you in full acknowledgement, and my colleague told you the exact same thing, in no way, shape or form is [the defendant] a sympathetic character in this. There's no way I can spin this as he's an innocent man who did absolutely nothing wrong. All right, that's not the reason that we're here. Likewise, I would fully agree that [the officer] did an excellent job. You can see he's a younger officer. He wasn't highly experienced. And it's the kind of situation where there's volatility. It's chaotic. Things can spiral very quickly if they're not handled well. He did handle it well. So this is not in any way, shape or form a criticism of [the officer], or suggesting that he got what he deserved, or something of that nature. Nothing could be further from the truth.

​

The single reason that we are here is what he is charged with. This is not a domestic assault and battery. This is not a resisting arrest. This is not an obstruction of justice. We can all agree a man should be held accountable for what he has done, but you hold him accountable for the right thing, the specific laws that he has broken. And in this context, the government charged assault and battery on a law enforcement officer. They have overreached with that charge. They've overreached for one single issue.This is a single issue case. They went through some of the jury instructions. It all boils down to one jury instruction, and it was a jury instruction they kind of glossed over. I would suggest they did so, because they really don't have a coherent theory on this one issue. They have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended to inflict bodily harm on the officer. That is the single issue in this case for you to determine. And on that issue, they have failed. There is no coherent theory that [the defendant] intended to inflict bodily harm on that officer. And I think the Commonwealth themselves inadvertently gave the game away when she said his intention was to get the officer's hands off of him. Which is exactly what it was. That is not synonymous with an intention to inflict bodily harm.

​

The entire case is the body cam footage, which is a nice luxury to have. This is the most rapid fire jury I've ever had. This is unusual. This is factually, a very straightforward case. It doesn't get much more straightforward than this. You've seen it, I think, three times so far, because it is the entire case. I would encourage you to go back and look at it a few more times, because you can accomplish that in 10 minutes. And I'm going to highlight some of the portions of that video, step by step that I think will be important in your analysis on this issue. Have they proven, beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to inflict bodily harm on [the officer]?

​

The first relevant portion of the video we see [the officer] goes hands on, puts his hand on his wrist, absolutely fine. He was doing the right thing. He was doing a good job. At that point, [the defendant] grabs his wrist and yanks away, and then he swipes with an open hand twice. Notice what he's saying. He says, get your effing hands off me. When we're talking about intent. Obviously that's something that only exists within a person's head. It's not visible. And as much as we might try, you can't put yourself in his head in that moment. So the best that we can do is look at the surrounding facts and circumstances to try to determine what his intent was. One of the best ways of doing that is what is contemporaneously coming out of his mouth. If he intended to inflict bodily harm, what are the kinds of words that we've all heard when we see people getting ready to fight. I'm going to kick your you know what? I'm going to kill you. I'm going to mess you up. There are threats, rage, and anger directed towards an individual. The only words out of his mouth contemporaneous with the swiping is get your effing hands off me. I think that's meaningful, because that tells you precisely what his intent is.

​

Even the Commonwealth themselves conceded his intent is to get the officer's hands off him.

Let's talk about intent itself. When you're talking about intent, you're talking about a conscious reflection. A decision, a choice. You're mulling it over. You're making a deliberate choice. Reflex is not intent, and I think that's precisely what is reflected on that body cam. He's in his own home. An officer went hands on, again not saying that was wrong, but he was surprised. It was chaotic. He yanked his hands away. Get your effing hands off me. But that is reflex, that is not intent, and it is certainly not an intent to commit bodily harm. Let's also talk about the nature of the contact itself. If an individual intends to hurt another person, harm another person, what kind of physical contact would we expect? Fists clenched, closed fists, forceful blows. None of that is reflected. These were two open hand swipes. I think even [the officer] himself acknowledged, yeah, of course, it doesn't feel good for contact to be made, but these were not particularly forceful blows. There were no injuries suffered, not even minor redness, nothing of any kind. So again, that is inconsistent with the intent to inflict bodily harm.

​

Let's talk about the next portion that occurs immediately after the two swipes. He immediately submits to the officer's control. The officer shoves him back, turns him around, puts handcuffs on him without issue. He's not making any threats. He's not struggling. He's not trying to go after the officer, and this is within seconds of the contact they're claiming proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to inflict harm on the officer. That simply does not make any sense. The next portion of the body cam that I would ask that you pay very close attention to is going from the house to the police vehicle. You've heard it multiple times. Go back and view it again. He expresses surprise. He overhears the officer tell another officer, hey, this guy just punched me in the face. He says "I punched you in the face?" Yes, you did, sir. "Seriously?" And then we heard as they went down to the magistrate's office, the conversation continues in that same vein. "Did I really punch you? I don't think I punched you." Does that reflect, beyond a reasonable doubt, an intention to inflict bodily harm on the police officer. It simply does not.

