Jourdan Lewis Character (Very Good) + Domestic Violence for Us Regular Folks (Mixed Bag)

Submitted by xtramelanin on July 27th, 2017 at 12:15 PM

Mates,

Haven't posted in a bit but I did read the Jourdan Lewis stuff and I thought this might be timely.  Its too long for a forum topic but I'll try to be succinct.

1.  Jourdan Lewis Character - Very Good.   First time misdemeanor DV defendants are always offered what is called a 'deferred sentence' pursuant to MCL 769.4a.  Its kind of like a double secret probation where they send the defendant to anger management classes (also known as "Man Hater" classes) for about 6 months and if defendant doesn't test dirty for booze or drugs and doesn't get any more criminal charges the case is eventually dismissed.  Those classes can be helpful though, if for no other reason than they can teach someone to simply walk away from an argument before it gets to the tipping point. 

Not only did Jourdan not take this offer, but also he said 'no' to any type of offer to some less serious, Mickey Mouse type of misdemeanor with a similar treatment.  There are some other pre-trial facts that evidence his high character but with the NFL not having weighed in yet those will be kept private.  Suffice it to say that if you knew those you would almost certainly think he is and always was truly innocent, not just not guilty.

At trial the complaining witness (not going to call a fake witness a 'victim') was not believable, and in particular her recorded statements came off as drama - her 9-1-1 call was like she'd witnessed some horrible crime, not gotten pushed away using pillows.  Same with the body cam recording of her statement on the night in question.  There was evidence that she had slapped JL multiple times.  She also conveniently cried during some parts of direct exam and that came off as manufactured.   

Jourdan was contacted that same night and instantly manned-up and met with the cops.  He took no time to manipulate or plan out his statement, and instead gave a sincere and calm statement.  No need for him to take the stand as the prosecutor was foolish enough to put his statement to the police into evidence.   

2.  Can He Sue Her For Malicious Prosecution/Abuse of Process - Yes, but its way difficult and rarely worth the time, effort and money.  You have to have the right case facts and a complaining witness whose lies are able to be shown to a jury.  I had such a case earlier this year and it worked out well for the client, but that is literally one in a thousand.  I don't know what JL plans, but I'd be shocked if he pursued her for anything.

3.  Domestic Violence for us Regular Folks - No doubt it is a real thing and a serious thing, but like many causes can sometimes be not only overblown, but also used as a weapon to hurt others.  That said, I am willing to bet that the majority of you reading this have been the either the victim or the aggressor in a DV incident.  You're thinking 'no way, Jose'.  But remember that time you threw your keys at your ex, or s/he threw them at you?  How about when you closed the door on his/her foot, while yelling at them?  Or when you grabbed his/her shoulder to get their phone out of their hand?   And a few of you unfortunately more severe than that.

I mention this only because if you are in a relationship that has these elements its probably time to not be in that relationship.  If nothing else, please get some help.  Frequent factors in these cases are substance abuse, fiinancial issues, depression and/or mental health issues but there is help for those things.  If children are involved then you have got to get them clear of the situation as the damage it can do to them could be disastrous - a multi-generational nightmare.  Don't let that happen.

Anyway, hope that was worth reading.

XM

Comments

1VaBlue1

July 27th, 2017 at 12:26 PM ^

Thank you for the explanation/write-up!  I've wondered if he said no to any plea deal, and I'm glad to hear he did.  Like everyone else, I was surprised to learn about this issue with him based on the in-depth story Seth did last year.  Seems like her head wasn't on straight, for whatever reason.

In any case, I'm glad it worked out for him.

Bando Calrissian

July 27th, 2017 at 12:32 PM ^

This is all well and fine, but it does not change the knee-jerk reaction among fanbases for all kinds of things like this: "The player cannot possibly be guilty, because they play for a team I like."

