|
Nestled within the abundant landscapes and diverse communities of Michigan, we find Jackson County. A hub of dynamic cities, quaint townships, and serene neighborhoods, Jackson County is known for its thriving locales such as the city of Jackson, the bustling Spring Arbor, the inviting atmosphere of Michigan Center, Vandercook Lake's serene environment, and Brooklyn's charm, among others. At the heart of this sprawling county is the renowned 12th District Court, where countless narratives unfold each day.
Our story today centers on the 12th District Court and its exemplary judiciary, including Chief Judge Daniel A. Goostrey and District Judges Michael J. Klaeren, Allison Bates, and Robert K. Gaecke, Jr. It's the tale of a domestic violence case that stood out, not for its sensationalism, but for its outcome of growth and healing. In the peaceful corners of Vandercook Lake, we meet Mike, an upstanding citizen with a clean record. However, one heated argument with his spouse spiraled out of control, landing him on the wrong side of the law. With the prospect of a domestic violence charge casting a foreboding shadow, Mike found himself caught in a legal quagmire. Domestic violence, an unfortunate reality cutting across socioeconomic boundaries, often ensnares even those with no criminal history. And it was precisely such a situation Mike found himself in - a good person caught in a terrible circumstance. Despite the initial shock, Mike's wife realized the situation required resolution rather than retaliation. The incident, while regrettable, was uncharacteristic of Mike. They decided to seek assistance, not just legally, but emotionally and interpersonally. This led them to the well-established practice of Attorney Jonathan Paul. Known for his exceptional approach to domestic violence cases, Attorney Jonathan Paul recognized the seriousness of Mike's situation. He knew that the consequences could be life-altering, and so, committed himself to fight for Mike's future. In building Mike's defense, the objective was twofold - aim for an outright dismissal or strive for a not guilty verdict. Jonathan meticulously examined all evidence, built an understanding of the incident, and crafted a comprehensive defense strategy. Simultaneously, he engaged with the prosecuting attorney to negotiate. Given Mike's status as a first-time offender, Jonathan proposed the option of a plea under MCL 769.4A. This would allow Mike to plead guilty, enter a probationary period, and potentially have the case dismissed upon successful completion. With the consent of all parties, they embarked on this path. Mike began his probation, which involved anger management and couples counseling. It was a challenging period, but it was instrumental for Mike and his wife to reestablish understanding and effective communication. By the end of probation, Mike had met all legal requirements, but more importantly, had also transformed his relationship with his wife. They had learned to communicate better, manage disagreements peacefully, and treat each other with renewed respect. Thus, under the legal guidance of Attorney Jonathan Paul, what started as a harrowing ordeal ended in a second chance for Mike and his wife. This tale from the heart of Jackson County serves as an affirmation that, even in difficult circumstances, there's always room for understanding, growth, and redemption. It's a testament to the legal system's ability to not only administer justice but also promote positive change. The 52nd District Court - Division 1, serving the cities of Novi, South Lyon, Wixom, and Walled Lake, as well as the townships of Milford, Highland, Commerce, Lyon, and Novi, is a place where personal dramas unfold, lives change, and hope is renewed. Led by the esteemed Judges Robert Bondy, Travis Reeds, and Thomas David Law, the court has witnessed many stories of personal transformation. One such tale that stands out is of a loving father, wrongly accused of domestic violence.
Let's call our protagonist John, a dedicated dad of three, living a quiet life with his family in Novi. One unforeseen incident spiraled out of control, resulting in John being charged with domestic violence. A man with no history of violent behavior was suddenly staring at a future tainted by a criminal record. It's important to note that this is not a tale of an inherent criminal but that of an ordinary man caught in extraordinary circumstances. John's wife, the supposed victim in the case, vehemently defended her husband, believing in his good nature and fearing the impact of a criminal record on their family's future. Their joint objective was to protect their family's unity and John's reputation. This is when Attorney Jonathan Paul entered their lives. Jonathan Paul is an experienced domestic violence attorney in Michigan known for his empathetic approach and strategic acumen. His mission was to ensure that this family, like so many others, could remain whole and that John's name would be cleared of this charge. Jonathan's first course of action was to delve into the evidence, conduct in-depth discussions with the family, and even consider bringing in a private investigator if necessary. His eyes were firmly set on achieving a complete dismissal of charges or securing a 'not guilty' verdict. Simultaneously, he left no stone unturned in negotiating with the prosecutor, even discussing potential outcomes with the presiding judge to get a sense of the possible sentence. There's a provision in Michigan for first-time domestic violence offenders, where they can plead guilty under MCL 769.4A, with the possibility of having the case dismissed after a probationary period. Jonathan presented this potential resolution to John and his wife, which required their consent along with the prosecutor's approval. John entered a probationary period involving counseling and anger management, with the promise of having the case dismissed after successful completion. This probation period became a catalyst for personal growth and understanding, an unexpected silver lining in their challenging situation. Through Jonathan Paul's strategic efforts, a potential tragedy transformed into an opportunity for growth and unity. This case served as more than a legal battle. It was a catalyst for deeper understanding, personal growth, and long-term planning for a family determined to turn adversity into opportunity. In the face of turbulence, the story of this family stands as a testament to the strength of unity and the possibility of turning life's challenges into opportunities for growth and understanding. In the heart of Michigan lies a place of resilience and transformation – Ingham County. Home to diverse cities like Lansing, East Lansing, Leslie, Mason, and the peaceful realms of Williamston and Meridian Township, Ingham County paints a picture of unity in diversity. But even in this vibrant tapestry, sometimes threads fray. This is the story of Mike, a cherished community member who found himself grappling with a domestic violence charge in Ingham County.
Having his case handled by the 54A, 54B, and 55th District Courts, Mike was overwhelmed. Suddenly, the world he had known took on a different shape, colored by legal jargon, stern judges, and the fear of an uncertain future. Knowing the gravity of his predicament, Mike sought the guidance of Attorney Jonathan Paul, whose reputation as a proactive lawyer with an empathetic approach resonated with him. Jonathan sees his clients not as offenders, but as individuals who have temporarily strayed from their path. Together, they set off on a transformative journey. Their partnership wasn't confined to the courtroom. Jonathan helped Mike realize that this difficult phase was not a dead end but an opportunity for personal growth and self-improvement. He guided Mike through the convoluted labyrinth of the legal system while helping him work on becoming a better version of himself. The road was daunting, but guided by Jonathan, Mike began taking proactive steps toward rebuilding his life. He sought professional help through counseling, attended anger management sessions, and earnestly worked to restore his relationships. His story, marked by remorse and change, became a beacon of hope for others battling similar issues. When the time came to face the judges of the 54A, 54B, and 55th District Courts, Mike was a changed man. His efforts towards self-improvement and reconciliation left a profound impression on the court. With Jonathan's guidance, Mike was able to secure a fair resolution that reflected his commitment to change. Mike's journey from a troubled past to a promising future, with Ingham County as the stage, serves as a reminder that even in the most difficult circumstances, personal growth and transformation are possible. And, if you find yourself in a similar predicament, remember – with the right guidance and a will to change, you too can embrace a brighter future. In the heart of Michigan, where the verdant Townships of Springfield, Independence, Holly, Groveland, Rose, White Lake, and Brandon surround the picturesque City of Clarkston, life hums a tranquil tune. But when unexpected legal challenges knock on your door, the tranquility can quickly turn into a storm. Today, we're sharing the story of a local entrepreneur named Jack, who faced such a tempest in the 52-2 District Court of Clarkston.
