Lombard Domestic Violence Lawyers

The police interviewed our client and he made some damaging statements. 

Our client had never been in trouble before and was in graduate school for a health care profession.  A conviction for Domestic Battery would utterly destroy his life.

At trial, we aggressively cross examined that accuser as well as the police officer. We were able to undermine the credibility of the accuser and the police.

Our Client was found NOT GUILTY OF DOMESTIC BATTERY.

The police officer reported to the station for a report of Domestic Battery. Upon arrival, he met with the accuser. Upon meeting her, he observed a circular raised red mark on the accuser’s right cheek and jaw bone. The officer asked the accuser to meet with him in the front lobby interview room.  

She told the officer that she broke up with our client, who was then her boyfriend. The night before, and into the morning they were both attending a party. At approximately 2:00am in the morning, she agreed to give our client a ride home. The accuser let our client drive her vehicle home. While on the way home, our client asked the accuser if she was seeing anyone. She said that she did not want to answer his question fearing how he may react. The accuser claimed that when she refused to answer his question, our client reached across towards her and allegedly slapped her in the face. She claimed that he became so furious that he began driving recklessly by speeding and swerving the vehicle on the roadway.       

The accuser stated that when they returned to the apartment complex our client parked her vehicle. At this time, she claimed that our client took her cell phone and refused to give her the phone back or her car and apartment keys. She stated he began looking through her phone without her consent. The accuser and our client eventually exited the vehicle and they were arguing in front of the foyer doors. The accuser alleged at this time, our client grabbed her and threw her to the ground, causing her head to hit the sidewalk. The accuser said she then got up and entered the foyer. She claimed that our client followed her into the foyer and again grabbed her and threw her against the wall. The accuser claimed our client then exited the foyer with her cell phone and keys, re-entered her vehicle and locked the doors. The accuser claimed she keeps a spare key by one of the tires. The accuser said was able to unlock the vehicle and began physically fighting with our client until she was able to get her cell phone and keys back. 

The accuser entered the apartment complex and stated our client followed her into the complex and up to her apartment door. When the accuser opened the door to her apartment, she alleged that our client followed her into her apartment, grabbed her by the arms and threw her into a closet. The accuser claimed that our client then left the apartment and she locked the door. The accuser claimed she called her brother and told him what happened. After hanging up with her brother, the accuser walked into her living room and saw that our client had climbed up to her second floor balcony and forced his way into her apartment from the sliding glass door. The accuser claimed the bar that is normally used to provide a secondary lock to the sliding glass door was not engaged. The accuser believed the handle lock was secured and alleged that our client somehow forced the lock to disengage so he could enter the apartment. 

The two of them then had a conversation. The next day, the accuser came to the Police Department to make the report. The accuser stated she has a roommate but he was not home during the incident.

The accuser showed the police officer a scrape on her right forearm and right elbow, along with the start of a bruise on her right triceps. The police officer took digital photographs of the injuries which were downloaded into evidence. The accuser wanted to document the incident.  

The police knocked on our client’s door and he answered. The police officer asked our client if he would talk to us and he stepped out into the hallway to speak to the police. The police officer informed him that they were there to discuss an argument between him and the accuser. Our client agreed to talk to the police and stated that they he was having an argument with the accuser the morning before. He stated that there was some pushing and shoving between the two of them outside her apartment building. Our client claimed after the argument he went home to cool off and returned later to apologize to her. When the police officer asked him if he was injured he claimed he fell down during the argument in the grass and got grass stains on his pants. 

The police officer informed our client that due to the accuser’s statement and injuries along with his statement that he and the accuser got physical, he was under arrest for Domestic Battery.

At the police station, the police read our client his Miranda Rights from a pre-printed form Our client initialed and signed the form and agreed to talk to the police. He told the police that he and the accuser are ex-boyfriend/girlfriend and were at a party Friday night into Saturday morning.  Our client claimed he got into a verbal argument with the accuser. Our client denied slapping the accuser on the way home. Our client did admit to pushing her to the ground during an argument outside her foyer door to her building. Our client admitted to climbing up to her second floor balcony and walking into her apartment from the sliding glass door.  Our client denied forcing or following into the accuser’s apartment earlier from the hallway and denied ever slapping her.  Our client told the police that he had some marks on his elbow and knee. The police took digital photographs of him and the areas he pointed out.  

At trial, we aggressively cross examined that accuser as well as the police officer. We were able to undermine the credibility of the accuser and the police.

He was only found guilty of the minor misdemeanor trespassing count, and received court supervision, which caused him to avoid a criminal conviction.  dbv53

Our Client was found NOT GUILTY OF DOMESTIC BATTERY.