Victims aren't believed in DV and sexual assault allegations against athletes because we can't stand the thought that an athlete we like would do something we don't. And because athletes are public figures, this usually becomes an instance of public shaming against victims. (She hit him! She changed her story! She's a jilted ex! Look at what she's posted on Facebook!)

False allegations occur, but the burden of proof on places like MGoBlog is set at such a high level, filtering into things like Twitter and Facebook and newspaper comment boards, that victims might be disinclined to report and seek justice for what has happened to them.

Bodogblog

July 27th, 2017 at 12:55 PM ^

I believe your point is valid as general rule.  But on mgoblog, I saw more comments similar to yours during the allegation phase than I saw of anyone questioning the alleged victim. 

During the trial thread when the facts came out?  Yes, a lot of people on this board reacted.  I think appropriately so. 

xtramelanin

July 27th, 2017 at 1:28 PM ^

accused.  it is a business i have nearly 30 yrs of experience in (not to mention being a scrapper as a younger man).  i have tried literally hundreds of cases and have only ever lost a handful.   that doesn't make me the greatest lawyer in town, but it does speak to my ability to not only see a case objectively (putting emotion, celebrity, etc. aside) but also back it up in court....hundreds of times.  for the same reason you undoubtedly have insight into how to play your flute, i just might have some into how DV works in the real world.  

and to use your imagery, your victim bias/athlete hate is bending you over like the band leader on game day.  

Bando Calrissian

July 27th, 2017 at 1:38 PM ^

Oh, cool, the "I'm a lawyer" take, paired with the band geek joke. Classy.

This is just more of the same as to why people don't believe victims. It's not "athlete hate," either--it's recognizing that the power dynamics of society benefits athletes and not the women they seemingly so often victimize.

But, OK.

xtramelanin

July 27th, 2017 at 1:59 PM ^

of your life. 

a.  we are talking about law, criminal law in particular and a specialty of mine, seems reasonable to share that.  if we were talking about medicine would you be upset that somebody who was a doctor opined?   get angry at an engineer on the board if the OP was about engineering?  and nobody on this board dealt with more victims than i did during my time as a DA, victims of serious crime or in many cases, the surviving family members of the murdered.  i've been on the streets, stepped past the bodies and around the blood, marked shell casings, interviewed witnesses, broken up fights, been involved in shootings, been to autopsies, you name it.  i have a heart for victims, but not everyone who opens their mouth is a victim.    

b.  no band geek joke, i was serious.  isn't that a flute you're holding up in your avatar?  i assume you spent years playing to get into the band and i bet you still do play.  if there is an OP about band or playing music i would expect you to weigh in with commentary and i'd be interested in reading it, not angry b/c you happened to have lots of experience as a musician.   

Hail-Storm

July 27th, 2017 at 4:42 PM ^

that response is beneath you.  You've been on here a long time and have had a lot of good insight/ comments over the years here.  You made a bad assumption/ attack of XM.  he made a reasonable response, showing his expertise in the field he is commenting on, and showing you respect in the process.  Admit you are wrong, say sorry and move on.

It's funny that you are worried about people jumping to conclusions to defend an athlete no matter what, and you are still trying to defend your statements to XM even in the face of facts that prove you were wrong. 

CWoodson

July 28th, 2017 at 12:14 AM ^

100%. Bando has been a constantly negative, one note poster here for years offering the same three takes over and over. Heaven forbid we hear from someone with experience or insight that deviates from Bando's narrative.

And as a lawyer, the idea that we should automatically believe accusers, or certain accusers, because of "power dynamics" is absurd. Whether you're a juror or community member, it's always appropriate to consider all of the facts that come out. In the last 24 hours I've had two clients (non criminal) face provably false accusations made by unstable, vindictive people - it's not some rare event.

Year of Revenge II

July 28th, 2017 at 10:56 AM ^

Spoken probably by a family law lawyer!

I have (what I consider) to be a funny story from my practicing days.  I tried to avoid doing divorces if I could, but there is just too much of it out there to be very successful at it.  