Jack was struggling with the weight of his legal predicament. As someone who had lived his life in respect and regard for the law, the sudden shift was overwhelming. The fear of being labeled a "criminal" shook him to his core. It was at this crucial juncture that Jack sought the help of Attorney Jonathan Paul. Unlike other lawyers, Jonathan didn't view Jack as just another client on his roster. Instead, he saw Jack as a person undergoing a challenging life event, deserving of empathy, understanding, and most importantly, a shot at redemption. Jonathan's approach wasn't confined to the conventional legal defenses. His vision was to guide Jack towards understanding his actions and their repercussions and, ultimately, facilitate his journey towards personal growth and learning. Jonathan developed a proactive and strategic plan for Jack, which involved not only legal maneuvers but also participating in community service and related educational programs. Jack's transformation was not overnight, but with every step he took, he became more aware of his actions, learned from them, and made genuine attempts to correct his path. When he stood before the Judge, Jack was no longer just a defendant. He was a person who had acknowledged his mistakes and had taken concrete steps towards becoming a better individual. In essence, Jack's experience at the 52-2 District Court wasn't merely a legal battle. It was a journey of personal growth and self-realization. Through the empathetic and proactive approach of Jonathan Paul, Jack was able to shift his narrative from one of retribution to a story of learning and growth. His story serves as a beacon of hope for others facing similar situations, proving that even the most challenging moments in life can be turned into opportunities for self-improvement. Charged with Domestic Violence Fenton Grand Blanc Genesee County - DV Attorney 67th District Court6/18/2023
What should I do with charged with Domestic Violence in Genesee County?Title: Overcoming Legal Challenges with Empathy: A Domestic Violence Case in Fenton City
A usual, peaceful evening in the bustling city of Fenton turned into a nightmare for Alex when he was accused of domestic violence. A charge such as this can be daunting, especially within the jurisdiction of the 67th District Court - Division 4, which covers the cities of Fenton, Grand Blanc, and Swartz Creek, and the townships of Fenton, Argentine, Grand Blanc, Mundy, Gaines, and Clayton. Feeling overwhelmed and confused, Alex reached out to Attorney Jonathan Paul, renowned for his understanding, empathetic approach, and a decade-long career advocating for clients in tough situations like his own. Attorney Paul doesn't view his clients as criminals but rather as individuals who've found themselves in adverse circumstances. His approach to Alex's case was no different. He believed that Alex was not a habitual offender but someone who had made an unfortunate mistake. Paul laid out an effective strategy focusing on transforming the case from a punitive to a rehabilitative process. Recognizing Alex's potential for growth and learning, he presented his defense emphasizing Alex's remorse and willingness to make amends. Being a well-versed attorney in Michigan's domestic violence laws, Jonathan Paul informed Alex about the plea bargain available under MCL 769.4a for first-time offenders. It offered an opportunity for the case to be dismissed after a successful probation period, given Alex's readiness to admit guilt or plead no contest. Paul's proactive and empathetic approach put Alex at ease. He felt reassured that he was not just a defendant in a courtroom but an individual on a journey towards betterment. After serving a probation period, where Alex participated in counseling and anger management programs, his case was dismissed. He came out of this tough situation not just absolved but also as a better version of himself. This transformative journey of Alex's is a testament to Attorney Jonathan Paul's unique and proactive legal approach. If you or someone you know finds themselves in a similar situation in the 67th District Court - Division 4 area, remember that there's always room for growth, learning, and a better tomorrow with the right legal counsel by your side. Washtenaw County Domestic Violence ArrestOne quiet afternoon, Mike, a long-standing resident of Ann Arbor, Michigan, saw his world turned upside down when he found himself charged with domestic violence. As he was escorted to the 15th District Court, he felt a mix of confusion, fear, and despair. It was then he realized the necessity of having a skilled attorney, and he sought out Attorney Jonathan Paul.
The 15th District Court, located in the heart of Ann Arbor, is presided over by Judges Karen Valvo and Miriam A. Perry. It is a place that demands respect and understanding of the law. With Jonathan Paul by his side, Mike knew he had an ally who understood the complexities of the system. Jonathan Paul, with his deep roots as a former NYC and Michigan prosecutor and his more than a decade of experience in criminal defense, has a unique perspective. He doesn’t see his clients as criminals, but as individuals who find themselves in a complicated situation. This compassionate viewpoint is precisely what Mike needed to navigate his case. From the onset, Jonathan reframed Mike's narrative, shifting the focus from punishment to an opportunity for growth and learning. Jonathan advocated on Mike’s behalf, working tirelessly to present him as a person who could learn from this experience, and not just a defendant facing charges. Jonathan devised a strategy that involved robust negotiations with the prosecuting attorney. The aim was always clear: to get an outright dismissal or a not guilty verdict, while simultaneously preparing for all possible outcomes. Given that Mike was a first-time offender, Jonathan also proposed a plea under MCL 769.4a. This strategy required Mike's plea of guilty or no contest, with the consent of the prosecutor and the victim. The plea opened the path towards a possible case dismissal following a probationary period. This wasn't a quick fix; it was an opportunity for change. By working with Jonathan, Mike's journey through the criminal justice system was transformed into a lesson in personal growth. Jonathan's proactive approach and relentless advocacy led Judges Valvo and Perry to recognize Mike's commitment to becoming a better person. At the completion of his probation, Mike's case was dismissed. But more importantly, he walked away from the 15th District Court as a changed man, having learned a vital lesson. Jonathan Paul's strategy proved once again that the right approach can make a significant difference, highlighting the power of personal growth, redemption, and change within the courtrooms of Ann Arbor, Michigan. If you've been charged with domestic violence and your case will be heard in the 52-1 District Court in Novi, Michigan, you may be feeling overwhelmed, scared, and unsure of what to expect. This court, presided over by Judges Bondy, Reeds, and Law, covers several jurisdictions including the Cities of Novi, South Lyon, Wixom, and Walled Lake, as well as the Townships of Milford, Highland, Commerce, and Lyon. This blog post aims to provide you with key information about your case and the court process, assuaging your worries and helping you understand your situation better. Understanding Domestic Violence Charges The charge of domestic violence in Michigan is a serious one, with potential life-altering consequences. Whether you are from Novi, Wixom, Walled Lake, South Lyon, or any of the aforementioned townships, a charge doesn't make you a criminal or define who you are. Often, good-hearted individuals find themselves in unfortunate situations resulting in these charges. It's important to remember that you are innocent until proven guilty and every situation has its unique intricacies. Navigating the 52-1 District Court When facing domestic violence charges in the 52-1 District Court, it is crucial to familiarize yourself with the court's proceedings and the presiding judges. Judges Bondy, Reeds, and Law have their distinct courtroom styles and understandings of the law. Your defense strategy should be tailored accordingly, factoring in the specifics of your case and the individual judges' expectations and courtroom conduct. Building a Robust Defense As your legal representation, our aim is not just to defend you, but to empower you throughout this challenging process. We