Robinson & Henry Secures Not Guilty Verdict in Felony Domestic Violence Case

Robinson & Henry’s knowledgeable attorneys give their professional insight in “From Our Perspective,” where we take a closer look at successful outcomes achieved for our clients. 

In Colorado, domestic violence (DV) charges can change a person’s life even when the allegations aren’t true. For our client, a full acquittal on domestic violence and disturbing the peace charges came down to trusting the process and his attorney.

In this episode, Robinson & Henry Criminal Defense Partner W. Harvey Skees discusses how this case unfolded and why the jury ultimately acquitted our client.

Past results afford no guarantee of future results; each matter is different and must be judged on its own merits. Facts are those of an actual Robinson & Henry criminal defense case. 

Our client and his girlfriend had recently reunited and decided to watch a Denver Nuggets game together. At some point during the evening, she called the police to report she had been assaulted.

Her call wasn’t to 911, but to the non-emergency line. It’s a detail Skees notes is often overlooked but can play a pivotal role in evaluating urgency, credibility, and context. 

Domestic violence cases carry unique legal and emotional consequences. Beyond the emotional weight of the allegations, defendants often face immediate legal effects such as temporary restraining orders and the mandatory relinquishment of firearms. A conviction related to DV can result in the permanent loss of Colorado and federal firearm rights. 

Before going to trial, prosecutors offered our client a deferred judgment, a resolution that can ultimately lead to the dismissal and sealing of the case. However, completing a deferred judgment requires a defendant to undergo a domestic violence evaluation and treatment, a process that mandates an admission of wrongdoing. Skees said that his client consistently maintained he had done nothing wrong.  

Although rejecting a plea deal can be risky, Skees knew his client trusted him. They agreed that pursuing a trial was the right strategic move. Skees believed that if the client followed his guidance, the prosecution’s case could be effectively challenged.

Skees described his strategy as one centered on the “stacking of constitutional rights,” which he considers fundamental to every criminal defense case. He explained that the right to remain silent is at the core of a defendant’s protections. By maintaining silence, a defendant holds a strategic advantage because the prosecution must fulfill two legal obligations: 

1. meet both the burden of production, providing all evidence, and 

2. meet the burden of persuasion, proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A defendant does not have to take the stand, and the defense does not need to present any evidence unless it’s beneficial. Skees pointed out that the jury receives explicit instructions that a defendant’s decision not to testify or call witnesses cannot be held against them. 

Another advantage of remaining silent comes during trial preparation. Skees was able to review all the prosecution’s evidence without disclosing his own strategy. By the time the prosecution rests, the defense knows every detail of the prosecution’s case, while the prosecution remains unaware of what the defense might present. Skees calls this a “magical” moment in every trial. He believes this dynamic played a significant role in how the trial ultimately unfolded.

During the trial, Skees focused on the quality of the policy investigation and the credibility of the alleged victim. He explained to the jury that police reports often rely heavily on the victims’ statements because officers arrive after domestic incidents have ended. Therefore, the accuracy of the initial account and the thoroughness of the subsequent investigation become crucial to determining the facts. In this case, Skees successfully demonstrated that the officers had failed to conduct a thorough and accurate investigation. 

Then came the turning point: our client decided to take the stand. Coupled with other evidence, his testimony contradicted the officers’ version of events and allowed Skees to demonstrate that the alleged victim had been untruthful.

Skees asserted that the jury’s not-guilty verdicts were primarily driven by the defense’s ability to demonstrate that the investigation was flawed and that the allegations lacked reliable evidence. 

Skees emphasized that individuals facing criminal accusations should not be afraid to invoke their constitutional rights. He stressed that choosing not to answer questions cannot be used against someone and may prevent them from making statements that could later be taken out of context or misinterpreted.

In conclusion, he advises anyone who believes they are being asked questions that may incriminate them to clearly and respectfully state that they do not wish to speak without the presence of legal counsel.

If you’re being investigated for or charged with a crime, contact Robinson & Henry for a consultation and protect your future. Book online or call 303-688-0944.

Read this video’s full transcript:

Question: Harvey, thank you for joining me today. Tell me what led to your client facing these charges?

Harvey: This was based on an allegation. These two were formally together and then broke up and unfortunately tried to get back together.

They had a little celebratory, watching the Denver Nuggets game that went south and resulted in the alleged victim reporting to the police non-emergency 911 that she was assaulted by her then boyfriend.

Question: Domestic violence cases can be very emotional. What were some of the challenges in this case?

Harvey: Domestic violence cases are very unique in that obviously they come with collateral consequences to an accused. Relinquishment of firearms and convictions can result in loss of federal firearm rights. 

You have both the emotions of the victim that get relayed into the discovery via victims rights. And then, of course, you have the fear of a defendant, especially when they maintain their innocence.

Question: Your client was offered a plea deal, but he decided to go to trial. Talk about that decision and the trust that goes on between you and your client in making that call?

Harvey: My client was offered a deferred judgment sentence. Essentially, that is a conditional dismissal and sealing upon successful completion. But that successful completion, among other things, requires you to have a domestic violence evaluation and treatment.

One of the hallmarks of that is the fact that you admit that you did something. And my client was adamant that he had not. With that,it comes down to, it is an attorney client relationship. 

If you're going to be in a relationship with somebody, especially your lawyer, you better trust them. Here my client and I, despite his fears, was always on the same page that if he followed my guidance and we did things correctly, that we would have an advantage over the prosecution. And in the end, we did.

Question: What was your strategy going into trial? 

Harvey: The number one strategy in every criminal defense case is stacking of constitutional rights.

Believe it or not, every single right that we have in the system revolves around a defendant's right to remain silent. When you remain silent, you have the advantage over the prosecution always because the prosecution has the burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt. 

In other words, the defendant doesn’t need to prove that they didn’t do it. Prosecutions prove that they did. But it also means they have the burden of production. 

They must give us all the information that they have for our review. While the defendant maintains his silence, but can and have a zealous advocate through his attorney, who can then confront and cross-examine witnesses, subpoena witnesses, and lets the client know they have a right to testify or not testify.

And knowing that a jury is going to get an instruction that says one defendant doesn't need to call any witnesses. Number two, if a defendant doesn't testify, it can't be held against them. 

If you stack those rights properly at the end of the prosecution's case, something magical happens. We know everything they know, and they don't know anything that we know. And that's what happened in this case.

Question: What do you think convinced the jury to return not guilty verdicts?

Harvey: When the prosecution presents their case, clearly, their witnesses anticipate testifying favorably for the prosecution's theory of the case. 

In a domestic violence case, it's unique in that when the police respond, most of the time, the incident is over. The credibility of the reporting party is directly related to the police officers, because the police officers are simply believing or not believing what the victim says.

If you can show that the police did an improper investigation and the information that they relied on was inaccurate, it completely dismantles the prosecution's case. 

Here, my client got to testify last, and he testified to something that irrefutably proved that the officers did not do a good investigation and unfortunately, that the alleged victim had lied. 

Question: If anyone is in a similar situation, what advice would you give?

Harvey: There is nothing wrong with exercising your constitutional rights. They can't be held against you. If you are ever in a situation where you believe that you are being asked something that might incriminate you. Politely but sternly tell the police or whoever that you don't wish to talk to them, and that you wish to retain counsel before you're making any statements.