We had a motion day in Grand Rapids when domestic motions were heard.  There usually was an in-chambers discussion group of attorneys and one particular judge before he heard his motions on Friday.  He was a former trial lawyer, and had a background in criminal law although he does business matters now since his retirement from the bench. 

One morning, he rose robed from the seat behind his desk at about 9:30 am, when divorce motions were to begin.  Looking at the 10 or so attorneys in the room, he declared.  "It is time to start in court.  Let the Perjury commence!"

SwordDancer710

July 27th, 2017 at 4:59 PM ^

As both a lawyer and a band geek, I appreciate XM's analysis. It's easy to get passionate about these very serious topics, and that's fine when viewing from the outside. But the law is confusing and these situations can seem counterintuitive to those who don't have experience in it. I don't do criminal work, and the little I do know from my ADA and crim defense friends has convinced me that it's a lot different than what we expect.

If victims are not seeking help because of backlash, that's a separate (and important) issue. If athletes are getting preferential treatment, that's a separate (and important) issue. But let's take this specific case on its merits with the specific facts at hand and maybe consider that the opinion of an expert in the field can carry more weight than an average forum poster. 

guthrie

July 28th, 2017 at 4:30 PM ^

You're trying to tell me that in your time as a DA you marked shell casings?  You stepped past the bodies and blood?  Interviewed witnesses?  Yeah, none of that is true.  If so, you're the worst/most unethical DA I've ever heard of.  You made yourself part of the investigation.  You made yourself a witness.  And as such, you would not be allowed to prosecute the case you were a witness to and arguably you would get your entire office excused from the case based on a conflict.

xtramelanin

July 28th, 2017 at 6:07 PM ^

me being at a crime scene and directing my investigators during an investigation isn't unethical, it was my specifically assigned job while running a covert task force.  ask the dozens and dozens of defense attorneys i worked with if any of them ever thought i was unethical in the slightest.   speaking with witnesses isn't unethical, its what lawyers do, especially on those occasions when i was the only spanish speaker present and we needed to find some things out quickly or when i was starting out doing misdemeanors and there was nobody to perform those tasks.  ask the guys i worked with.  look up the court opinions, particularly the appellate opinions of which there are many since every felon appeals their life sentence and almost all appeal the ones of lesser years.  

lastly, you could ask my mgobride who was part of that life and remembers having a black and white unit in front of my house 24/7 back in the day in socal.   part of our courtship included the fact that we would leave socal after getting married, and we did that 5 months later.  i remember giving notice to my team, 1 Lt, 2 Sgts, and 20 investigators at our monday morning meeting.  they were shocked.  but when i told them the headlines of the marquette mining journal (where we moved to) for 11/1 they understood instantly.  want to know what the headlines were?  'larger than average number of pumpkins smashed on halloween night', and the second one, 'grouse hunting - better than expected'.   instead of murder/death/kill and living under an assumed name, we drove into the UP and were able to put our real names in the phone book.  i'm guessing you don't know what that feels like, but suffice it to say, it was rather liberting and more.  

guthrie

July 28th, 2017 at 6:21 PM ^

It is absolutely unethical and just plain dumb if you were interviewing witnesses and directing crime scenes. 

So answer this.  You speak to a witness at a crime scene.  And you're the only one who can do the interview because you're a Spanish speaker.  And then the witness comes in to court and changes their story.  Who did you call as an impeachment witness?  Yourself?  Unethical and unprofessional.

Speaking to a witness with a detective present to write everything down and serve as a second witness is just fine.  What you are describing is absolutely not fine.

And you being at crime scenes directing investigators, once again, makes you a witness.  If you had a detective state that a piece of evidence was in one location but he/she got it wrong, who would your defense attorney be able to call as an impeachment witness?  You.  Best case scenario, mistrial.  Worst case, dismissal with prejudice and you're reported to the bar, as you should be.