focus on gathering all necessary evidence, possibly involving a private investigator, and building a solid defense aimed at outright dismissal or a not guilty verdict. Simultaneously, we engage in negotiations with the prosecuting attorney to develop various contingency plans. We aim to have a conversation with the judge, if possible, to get an indication of your potential sentence. These insights are vital in shaping the direction of your case. The Michigan Domestic Violence First Offender The Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 769.4a provides a unique opportunity for first-time domestic violence offenders. This plea bargain allows the accused to plead guilty or no contest, but have the case dismissed after successful completion of a probationary period. This route requires consent from the prosecutor and the victim, and comes with its own set of challenges and opportunities that we can help you navigate. Conclusion Facing a domestic violence charge in the 52-1 District Court in Novi, Michigan, can be daunting. But remember, you have rights and resources at your disposal. Whether you're from the City of Novi, South Lyon, Wixom, Walled Lake, or the Townships of Milford, Highland, Commerce, or Lyon, we're here to guide you through the process, providing robust legal defense and helping you make the best of your situation. This challenging moment in your life can be a stepping stone to a brighter future with the right guidance and support. Our firm focuses on the client's journey, and how he/she finds themselves on the wrong side of the law. We lead with empathy and understanding; our clients are not criminals, but rather good hearted, caring folks who respect the law, and want to be held in high regard. We work with a diverse pool of clients; our clients are our partners, and together we put forth a proactive approach to every case.
While I am a former NYC and Michigan prosecutor, and have been practicing criminal defense for more than a decade, I don't like using the "criminal" label with my clients. My clients don't have anything to hide; they are more frightened and embarrassed, and worried about an uncertain future. They are concerned that they made a terrible "first impression" with the police, prosecutor, judge, and court system; it can be gut wrenching to feel "stuck"; you can't change what happened, and sitting around, and worrying only makes things worse. My goal is to empower each client to make a "true impression" and understand and demonstrate how they ended up on the wrong side of the law, and provide them the tools to SHOW rather than TELL what they can learn from their incident, and where they are going in the future. Nothing feels better as an attorney than to hear a prosecutor and judge praise my client for stepping up, and taking control of their own situation. My clients do amazing in the criminal justice system, because they are mere visitors; having the right exit strategy is the key to navigating the most challenging moment in your life. You only get to handle your case once, how do you want to approach it? Howell 53rd District Court - DV LawyerOur firm focuses on the client's journey, and how he/she finds themselves on the wrong side of the law. We lead with empathy and understanding; our clients are not criminals, but rather good hearted, caring folks who respect the law, and want to be held in high regard. We work with a diverse pool of clients; our clients are our partners, and together we put forth a proactive approach to every case.
While I am a former NYC and Michigan prosecutor, and have been practicing criminal defense for more than a decade, I don't like using the "criminal" label with my clients. My clients don't have anything to hide; they are more frightened and embarrassed, and worried about an uncertain future. They are concerned that they made a terrible "first impression" with the police, prosecutor, judge, and court system; it can be gut wrenching to feel "stuck"; you can't change what happened, and sitting around, and worrying only makes things worse. My goal is to empower each client to make a "true impression" and understand and demonstrate how they ended up on the wrong side of the law, and provide them the tools to SHOW rather than TELL what they can learn from their incident, and where they are going in the future. Nothing feels better as an attorney than to hear a prosecutor and judge praise my client for stepping up, and taking control of their own situation. Domestic Violence Oakland CountyAs a former prosecutor, I worked on hundreds of domestic violence cases. I've taken that experience, and now help clients accused of this serious crime as a defense attorney.
The first thing we need to do is understand and acknowledge the perception of our audience. This includes the prosecutor, judge, police and the general public. I include the general public, because domestic violence cases go to trial more than most criminal charges, and having a jury of your peers decide your case comes with many pros and cons. I don't condone violence against family members or loved ones. I take on these types of cases, because despite a serious criminal charge, the accused deserves to execute their rights in the criminal justice system. If the client is falsely accused then I help them push for their innocence; if the client broke the law and the evidence supports the charge, then we focus on getting the client the help they need to be a better person, avoid future violence and make amends to the person hurt by their actions. I tell clients all the time, it's ok if you're guilty, it doesn't make you a bad person, it doesn't mean you're going to jail, and it may not even mean having a criminal record from the incident. It's an opportunity to work on yourself, be proactive, and change the reality of who you are along with the perception of the case. In Michigan, a regular assault becomes a domestic assault when it involves a spouse, a former spouse, a person which you share a child in common, a resident or former resident of your household or a person which you have or had a dating relationship. Because of this close bond relationship, which is required, the prosecutor does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Anytime I speak to a prosecutor about a domestic violence charge, there's a major stink in the air. Simply by reading a 1-2 page police report, the prosecutor is convinced my client is really guilty and is ready to plead and beg for mercy from the judge. Prosecutor's, especially less experienced ones, don't bother to see both sides of the case; the majority of domestic violence cases begin with a mutual dispute, and typically two parties are at fault in the incident starting, and usually in the police getting involved. Once the incident has started, does one party break the law with a violent act, or does one person just get arrested based on who placed the call. Does the male get arrested simply due to public perception? Are their real and actual injuries (although not required) that can help us better understand the case? There's unlikely to be a video unless it happens in public, but photos taken of the parties involved, medical reports, audio from 911 calls, officer microphones while on scene and dash cam videos can be helpful. The rules of evidence for domestic violence cases provide the prosecutor additional ammo to admit certain evidence against a client if the victim/witness testifies to something different at trial than originally stated to law enforcement. As a former prosecutor, I can see the wheels spinning in their head; sure the report looks strong, but are you able to actually put this forth at trial and meet your burden? Maybe not. My clients always keep a trial on the table for domestic violence cases, because unlike most cases, a private citizen is the key witness, not a police officer, and there's probably not going to be videos, tests etc like say a drunk driving case. My clients must use this elephant in the room to their advantage. These cases usually start with people who love each other, get involved in an incident, but within 24 hours are back loving each other. Is the prosecution willing to force someone to testify if their story has changed? Are they going to issue a material witness warrant and arrest someone to testify? Along with this leverage, my clients have to create leverage outside of the courtroom. We understand the perception of my client. and the uncertainly that the charges bring for my client in the mind of