​

I don't think it's as relevant as some of the other sections I've mentioned, but you see in the last portion of it, he tells the officer, if you listen carefully, he says, Just kill me. And then he says, I'll talk to you. We can just get in the car and we can talk, and they shake hands on it. And I think that has some significance. Because one, it's showing you this is not an individual who is, for lack of a better words, not operating with a full deck. He's clearly struggling in that moment, to tell an officer, just kill me. But then two, he's shaking hands with the officer, within less than a minute of when they're claiming that they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to inflict bodily injury on the officer. I would suggest to you that is just simply not a coherent theory.

​

So again, the laser focused issue for you to deliberate on, this is a single issue case, have they proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to inflict bodily harm on the officer. In order for you to conduct that analysis, you have to know what their burden is. You've heard that their burden is to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You've all, I'm sure, heard the words beyond a reasonable doubt. Very likely haven't given it deep reflection, because you've never been in the situation that you're in today. You're going to get jury instructions that give you some information on what that is. I find them frustrating, because they tell you more what it's not than what it is. The jury instructions will tell you a probability of guilt is not enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a suspicion, no matter how strong, is not enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So in other words, if you were to go back there and you discuss it among one another, well, what was his intent? Was it just to get the officer's hands off of him? Did he actually want to inflict bodily injury to the officer? Well, we're going to conclude, I strongly suspect he wanted to inflict bodily injury to the officer, but I can't get beyond that. That's not guilty. Even if you said he probably intended to inflict harm on the officer. That's not enough. That's not guilty. Now, I don't think they've come particularly close to either of those, but even if they got there, the only permissible verdict is not guilty.

​

Another way that just helps me to conceptualize beyond a reasonable doubt, it's the highest burden that exists in any courtroom in this country. You could go to any courtroom and walk in right now, Alaska, California, Texas. Federal court, state court, the burden that they have right now, right here in this moment, is the highest burden that exists in any courtroom in this country. It is the platinum standard. It's higher than the burden required to take your property from you, your money from you, your kids from you. And the reason the burden in a criminal case is so extraordinarily high, the highest one that exists is because the stakes are very high. In this country, we do not guess people into serious criminal convictions. We do not guess people into prison cells, and that's why we require an extraordinarily high burden. It requires that their evidence be so consistent, so clean, all point in one direction that you're left in an absolute state, a state of near certainty on this issue that he intended to hurt this officer. And the evidence has come and gone. It's all on body cam, and it has not demonstrated that.

​

Hopefully I haven't already been beating a dead horse. Maybe I have. It's not a complicated case, and it's not a complicated issue, and I think you understand the point that I'm making. So I'm going to sit down momentarily. It's a difficult time. No matter how many of these I've done, invariably, I sit down and I immediately think to myself, I could have made the argument better. I forgot to bring up an important point. They get to stand up and they get to address you one more time. That's frustrating for me, because I'm always thinking to myself, I want to make a counter argument. I want to make a counterpoint, but I can't do that. I'm going to be professional, I'm going to be quiet, I'm going to sit down. But what I want to tell you is, just because they say it last it doesn't make it so. They don't get the final word. I don't get the final word. You get the final word, and that comes in the form of your verdict.

​

I'll be very candid with you. My number one concern with this case, from moment one is not so much these swipes, which, in my view, do not reflect, patently do not reflect an intent to inflict bodily harm. It's been more that he is not sympathetic. I don't think he's sympathetic. My colleague described it as a jarring video. I would even go as far as to say it's disturbing. A woman bleeding profusely from the head, children screaming. I'm not saying he's a terrible human being, and maybe this captured him in his worst moment, but he's certainly not sympathetic for his conduct that night. But again, we punish people according to the law, and if you follow the letter of the law and you're intellectually honest, he did not commit the crime that's before you.

 

And while I get it, there might be some sort of an emotional catharsis, or it might feel right to say we don't like this guy. We think he might have just beat up his wife. That's not an excuse for disregarding the law, for not holding them to their burdens. And on this charge again, they've overreached. So when you go back and you deliberate, and you come back with a verdict of not guilty. I get it. It's hard. It doesn't mean you're sanctioning what he did, approving what he did in any way, shape or form. You're simply doing the job that you swore to do when you raised your right hand and were sworn in as jurors. Because it is the only legally permissible verdict in this case, if you're being intellectually honest and deciding this case on rationality and law versus emotion. And so if you do that, you've done your job properly, and you can walk out of this courthouse with your head held high. Not because you've sanctioned actions that I would make no attempt to defend. They're indefensible what he did that night, but you'll have done the job that you swore to do. He is not guilty of the one charge before you. Thank you for your time and attention.