Saying that you did something over and over during your career does not mean it was proper.  It means you did the wrong thing over and over.

guthrie

July 28th, 2017 at 7:02 PM ^

And by the way, I'm a prosecutor in socal.  Have been for 17 years.  I live it every day as I type this from the CCB.

 

I'll say this.  There are precisely two units in the DA's office in Los Angeles where it's possible you would get called to crime scenes.  And in neither of those units would you ever mark evidence.  But if you were in one of those units, there are very specific and limited circumstances in which you would interview witnesses.  Which of those two units were you in?

xtramelanin

July 28th, 2017 at 9:42 PM ^

we were in person right now you'd be apologizing to me for insulting me and being wrong, or else we'd be having a problem. 

you are confusing the obvious and always honored obligations to disclose exculpatory evidence under brady v. maryland and some particular evidence pursuant to CPC 1054.1 (at least as it existed when i practiced there), with possible limitations on impeachment vis-a-vis california v. green or rules like CE 1235 and the use of extrinsic and/or intrinsic impeachment.  this is a detailed discussion on an area which is tough to have on a message board.  in the interests of brevity i'll give 3 real life examples.

1.  in trial on a shooting.  witness is outside of the court room and i am walking past him to start the afternoon court session. we've not met and he asks me my name, and after i ID myself he says 'i didn't see nothing.  i don't know nothing'.  i continue walking into the court room and walk right up to the D atty and tell him exactly what mr. witness had just said.   it never even came up in the subsequent examination of that witness either in direct or cross, as that was the way of gang homicides and gangster witnesses back in the day.

2.  i'm in an elevator on the way to resume a different trial and two witnesses are speaking in spanish, discussing what they're going to testify to.  they have no idea i understand their conversation (i don't look hispanic).  when they are called i impeach each with their discussion in the elevator which they each sheepishly admit.  no brady violation, but there would've been a limitation on impeachment  (could not do extrinsic impeachment) had they not cop'd duiring testimony.

3.  doing the leader of a gang called 'da boyz' who committed a whole string of felonies ending with a pursuit and a neighborhood standing silently, too afraid to speak as the stolen car sits a couple of houses from defendant's house, engine still running.  an 8 yr old girl is found who says, in effect, 'i saw the person and it wasn't eddie (real first name of the bad guy)'.  i call b.s. on that and go down there.  i find girl and we have a very nice talk as i shoot hoops with her and some of the kids in the varrio.  she tells me the truth.  i then have another spanish speaker, sgt. K.R. (one of my all-time favorites) go down and confirm what i was told.  when that wonderful young lady is too scared to complete her testimony, i excuse her from the stand and call sgt. K.R.  pursuant to the CE his recitation of her statement is able to come in.  eddie gets convicted (and shoots my car, but that's a whole 'nother story). 

and the answer to your other question is gangs.  it was back when the wild west was going on, more than a decade before you started practicing. 

 

guthrie

July 28th, 2017 at 11:00 PM ^

If you were interviewing witnesses as a gang DA, then you flat out were doing it wrong.  There are only two units where it's acceptable practice for DA to interview witnesses by him/herself.  JSID and CAPOS.  If you're saying you did that in Hardcore then you may have a lot of defense attorneys interested to hear that.

And again, just because you did something over and over doesn't mean you did it correctly.  It means you did the wrong thing over and over.

As for your examples, they don't in any way equate to what you described.  Overhearing a conversation is not interviewing a witness.  A person walking up to you and making a statement is not interviewing a witness.  You tried to describe yourself as being out on the front lines at crime scenes, marking evidence and doing the interviews yourself.  And the fact is either you didn't do that or if you did you were way out of line.

And frankly I don't care if "we'd be having a problem".  You know damn well what I'm saying is true.  You haven't answered either of the questions I asked you.  If you made it a practice to interview witnesses, who did you call to impeach them?  