the prosecutor and judge. Is my client a dangerous person? Should they be locked up? Should they have to avoid the person and the place where this happened? No matter what the actual answer to those questions are, we lean toward acknowledging that these are not worth fighting over at the moment, we simply get to work to show they aren't true. If alcohol was involved, I get my clients on a daily testing unit to show that they are clearheaded during the case, and if alcohol was a major contributor to the incident, we put a lot of our focus on substance abuse awareness and treatment. If the evidence indicates there actually was some form of violence, we may engage in proactive anger management and/or counseling. If based on the evidence, it appears that resolution may be the best route, we may even begin an actual domestic violence program. If the parties wish to have contact, I am able to make contact with the alleged victim/witness to inform them that if they wish to provide additional information about wanting contact with my client, they can come to the next court hearing. A judge may or may not grant this request now, but my client needs the victim to agree for this to happen. If things are still red hot, I tell my client they are better off not having contact right now; the worse thing to happen is for my client to have contact, and another argument breaks out, and the cops are back at the scene. That's a potential bond violation and new charges. Each case is different, but the perception of the prosecution rarely changes for domestic violence. This is always a hot button issue for a prosecutor, which it should be, but the prosecutor has to be asked to keep an open mind and the defense must be able to play some currency when it comes to discussing positive outcomes for the client. It's quite difficult to sway a prosecutor on simply statements like: he has no record, he has a job, kids etc. This is not a low level everyday OPPS my client made a mistake. Domestic violence charges must be met with a serious response; mere allegations are enough for my client to get to work on changing the perception of the case. DV Attorney Oakland CountyAs a former prosecutor, I worked on hundreds of domestic violence cases. I've taken that experience, and now help clients accused of this serious crime as a defense attorney.
The first thing we need to do is understand and acknowledge the perception of our audience. This includes the prosecutor, judge, police and the general public. I include the general public, because domestic violence cases go to trial more than most criminal charges, and having a jury of your peers decide your case comes with many pros and cons. I don't condone violence against family members or loved ones. I take on these types of cases, because despite a serious criminal charge, the accused deserves to execute their rights in the criminal justice system. If the client is falsely accused then I help them push for their innocence; if the client broke the law and the evidence supports the charge, then we focus on getting the client the help they need to be a better person, avoid future violence and make amends to the person hurt by their actions. I tell clients all the time, it's ok if you're guilty, it doesn't make you a bad person, it doesn't mean you're going to jail, and it may not even mean having a criminal record from the incident. It's an opportunity to work on yourself, be proactive, and change the reality of who you are along with the perception of the case. In Michigan, a regular assault becomes a domestic assault when it involves a spouse, a former spouse, a person which you share a child in common, a resident or former resident of your household or a person which you have or had a dating relationship. Because of this close bond relationship, which is required, the prosecutor does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Anytime I speak to a prosecutor about a domestic violence charge, there's a major stink in the air. Simply by reading a 1-2 page police report, the prosecutor is convinced my client is really guilty and is ready to plead and beg for mercy from the judge. Prosecutor's, especially less experienced ones, don't bother to see both sides of the case; the majority of domestic violence cases begin with a mutual dispute, and typically two parties are at fault in the incident starting, and usually in the police getting involved. Once the incident has started, does one party break the law with a violent act, or does one person just get arrested based on who placed the call. Does the male get arrested simply due to public perception? Are their real and actual injuries (although not required) that can help us better understand the case? There's unlikely to be a video unless it happens in public, but photos taken of the parties involved, medical reports, audio from 911 calls, officer microphones while on scene and dash cam videos can be helpful. The rules of evidence for domestic violence cases provide the prosecutor additional ammo to admit certain evidence against a client if the victim/witness testifies to something different at trial than originally stated to law enforcement. As a former prosecutor, I can see the wheels spinning in their head; sure the report looks strong, but are you able to actually put this forth at trial and meet your burden? Maybe not. My clients always keep a trial on the table for domestic violence cases, because unlike most cases, a private citizen is the key witness, not a police officer, and there's probably not going to be videos, tests etc like say a drunk driving case. My clients must use this elephant in the room to their advantage. These cases usually start with people who love each other, get involved in an incident, but within 24 hours are back loving each other. Is the prosecution willing to force someone to testify if their story has changed? Are they going to issue a material witness warrant and arrest someone to testify? Along with this leverage, my clients have to create leverage outside of the courtroom. We understand the perception of my client. and the uncertainly that the charges bring for my client in the mind of the prosecutor and judge. Is my client a dangerous person? Should they be locked up? Should they have to avoid the person and the place where this happened? No matter what the actual answer to those questions are, we lean toward acknowledging that these are not worth fighting over at the moment, we simply get to work to show they aren't true. If alcohol was involved, I get my clients on a daily testing unit to show that they are clearheaded during the case, and if alcohol was a major contributor to the incident, we put a lot of our focus on substance abuse awareness and treatment. If the evidence indicates there actually was some form of violence, we may engage in proactive anger management and/or counseling. If based on the evidence, it appears that resolution may be the best route, we may even begin an actual domestic violence program. If the parties wish to have contact, I am able to make contact with the alleged victim/witness to inform them that if they wish to provide additional information about wanting contact with my client, they can come to the next court hearing. A judge may or may not grant this request now, but my client needs the victim to agree for this to happen. If things are still red hot, I tell my client they are better off not having contact right now; the worse thing to happen is for my client to have contact, and another argument breaks out, and the cops are back at the scene. That's a potential bond violation and new charges. Each case is different, but the perception of the prosecution rarely changes for domestic violence. This is always a hot button issue for a prosecutor, which it should be, but the prosecutor has to be asked to keep an open mind and the defense must be able to play some currency when it comes to discussing positive outcomes for the client. It's quite difficult to sway a prosecutor on simply statements like: he has no record, he has a job, kids etc. This is not a low level everyday OPPS my client made a mistake. Domestic violence charges must be met with a serious response; mere allegations are enough for my client to get to work on changing the perception of the case. Farmington Hills Domestic Violence LawyerAs a former prosecutor, I worked on hundreds of domestic violence cases. I've taken that experience, and now help clients accused of this serious crime as a defense attorney.