As for your claims of living under an assumed identity while you were a DA, I find that hard to believe.  I happen to be acquaintances with the lead detective in Sheriff's Homicide who handles all the Mexican Mafia cases and is Boxer Enriquez's handler.  His wife is in the DA's office with me.  Neither one of them uses an assumed identity.  No DA I've ever known, including dozens in Hardcore, has ever used an assumed identity.

You appear to be greatly exagerrating what you did as a DA which is just weird.  There's no need to exagerrate what we do.  It's crazy enough as it is.  Tell you what.  Go ahead and give me your initials and the class you were hired with.  There are photos of every hiring class just down the hall from my office.  If your initials match up with a hiring class, I'll ask everyone I know whether all of this is true.  If it is, I will absolutely apologize whole heartedly.

And by the way, the reference to the wild west is not one that is looked on with favor in our office precisely because of things like this.  Going out and interviewing your own witnesses, marking evidence at crime scenes . . . there's a reason that stuff is verboten now.

 

XM, please make sure to read my follow up post on this.  

guthrie

July 28th, 2017 at 10:37 PM ^

You know, going back and reading what you wrote, I just realized that all the stuff about how you handled your job as a DA may, in fact, be true.  It sounds like you're roughly placing yourself in the 1980's which is before my time as a DA.  And for all I know, that's exactly how it was done at that time.  So if that is indeed the case, then I apologize for saying you weren't telling the truth about that.  What you're describing is so completely different from the way things are now done that it seems impossible to believe.  But that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way, it just means things have changed a lot.  It's pretty shortsighted of me to think that just because we do it a certain way now means that anyone who says they did it different in the past isn't telling the truth.

I'll take you at your word and offer an apology.  

xtramelanin

July 29th, 2017 at 12:10 AM ^

i thought i had answered your questions, too, but let me add some extra detail.  the name i used was john thompson.  i went about the last 7 yrs living there without license plates on my truck, although if i'd have gotten pulled over i had a map pocket full of valid plates that came back to a court house address, using lame names we made up for things like leasing companies. the SO was so used to being in front of my house that when my wife went back to visit her parents a couple years after we'd moved to the UP, she drove by the old house and there were two SO units out front.  it had by that time become their 10-87 area. 

we could talk for hours on some of this but one typical and i always thought interesting story on 'front line' call outs came to mind while i was sitting around the bon fire with the family in the back yard tonight.  years ago i was going to try a driver/shooter combo for a drive-by on a monday, but the friday before the D's won their 995 motion (you know what that is, but for others that's a motion that basically says there's not enough evidence to have these defendants stand trial).  they processed out of men's central in late afternoon, early evening that friday free to go with the charges dismissed.  maybe 12 hours later i got a call about 0300 hrs saturday to come to the hospital.  scared the crap out of me b/c i thought one of our guys got shot.  not so.

turns out the shooter got picked up by his gangster buddies, gotten loaded, they'd stolen a car and cold-plated it, and gone right back into rival territory for another shooting.  problem was that when the shooter in my case leaned out the front passenger window to start shooting, so too did the guy in the back seat, same side.  and the back seat guy accidently blew the back of my shooters head clean off.  so the gangsters drive to the hospital and jump out of the car and flee, letting the car roll right into the doors of the ER, still running, and with their buddy missing half his head in the front passenger seat.   that was an interesting crime scene.  

 

MGoFunkadelic

July 29th, 2017 at 3:53 PM ^

The Studio City food scene has blown up over the last few years but the bigger chains are leaving.  the mcdonalds on ventura closed down but the little diagonal street where Tuning Fork is now has Joan's on Third, McConnell's Ice Cream, Alfred coffee shop and the old stand by Gungadin.  