The first thing we need to do is understand and acknowledge the perception of our audience. This includes the prosecutor, judge, police and the general public. I include the general public, because domestic violence cases go to trial more than most criminal charges, and having a jury of your peers decide your case comes with many pros and cons. I don't condone violence against family members or loved ones. I take on these types of cases, because despite a serious criminal charge, the accused deserves to execute their rights in the criminal justice system. If the client is falsely accused then I help them push for their innocence; if the client broke the law and the evidence supports the charge, then we focus on getting the client the help they need to be a better person, avoid future violence and make amends to the person hurt by their actions. I tell clients all the time, it's ok if you're guilty, it doesn't make you a bad person, it doesn't mean you're going to jail, and it may not even mean having a criminal record from the incident. It's an opportunity to work on yourself, be proactive, and change the reality of who you are along with the perception of the case. In Michigan, a regular assault becomes a domestic assault when it involves a spouse, a former spouse, a person which you share a child in common, a resident or former resident of your household or a person which you have or had a dating relationship. Because of this close bond relationship, which is required, the prosecutor does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Anytime I speak to a prosecutor about a domestic violence charge, there's a major stink in the air. Simply by reading a 1-2 page police report, the prosecutor is convinced my client is really guilty and is ready to plead and beg for mercy from the judge. Prosecutor's, especially less experienced ones, don't bother to see both sides of the case; the majority of domestic violence cases begin with a mutual dispute, and typically two parties are at fault in the incident starting, and usually in the police getting involved. Once the incident has started, does one party break the law with a violent act, or does one person just get arrested based on who placed the call. Does the male get arrested simply due to public perception? Are their real and actual injuries (although not required) that can help us better understand the case? There's unlikely to be a video unless it happens in public, but photos taken of the parties involved, medical reports, audio from 911 calls, officer microphones while on scene and dash cam videos can be helpful. The rules of evidence for domestic violence cases provide the prosecutor additional ammo to admit certain evidence against a client if the victim/witness testifies to something different at trial than originally stated to law enforcement. As a former prosecutor, I can see the wheels spinning in their head; sure the report looks strong, but are you able to actually put this forth at trial and meet your burden? Maybe not. My clients always keep a trial on the table for domestic violence cases, because unlike most cases, a private citizen is the key witness, not a police officer, and there's probably not going to be videos, tests etc like say a drunk driving case. My clients must use this elephant in the room to their advantage. These cases usually start with people who love each other, get involved in an incident, but within 24 hours are back loving each other. Is the prosecution willing to force someone to testify if their story has changed? Are they going to issue a material witness warrant and arrest someone to testify? Along with this leverage, my clients have to create leverage outside of the courtroom. We understand the perception of my client. and the uncertainly that the charges bring for my client in the mind of the prosecutor and judge. Is my client a dangerous person? Should they be locked up? Should they have to avoid the person and the place where this happened? No matter what the actual answer to those questions are, we lean toward acknowledging that these are not worth fighting over at the moment, we simply get to work to show they aren't true. If alcohol was involved, I get my clients on a daily testing unit to show that they are clearheaded during the case, and if alcohol was a major contributor to the incident, we put a lot of our focus on substance abuse awareness and treatment. If the evidence indicates there actually was some form of violence, we may engage in proactive anger management and/or counseling. If based on the evidence, it appears that resolution may be the best route, we may even begin an actual domestic violence program. If the parties wish to have contact, I am able to make contact with the alleged victim/witness to inform them that if they wish to provide additional information about wanting contact with my client, they can come to the next court hearing. A judge may or may not grant this request now, but my client needs the victim to agree for this to happen. If things are still red hot, I tell my client they are better off not having contact right now; the worse thing to happen is for my client to have contact, and another argument breaks out, and the cops are back at the scene. That's a potential bond violation and new charges. Each case is different, but the perception of the prosecution rarely changes for domestic violence. This is always a hot button issue for a prosecutor, which it should be, but the prosecutor has to be asked to keep an open mind and the defense must be able to play some currency when it comes to discussing positive outcomes for the client. It's quite difficult to sway a prosecutor on simply statements like: he has no record, he has a job, kids etc. This is not a low level everyday OPPS my client made a mistake. Domestic violence charges must be met with a serious response; mere allegations are enough for my client to get to work on changing the perception of the case. Wayne County Domestic ViolenceAs a former prosecutor, I worked on hundreds of domestic violence cases. I've taken that experience, and now help clients accused of this serious crime as a defense attorney.
The first thing we need to do is understand and acknowledge the perception of our audience. This includes the prosecutor, judge, police and the general public. I include the general public, because domestic violence cases go to trial more than most criminal charges, and having a jury of your peers decide your case comes with many pros and cons. I don't condone violence against family members or loved ones. I take on these types of cases, because despite a serious criminal charge, the accused deserves to execute their rights in the criminal justice system. If the client is falsely accused then I help them push for their innocence; if the client broke the law and the evidence supports the charge, then we focus on getting the client the help they need to be a better person, avoid future violence and make amends to the person hurt by their actions. I tell clients all the time, it's ok if you're guilty, it doesn't make you a bad person, it doesn't mean you're going to jail, and it may not even mean having a criminal record from the incident. It's an opportunity to work on yourself, be proactive, and change the reality of who you are along with the perception of the case. In Michigan, a regular assault becomes a domestic assault when it involves a spouse, a former spouse, a person which you share a child in common, a resident or former resident of your household or a person which you have or had a dating relationship. Because of this close bond relationship, which is required, the prosecutor does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Anytime I speak to a prosecutor about a domestic violence charge, there's a major stink in the air. Simply by reading a 1-2 page police report, the prosecutor is convinced my client is really guilty and is ready to plead and beg for mercy from the judge. Prosecutor's, especially less experienced ones, don't bother to see both sides of the case; the majority of domestic violence cases begin with a mutual dispute, and typically two parties are at fault in the incident starting, and usually in the police getting involved. Once the incident has started, does one party break the law with a violent act, or does one person just get arrested based on who placed the call. Does the male get arrested simply due to public perception? Are their real and actual injuries (although not required) that can help us better understand the case? There's unlikely to be a video unless it happens in public, but photos taken of the parties involved, medical reports, audio from 911 calls, officer microphones while on scene and dash cam videos can be helpful. The rules of evidence for domestic violence cases provide the prosecutor additional ammo to admit certain evidence against a client if the victim/witness testifies to something different at trial than originally stated to law enforcement. As a former prosecutor, I can see the wheels spinning in their head; sure the report looks strong, but are you able to actually put this forth at trial and meet your burden? Maybe not. My clients always keep a trial on the table for domestic violence cases, because unlike most cases, a private citizen is the key witness, not a police officer, and there's probably not going to be videos, tests etc like say a drunk driving case. My clients must use this elephant in the room to their advantage. These cases usually start with people who love each other, get involved in an incident, but within 24 hours are back loving each other. Is the prosecution willing to force someone to testify if their story has changed? Are they going to issue a material witness warrant and arrest someone to testify? Along with this leverage, my clients have to create leverage outside of the courtroom. We understand the perception of my client. and the uncertainly that the charges bring for my client in the mind of the prosecutor and judge. Is my client a dangerous person? Should they be locked up? Should they have to avoid the person and the place where this happened? No matter what the actual answer to those questions are, we lean toward acknowledging that these are not worth fighting over at the moment, we simply get to work to show they aren't true. If alcohol was involved, I get my clients on a daily testing unit to show that they are clearheaded during the case, and if alcohol was a major contributor to the incident, we put a lot of our focus on substance abuse awareness and treatment. If the evidence indicates there actually was some form of violence, we may engage in proactive anger management and/or counseling. If based on the evidence, it appears that resolution may be the best route, we may even begin an actual domestic violence program. If the parties wish to have contact, I am able to make contact with the alleged victim/witness to inform them that if they wish to provide additional information about wanting contact with my client, they can come to the next court hearing. A judge may or may not grant this request now, but my client needs the victim to agree for this to happen. If things are still red hot, I tell my client they are better off not having contact right now; the worse thing to happen is for my client to have contact, and another argument breaks out, and the cops are back at the scene. That's a potential bond violation and new charges. Each case is different, but the perception of the prosecution rarely changes for domestic violence. This is always a hot button issue for a prosecutor, which it should be, but the prosecutor has to be asked to keep an open mind and the defense must be able to play some currency when it comes to discussing positive outcomes for the client. It's quite difficult to sway a prosecutor on simply statements like: he has no record, he has a job, kids etc. This is not a low level everyday OPPS my client made a mistake. Domestic violence charges must be met with a serious response; mere allegations are enough for my client to get to work on changing the perception of the case. If after sorting over the pretrial options, a client decides they want to go to trial, we discuss possible defenses. The problem with most domestic violence cases in Michigan is that my client is probably technically guilty of having "unwanted contact with the victim".