ST3

July 28th, 2017 at 12:00 PM ^

your victim bias/athlete hate is bending you over like the band leader on game day

I might be mistaken, but I think that's a simile, not a joke. I mean, what's the punchline? I'm fairly certain that if you poll 100 Michigan fans, 100 of them will tell you that the band leader (or more accurately, the Drum Major) bending over is one of the cooler parts of the pre-game festivities. I know I always get goosebumps when they do this:

ijohnb

July 27th, 2017 at 4:08 PM ^

is not "bending over backwards" to give Lewis every benefit of the doubt, he is highlighting the specific characterstics of this case that lead some many, including the jury, to the same conclusion.  I thought Lewis was foolish for not accepting a 769.4 plea just a couple of months ago, it is like the sweetest deal possible for first time offenders and he flat turned it down.  That means he and his attorney were seriously nearly 100% certain that he would not be convicted based primarily on what Lewis knew he did and/or did not do.

I really don't understand your point that he is doing this because Lewis plays for Michigan or that athletes "get the benefit of the doubt."  In this case I think the opposite is true.  I think the prosecutor took an absolute dog to trial because it would have looked bad if they dismissed a case against a high profile athlete, probably forcing Lewis to spend thousands of dollars more to defend himself because the prosecutor's office "bent over backwards" to not have to dismiss a case against an athlete and suffer bad press for it.

Year of Revenge II

July 27th, 2017 at 4:41 PM ^

My guess is that you have witnessed precisely 0.0 assaultive trials from start to finish in your lifetime.  Alleged victims get the benefit of the doubt, if there is any, almost all of the time.  Probably not so much if a high-profile athlete is involved, but the dynamics of such a trial is for a jury to give it to the alleged victim, regardless of the fact that the law is that the Defendant is presumed to be innocent.  Not the way it works in most trials.

taut

July 27th, 2017 at 9:38 PM ^

C'mon Bando, if you don't think XM has credibiilty, well, that may be more of an emotional response than a logical one.

But OK, look instead at the jury. They heard and saw all the evidence. They were back with their verdict in under 2 hours. Seems like they thought the case was super weak as well.

canzior

August 4th, 2017 at 2:22 PM ^

here but it's everywhere. Cowboys fans were talking shit about him as well. I read the comments about DaShawn Hand, and since I know him, and am friends with his father, I care. He's a great student, and an upstanding kid but there is so much self-righteousness by many people, including the people here. Everyone loves to shake their head and point a finger, with an automatic assumption of guilt. It's not just a sports thing either, it's society and the obsession with celebrity news and gossip. Ultimately it really is just a bunch of guys gossiping about what they think happened in someone else's life, in a situation they know little to nothing about. More people should have XM's attitude or read with an open mind, refrain from passing judgement. These are still people, children compared to most of us, yet the visceral attacks on them are cowardly and absurd.

pistolwolf

July 27th, 2017 at 1:20 PM ^

i have three daughters and 8 grandaughters, i would never want anyone to lay a hand on them. but to think that no females would ever lie or exaggerate the truth is very naive. that is why you let the process play out. i dont go by the first thing i hear and belive that.

    i wish people never did bad things, made mistakes or lied, but that isnt the real world.  i would hope both partys learned from this.

outofbounds

July 27th, 2017 at 1:27 PM ^

True story, not sure why sharing. Just compelled by ops suggestion of regular folks and domestic violence. 

2003.  I suspected my then wife was cheating on me.  I had the phones rigged up and had a key stroke tracker put on the laptop.  My suspicion was confirmed.  I confronted her about it.  We had a toddler in the house at the time.  It turned to a verbal arguement.  She then began to hit/punch me about the face ( I received a fat lip).  I pushed her off me, not hard mind you as whe was diminutive.  She fell down on the floor.  She called the police as she was pissed that she was busted.  The police show up.  I greet them at the door.  I tell the police, yes, I pushed her off me, she fell to the ground. All kinds of cops showed up.  Man cops, women cops, cops with cameras, EMT's.  

This happened on a Friday afternoon.  I got handcuffed and taken away.  Quite the scene in our neighborhood.  I had to spend the weekend in county jail.  

Case went to court.  My attorney said she could not show up, or she could show up and tell the truth.  She showed up, told the truth.  It was dropped.  Still does not take away a weekend of jail.  I missed UM beating of ND 38-0 that weekend.

We were divorced shortly thereafter.

Be safe out there.  

 

ijohnb

July 28th, 2017 at 7:29 AM ^

How could she live with this fact pattern - She cheats on you (when you two had a child), got busted, flipped out and starting hitting you (in front of said child), lied about it, and then watched you get arrested and go to jail based on all of her misdeeds.  She was sentenced to bad karma for life at that moment.  If she has/had any conscience at all, those 48 hours that you spent in jail would have been unbearable for her.

harmon40

July 28th, 2017 at 4:12 PM ^

Imagine if she had gone into court and lied with utter conviction. Then a lot of potluck comes into play. Which judge do you find yourself in front of that day?

I'm not a lawyer but have a very close friend who got slapped around by his wife one morning and ended up being the one arrested. He was fortunate enough to get a very good public defender (they do exist) who got his wife to admit in court that she had started the altercation. Thus, the restraining order she requested was not granted.

The atty he later hired to defend him at trial told him he had been luckier than he knew. There were two judges who worked that particular room, alternating days. My friend had been before the judge who had a well earned reputation for fairness and being able to see thru histrionic bullshit. The other one had the reputation of having the view that "the police would not have arrested you if didn't do anything wrong."

The implications of drawing the right judge were significant. In our state, the issuance of a restraining order would have lowered the burden of proof to a "preponderance of the evidence." As it was, w/o the order, the burden of proof was "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Also significant: in our state a DV conviction is a non-expungeable offense. So if you are convicted of even misdeamor DV you are branded as a domestic abuser for life. This can happen on the basis of zero actual evidence.

My friend has often reflected on his good luck at having found himself before the right judge, which in his case was essentially a coin flip. As the OP states, DV is a significant and serious issue. However there are men out there who are falsely accused, and whether or not they get convicted can be significantly affected by blind, dumb luck.

Evil Empire

August 2nd, 2017 at 8:55 AM ^

My brother's wife started a fight with him when he was trying to go to sleep.  She cranked the volume on the TV in their bedroom and pulled the covers off him repeatedly.  He got up and unplugged the TV.  She yelled at him.  He was due to exchange his company car the next day for a new one, so he went to her purse to get her key to that car in order to avoid paying $50 for a replacement.  This resulted in a tug of war over the purse and her flailing about on the carpet.  Her upper arms were abraded as a result.

She called her parents and they told her she was being unreasonable.  She tried to slam the bedroom door on him but he blocked it with his foot, and it rebounded and struck her.

She ran out the front door and to a neighbor's, where she called the police.  He was arrested and spent the night in jail.  I heard from him later the next day and was prepared to drive to Detroit and bail him out, but a family friend in the area did so.

He spent the next several months sleeping on friends' couches because he wasn't allowed to go home.

Instead of coming to her senses, she submitted a four-page victim's impact statement to the court and filed for divorce (withdrawn within a week).  The case went to trial.

Her story at the trial didn't make sense.  Her version of the bedroom door story was that he was in the bedroom and she was trying to get in there when he pinned her to the jamb with the door, bruising her shoulder (no evidence of this submitted).  So she was so afraid of him that she was trying to break into the room where he was?  She was also so afraid of him that she left him threatening voicemail messages.

She started the argument, he didn't hit her or use a weapon, she had no physical injuries beyond reddened upper arms as photographed by her neighbor 15 minutes after she left the house.

The judge found him guilty of DV anyway and sentenced him to the anger management classes as described by XM in the original post.  After he completed those and was not arrested for anything else in the ensuing six months, his record was cleared.  He was briefly detained at the Ambassador Bridge coming back into Detroit from Windsor due to his open criminal case.

His now ex-wife finds it easy to ignore facts when they don't suit her, but the fact that he was found guilty of DV is the lodestar of her life. 

He has made sure to never be alone with her since.  Six more years until their youngest child turns 18 and he doesn't have to talk to his ex again.