Most clients believe that domestic violence involves punching, kicking and most commonly "hurting someone" - known of these common believes are required to be charged and found guilty of domestic violence in Michigan. I typically demonstrate what domestic violence is on my own clients - simply giving them a shove in the shoulder or pushing them out of the way is "unwanted contact" The bar is quite low and if my client was present and we don't have a mistaken identity (not happening when there is a domestic relationship) it seems like it would be impossible to win a domestic violence trial. The most common ways to win a DV trial are the following: 1. The victim does not want to testify (prosecutor then dismisses) or they don't want to testify (prosecutor doesn't dismiss) but the jury or judge have a difficult time convicting when the victim is denying anything happened. 2. Self-defense or reasonable response Going to focus more on the reasonable response; the Michigan Jury Instructions for domestic violence, specifically M Crim JI 17.24a states (1) The defendant has raised the defense that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense. To satisfy this burden, the evidence must persuade you that it is more likely than not that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence, given all of the facts and circumstances known to[him / her] at the time. (4) If the defendant has proved that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence in light of the facts and circumstances known to [him / her] at the time, you must find [him / her]not guilty of _________. If [he / she] has failed to prove this defense, [his / her] defense that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence fails. What all this legal language means is if someone is charged with domestic violence, a judge or jury gets to hear what they did from all witnesses and decide if that was reasonable. That reasonableness is not defined, but up to the jury or judge to decide. Here are two clear examples, which aren't always the case - it's usually more grey area. Scenario #1 1. Defendant claims the victim yelled at him about not paying the bills, and at one point pushed him and told him he was a no good husband. Victim admits to doing this on the stand, but then says the defendant punched her in the face multiple times and kicked her on the ground. Defendant claims he was pushed and victim was trying to push him a second time so he reacted. Scenario #2 1. Victim and defendant both admit to a verbal fight over bills not being paid. Victim claims she was shoved by the defendant and pushed out of the way, and she was afraid of the defendant. Defendant admits he shoved the victim, but claims the victim was cornering him and removed himself out the situation by pushing victim out of the way. In scenario #1 it is probably not reasonable to punch and kick someone as a response to pushing and yelling. In scenario #2, if there is a lot of mutual contact and the defendant simply wants to get away, admitting to pushing someone out of the way may technically be "unwanted touching" but is COULD BE reasonable within that moment. In Michigan, scenario #2 may offer the defendant a good defense to the domestic violence charges. The caveat being trial is always risky and alternative options should always be discussed prior to rolling the dice on your future. DV Attorney Wayne CountyIf after sorting over the pretrial options, a client decides they want to go to trial, we discuss possible defenses. The problem with most domestic violence cases in Michigan is that my client is probably technically guilty of having "unwanted contact with the victim".
Most clients believe that domestic violence involves punching, kicking and most commonly "hurting someone" - known of these common believes are required to be charged and found guilty of domestic violence in Michigan. I typically demonstrate what domestic violence is on my own clients - simply giving them a shove in the shoulder or pushing them out of the way is "unwanted contact" The bar is quite low and if my client was present and we don't have a mistaken identity (not happening when there is a domestic relationship) it seems like it would be impossible to win a domestic violence trial. The most common ways to win a DV trial are the following: 1. The victim does not want to testify (prosecutor then dismisses) or they don't want to testify (prosecutor doesn't dismiss) but the jury or judge have a difficult time convicting when the victim is denying anything happened. 2. Self-defense or reasonable response Going to focus more on the reasonable response; the Michigan Jury Instructions for domestic violence, specifically M Crim JI 17.24a states (1) The defendant has raised the defense that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense. To satisfy this burden, the evidence must persuade you that it is more likely than not that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence, given all of the facts and circumstances known to[him / her] at the time. (4) If the defendant has proved that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence in light of the facts and circumstances known to [him / her] at the time, you must find [him / her]not guilty of _________. If [he / she] has failed to prove this defense, [his / her] defense that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence fails. What all this legal language means is if someone is charged with domestic violence, a judge or jury gets to hear what they did from all witnesses and decide if that was reasonable. That reasonableness is not defined, but up to the jury or judge to decide. Here are two clear examples, which aren't always the case - it's usually more grey area. Scenario #1 1. Defendant claims the victim yelled at him about not paying the bills, and at one point pushed him and told him he was a no good husband. Victim admits to doing this on the stand, but then says the defendant punched her in the face multiple times and kicked her on the ground. Defendant claims he was pushed and victim was trying to push him a second time so he reacted. Scenario #2 1. Victim and defendant both admit to a verbal fight over bills not being paid. Victim claims she was shoved by the defendant and pushed out of the way, and she was afraid of the defendant. Defendant admits he shoved the victim, but claims the victim was cornering him and removed himself out the situation by pushing victim out of the way. In scenario #1 it is probably not reasonable to punch and kick someone as a response to pushing and yelling. In scenario #2, if there is a lot of mutual contact and the defendant simply wants to get away, admitting to pushing someone out of the way may technically be "unwanted touching" but is COULD BE reasonable within that moment. In Michigan, scenario #2 may offer the defendant a good defense to the domestic violence charges. The caveat being trial is always risky and alternative options should always be discussed prior to rolling the dice on your future. Novi DV AttorneyIf after sorting over the pretrial options, a client decides they want to go to trial, we discuss possible defenses. The problem with most domestic violence cases in Michigan is that my client is probably technically guilty of having "unwanted contact with the victim".