Yabadabablue

July 27th, 2017 at 3:48 PM ^

Being found not guilty gives zero opinion on ones character. just means they did not find enough evidence to prove the person guilty of the crime they are charged with. 

That being said I do beleive that Lewis has great character. Personally knowing both parties I can say the same about both. This was not (I beleive) a case of her suing Lewis but the procesecuters office taking the evidence and thinking they can convict the defendant.  Its the prosecuters office vs Lewis and his lawyer. The Ann Arbor prosecuters office can be very "charge happy" and force people into very hard situations (like Lewis choosing between pleading to lesser charges or going to trial). 

 

There are two perspectives to every altercation. a push may seem like a throw,forceful/unforceful. Anything physical may seem scary or threatening. If any of you have been in physical altercation they can be very confusing. I do not like people attacking someones character when they know neither person nor seen the dynamics of their relationship. 

 

 

901 P

July 27th, 2017 at 4:16 PM ^

Not trying to play "holier-than-thou," but I'm wondering about your certainty that a majority of MGoReaders has been the perpetrator in or victim of a DV dispute. I hope MGoReaders are not throwing their keys at their partners, even if they are upset. But I guess it's hard to know for sure--statistics on these types of disputes are notoriously hard to come by. 

 

xtramelanin

July 28th, 2017 at 11:29 AM ^

surprised how prevalent it is.  the one under-reported stat nobody talks about is the amount of DV that women commit.  men simply don't report it, even when it's serious.  look no further than about 4 posts up where another mgoblogger shared a story.  

EDIT:  and the one immediately below this one regarding the pizza toss and subsequent charging toward the victim.   and yes, she definitely committed DV.  if you doubt that, change the genders of the participants in that scenario and see if you can find anyone who thinks otherwise.  

Bighou

July 28th, 2017 at 10:16 AM ^

But then I thought about it and remembered that my ex once through a hot slice of pizza at me. Then she charged at me and I briefly put her in a headlock until she calmed down. Does that mean I experienced DV? Neither of us reported anything.

901 P

July 27th, 2017 at 4:19 PM ^

"There are some other pre-trial facts that evidence his high character but with the NFL not having weighed in yet those will be kept private."

Can you elaborate? Perhaps that's not possible, especially in this forum. But is it accurate to say that you are privy to some information that may not be publicly available? Can you explain why that is--as a lawyer were you involved in this case? It just seems to me that this is a pretty important point (that there is even more exculpatory information), so I am just curious if you are getting it from a credible source or if it is sort of "through-the-grapevine."

AZBlue

July 27th, 2017 at 5:10 PM ^

really says anything either way regarding his character other than he was unwilling to accept a plea over a (now proven) false accusation.  He undoubtably has a team of lawyers who would have advised him to take the diversion deal if they felt there was ANY chance of a conviction (right or wrong.) as jail time or serious probabtion would affect his NFL earnings.

That said - from all I have seen JD seems like a good young man and I applaud him for fighting when he was being wronged.

Personal "Domestic Violance" story.  Many years ago I had the cops show up to my house a few weeks after moving into a new neighborhood in California.  They asked to speak with both me and my now wife about a noise/possible DV complaint.  Embarassed, my wife and I had to admit to the (both male) officers that we had been having sex and had left the windows open.  -- Moral to the story --Keep the windows closed when you have sex -- or at least not in a neighborhood with a lot of old people / retirees.

PS - Don't attempt to debate with Bando on this issue.  He or she seems to find it difficult divorcing emotions from the topic.  (Note to Bando:- I am not trying to judge, my wife has taken 15+ years to get over some personal experiences with DV/stalkers from before we met and is the same way on this topic.)

Double-D

July 28th, 2017 at 9:28 AM ^

He knew he did nothing wrong and to take the "littering" charge would be an indictment in public opinion.

He has always carried himself with great thoughtful character and how he handled this situation says good things about him.