Most clients believe that domestic violence involves punching, kicking and most commonly "hurting someone" - known of these common believes are required to be charged and found guilty of domestic violence in Michigan. I typically demonstrate what domestic violence is on my own clients - simply giving them a shove in the shoulder or pushing them out of the way is "unwanted contact" The bar is quite low and if my client was present and we don't have a mistaken identity (not happening when there is a domestic relationship) it seems like it would be impossible to win a domestic violence trial. The most common ways to win a DV trial are the following: 1. The victim does not want to testify (prosecutor then dismisses) or they don't want to testify (prosecutor doesn't dismiss) but the jury or judge have a difficult time convicting when the victim is denying anything happened. 2. Self-defense or reasonable response Going to focus more on the reasonable response; the Michigan Jury Instructions for domestic violence, specifically M Crim JI 17.24a states (1) The defendant has raised the defense that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense. To satisfy this burden, the evidence must persuade you that it is more likely than not that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence, given all of the facts and circumstances known to[him / her] at the time. (4) If the defendant has proved that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence in light of the facts and circumstances known to [him / her] at the time, you must find [him / her]not guilty of _________. If [he / she] has failed to prove this defense, [his / her] defense that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence fails. What all this legal language means is if someone is charged with domestic violence, a judge or jury gets to hear what they did from all witnesses and decide if that was reasonable. That reasonableness is not defined, but up to the jury or judge to decide. Here are two clear examples, which aren't always the case - it's usually more grey area. Scenario #1 1. Defendant claims the victim yelled at him about not paying the bills, and at one point pushed him and told him he was a no good husband. Victim admits to doing this on the stand, but then says the defendant punched her in the face multiple times and kicked her on the ground. Defendant claims he was pushed and victim was trying to push him a second time so he reacted. Scenario #2 1. Victim and defendant both admit to a verbal fight over bills not being paid. Victim claims she was shoved by the defendant and pushed out of the way, and she was afraid of the defendant. Defendant admits he shoved the victim, but claims the victim was cornering him and removed himself out the situation by pushing victim out of the way. In scenario #1 it is probably not reasonable to punch and kick someone as a response to pushing and yelling. In scenario #2, if there is a lot of mutual contact and the defendant simply wants to get away, admitting to pushing someone out of the way may technically be "unwanted touching" but is COULD BE reasonable within that moment. In Michigan, scenario #2 may offer the defendant a good defense to the domestic violence charges. The caveat being trial is always risky and alternative options should always be discussed prior to rolling the dice on your future. Michigan DV Attorney 15th Ann ArborIf after sorting over the pretrial options, a client decides they want to go to trial, we discuss possible defenses. The problem with most domestic violence cases in Michigan is that my client is probably technically guilty of having "unwanted contact with the victim".
Most clients believe that domestic violence involves punching, kicking and most commonly "hurting someone" - known of these common believes are required to be charged and found guilty of domestic violence in Michigan. I typically demonstrate what domestic violence is on my own clients - simply giving them a shove in the shoulder or pushing them out of the way is "unwanted contact" The bar is quite low and if my client was present and we don't have a mistaken identity (not happening when there is a domestic relationship) it seems like it would be impossible to win a domestic violence trial. The most common ways to win a DV trial are the following: 1. The victim does not want to testify (prosecutor then dismisses) or they don't want to testify (prosecutor doesn't dismiss) but the jury or judge have a difficult time convicting when the victim is denying anything happened. 2. Self-defense or reasonable response Going to focus more on the reasonable response; the Michigan Jury Instructions for domestic violence, specifically M Crim JI 17.24a states (1) The defendant has raised the defense that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense. To satisfy this burden, the evidence must persuade you that it is more likely than not that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence, given all of the facts and circumstances known to[him / her] at the time. (4) If the defendant has proved that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence in light of the facts and circumstances known to [him / her] at the time, you must find [him / her]not guilty of _________. If [he / she] has failed to prove this defense, [his / her] defense that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence fails. What all this legal language means is if someone is charged with domestic violence, a judge or jury gets to hear what they did from all witnesses and decide if that was reasonable. That reasonableness is not defined, but up to the jury or judge to decide. Here are two clear examples, which aren't always the case - it's usually more grey area. Scenario #1 1. Defendant claims the victim yelled at him about not paying the bills, and at one point pushed him and told him he was a no good husband. Victim admits to doing this on the stand, but then says the defendant punched her in the face multiple times and kicked her on the ground. Defendant claims he was pushed and victim was trying to push him a second time so he reacted. Scenario #2 1. Victim and defendant both admit to a verbal fight over bills not being paid. Victim claims she was shoved by the defendant and pushed out of the way, and she was afraid of the defendant. Defendant admits he shoved the victim, but claims the victim was cornering him and removed himself out the situation by pushing victim out of the way. In scenario #1 it is probably not reasonable to punch and kick someone as a response to pushing and yelling. In scenario #2, if there is a lot of mutual contact and the defendant simply wants to get away, admitting to pushing someone out of the way may technically be "unwanted touching" but is COULD BE reasonable within that moment. In Michigan, scenario #2 may offer the defendant a good defense to the domestic violence charges. The caveat being trial is always risky and alternative options should always be discussed prior to rolling the dice on your future. If after sorting over the pretrial options, a client decides they want to go to trial, we discuss possible defenses. The problem with most domestic violence cases in Michigan is that my client is probably technically guilty of having "unwanted contact with the victim".
Most clients believe that domestic violence involves punching, kicking and most commonly "hurting someone" - known of these common believes are required to be charged and found guilty of domestic violence in Michigan. I typically demonstrate what domestic violence is on my own clients - simply giving them a shove in the shoulder or pushing them out of the way is "unwanted contact" The bar is quite low and if my client was present and we don't have a mistaken identity (not happening when there is a domestic relationship) it seems like it would be impossible to win a domestic violence trial. The most common ways to win a DV trial are the following: 1. The victim does not want to testify (prosecutor then dismisses) or they don't want to testify (prosecutor doesn't dismiss) but the jury or judge have a difficult time convicting when the victim is denying anything happened. 2. Self-defense or reasonable response Going to focus more on the reasonable response; the Michigan Jury Instructions for domestic violence, specifically M Crim JI 17.24a states (1) The defendant has raised the defense that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense. To satisfy this burden, the evidence must persuade you that it is more likely than not that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence, given all of the facts and circumstances known to[him / her] at the time. (4) If the defendant has proved that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence in light of the facts and circumstances known to [him / her] at the time, you must find [him / her]not guilty of _________. If [he / she] has failed to prove this defense, [his / her] defense that [his / her] conduct was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence fails. What all this legal language means is if someone is charged with domestic violence, a judge or jury gets to hear what they did from all witnesses and decide if that was reasonable. That reasonableness is not defined, but up to the jury or judge to decide. Here are two clear examples, which aren't always the case - it's usually more grey area. Scenario #1 1. Defendant claims the victim yelled at him about not paying the bills, and at one point pushed him and told him he was a no good husband. Victim admits to doing this on the stand, but then says the defendant punched her in the face multiple times and kicked her on the ground. Defendant claims he was pushed and victim was trying to push him a second time so he reacted. Scenario #2 1. Victim and defendant both admit to a verbal fight over bills not being paid. Victim claims she was shoved by the defendant and pushed out of the way, and she was afraid of the defendant. Defendant admits he shoved the victim, but claims the victim was cornering him and removed himself out the situation by pushing victim out of the way. In scenario #1 it is probably not reasonable to punch and kick someone as a response to pushing and yelling. In scenario #2, if there is a lot of mutual contact and the defendant simply wants to get away, admitting to pushing someone out of the way may technically be "unwanted touching" but is COULD BE reasonable within that moment. In Michigan, scenario #2 may offer the defendant a good defense to the domestic violence charges. The caveat being trial is always risky and alternative options should always be discussed prior to rolling the dice on your future. As a former prosecutor, I worked on hundreds of domestic violence cases. I've taken that experience, and now help clients accused of this serious crime as a defense attorney.
The first thing we need to do is understand and acknowledge the perception of our audience. This includes the prosecutor, judge, police and the general public. I include the general public, because domestic violence cases go to trial more than most criminal charges, and having a jury of your peers decide your case comes with many pros and cons. I don't condone violence against family members or loved ones. I take on these types of cases, because despite a serious criminal charge, the accused deserves to execute their rights in the criminal justice system. If the client is falsely accused then I help them push for their innocence; if the client broke the law and the evidence supports the charge, then we focus on getting the client the help they need to be a better person, avoid future violence and make amends to the person hurt by their actions. I tell clients all the time, it's ok if you're guilty, it doesn't make you a bad person, it doesn't mean you're going to jail, and it may not even mean having a criminal record from the incident. It's an opportunity to work on yourself, be proactive, and change the reality of who you are along with the perception of the case. In Michigan, a regular assault becomes a domestic assault when it involves a spouse, a former spouse, a person which you share a child in common, a resident or former resident of your household or a person which you have or had a dating relationship. Because of this close bond relationship, which is required, the prosecutor does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Anytime I speak to a prosecutor about a domestic violence charge, there's a major stink in the air. Simply by reading a 1-2 page police report, the prosecutor is convinced my client is really guilty and is ready to plead and beg for mercy from the judge. Prosecutor's, especially less experienced ones, don't bother to see both sides of the case; the majority of domestic violence cases begin with a mutual dispute, and typically two parties are at fault in the incident starting, and usually in the police getting involved. Once the incident has started, does one party break the law with a violent act, or does one person just get arrested based on who placed the call. Does the male get arrested simply due to public perception? Are their real and actual injuries (although not required) that can help us better understand the case? There's unlikely to be a video unless it happens in public, but photos taken of the parties involved, medical reports, audio from 911 calls, officer microphones while on scene and dash cam videos can be helpful. The rules of evidence for domestic violence cases provide the prosecutor additional ammo to admit certain evidence against a client if the victim/witness testifies to something different at trial than originally stated to law enforcement. As a former prosecutor, I can see the wheels spinning in their head; sure the report looks strong, but are you able to actually put this forth at trial and meet your burden? Maybe not. My clients always keep a trial on the table for domestic violence cases, because unlike most cases, a private citizen is the key witness, not a police officer, and there's probably not going to be videos, tests etc like say a drunk driving case. My clients must use this elephant in the room to their advantage. These cases usually start with people who love each other, get involved in an incident, but within 24 hours are back loving each other. Is the prosecution willing to force someone to testify if their story has changed? Are they going to issue a material witness warrant and arrest someone to testify? Along with this leverage, my clients have to create leverage outside of the courtroom. We understand the perception of my client. and the uncertainly that the charges bring for my client in the mind of the prosecutor and judge. Is my client a dangerous person? Should they be locked up? Should they have to avoid the person and the place where this happened? No matter what the actual answer to those questions are, we lean toward acknowledging that these are not worth fighting over at the moment, we simply get to work to show they aren't true. If alcohol was involved, I get my clients on a daily testing unit to show that they are clearheaded during the case, and if alcohol was a major contributor to the incident, we put a lot of our focus on substance abuse awareness and treatment. If the evidence indicates there actually was some form of violence, we may engage in proactive anger management and/or counseling. If based on the evidence, it appears that resolution may be the best route, we may even begin an actual domestic violence program. If the parties wish to have contact, I am able to make contact with the alleged victim/witness to inform them that if they wish to provide additional information about wanting contact with my client, they can come to the next court hearing. A judge may or may not grant this request now, but my client needs the victim to agree for this to happen. If things are still red hot, I tell my client they are better off not having contact right now; the worse thing to happen is for my client to have contact, and another argument breaks out, and the cops are back at the scene. That's a potential bond violation and new charges. Each case is different, but the perception of the prosecution rarely changes for domestic violence. This is always a hot button issue for a prosecutor, which it should be, but the prosecutor has to be asked to keep an open mind and the defense must be able to play some currency when it comes to discussing positive outcomes for the client. It's quite difficult to sway a prosecutor on simply statements like: he has no record, he has a job, kids etc. This is not a low level everyday OPPS my client made a mistake. Domestic violence charges must be met with a serious response; mere allegations are enough for my client to get to work on changing the perception of the case. If charged with domestic violence in Michigan, you have the option of going to trial. Trial should be the last option if a deal cannot be worked out ahead of time or the prosecutor refuses to dismiss despite you believing you are incident of the offense charged.
Assuming we set the case for trial, a jury trial means 6 members of the community hearing testimony and deciding guilt or not guilty. A bench trial is the judge hearing the facts of the case and deciding the same question. Each has their advantages and disadvantages depending upon why we're setting it for trial. If the goal is to set the case for trial because we believe the alleged victim will not show up, and the prosecutor will not pursue the material witness warrant, we may opt for a bench trial which is quicker and less strain on the court resources - it will also be cheaper for my client. If we know the alleged victim will show, and not be helpful for the case, and we believe we did nothing wrong, we may want 6 members of the community hearing the facts and finding reasonable doubt. |
Categories
All
|
