The One Shocking Fact Prosecutors Need to Convict Domestic Violence

it's not just about injuries or Force prosecutors cannot convict you of domestic violence unless they can prove what was going through your head by the end of this video you will understand exactly what prosecutors need to prove that you were thinking in order to convict you of demestic violence and you will learn how it could make or break your case my name is Veronica I'm a domestic violence defense attorney here in California and I help people put their cases behind them so that they can enjoy their lives and their freedom I'm also the creat of

a course called defeat the dvro in which I teach you from start to finish how to represent yourself at a restraining order hearing and win so if in addition to dealing with a criminal case you are also dealing with a restraining order make sure that you get your free First Class via the link down below okay so let's jump right in there are certain things called elements that the prosecution must prove to convict you of domestic violence whether it's a felony or a misdemeanor and one of the things that they have to prove is intent

specifically they have to prove that you committed an act of domestic violence willfully but what does that mean well instead of just explaining it in my usual format I thought that we would try something a little bit different today I've invited a special guest to break this down for us in a way that is informative and hopefully entertaining please welcome judge L Liberty who will be hosting a special episode of a brand new game show that we are calling judgment call the game where you are the judge thank you counselor that will be all ladies

and gentlemen welcome to judgement call today we are going to unravel the mystery of what willful means in the context of domestic violence criminal cases under California law but first let's meet our contestants sup everyone your honor I am contestant one I'm no lawyer but I do have common sense if it doesn't sit right with me it probably doesn't sit right with the law either and I'm here to win hi there I'm contestant 2 I don't have any legal education but I am a rocket scientist to me law is a Formula you simply plug in

as the variables the facts and you get a result how hard could it be so I am feeling pretty confident right now here's how this battle of wits works we have two contestants who are going to compete in five rounds for each round I will present a real life scenario our contestants will then attempt to determine whether the action described in the scenario meets the definition of willful under California law all right now in order to win a game you need to know the rules so rule number one what is willful simply put you do

something willfully when you do it on purpose doesn't mean that you are trying to break the law doesn't mean that you are necessarily trying to hurt someone you just meant to do the action rule number two willful is not the same as Reckless now being Reckless means that you do something that is risky recklessness is not enough for a domestic violence conviction but there is a Twist if you do something super dangerous knowing that it could really hurt someone but you do it anyway that could be seen as willful now the law is in black

and white but luckily you have me judge L Liberty to decide any gray areas you may disagree with me from home but you're the judge from home and I'm the judge here on judgment call now I'm going to ask each contestant before they give me their answer to explain their reasoning if you don't explain your reasoning I'm not going to give you the points now let's jump into our first scenario scenario number one Mike and his girlfriend Sophia are in a heated argument about Mike going to the gym when Sophia wants her to go to

a nice family dinner as Mike tries to leave to go to the gym he grabs his gym bag but Sophia grabs it out of his hands now sopia is holding it and Mike grabs it again a tug of war ensues Mike stronger and determined to leave and avoid that family dinner gives the bag a sudden strong pull the bag strap slides through Sophia's grip onto her hand and causes a friction burn on her Palm Additionally the heavy bag hits Sophia's thigh and leaves a bruise so contestants here is question one was Mike's action of forcefully

pulling the bag willful in terms of causing injury to Sophia Mike as far as I see it he was just trying to leave a heated situation he wasn't trying to hurt sopia he was just trying trying to take his own gym bag with him it's not his fault that she wouldn't let go and he definitely didn't mean for her to get hurt it was just an accident in the Heat of the Moment and as far as I understand the rules here if it is an accident then it can't really be willful right I mean Mike's

not some abuser he's a guy who's just trying to get to the gym and avoid this family dinner and just trying to cool off so my answer is no this was not willful analyzing the legal formula Mike's action meets the criteria for willful he purposefully and forcefully pulled the bag knowing that Sophia was holding onto it the definition states that willfulness does not require an intent to hurt someone nor to violate the law Mike made a conscious decision to use for Force despite the foreseeable risk of injury and that satisfies the willful element So my

answer is yes it was willful Order in the Court all right let's break this down shall we remember in the eyes of California law doing something willfully does not mean that you intended to injure anyone it just means that you did something on purpose now let's look at Mike's actions he didn't just accidentally pull that bag he didn't pull the bag and then something crazy happened and by some other means Sophia became injured he made a conscious decision to pull on the bag knowing that Sophia was holding it this my friends goes beyond recklessness this

was willful so contestant 2 you've hit the nail on the head the law is not concerned with Mike's intentions to harm or the outcome of his actions the first point goes to contestant 2 scenario 2 Alex and his girlfriend and Mia are in an argument while watching television Alex becomes angry and he throws the television remote at the wall now he doesn't throw it anywhere near Mia but it bounces off at an unexpected angle Ricochet against a chair and hits Mia in the face so question two contestants was Alex's action in terms of causing injury

to Mia willful right I got to say that this was willful I mean Alex should not have been throwing a remote in the first place he knew that Mia was in the same room right throwing stuff around like that is like asking for trouble I'm not a rocket scientist but obviously the remote is going to bounce off the wall and hit something he caused this Ricochet by chucking the remote so that is on him and my answer is going to be yes it was willful I see what they did here but this was not willful

let's break this down logically Alex intended to throw the remote at the wall not at Mia right it's not like he threw it very close to her head so he willfully attacked the wall with a remote yes he wasn't expecting and I can tell you that even many of my friends most of whom are physicists they wouldn't be expecting the remote to Ricochet Off the Wall hit the chair Ricochet off the chair and then hit Mia so the remote hitting Mia this was an unexpected outcome so I think applying the formula that her honor gave

us this was not willful so no it wasn't willful final answer all right both of you rais interesting points but let's cut to the chase yes Alex willfully threw the remote it didn't just teleport poured across the room and he shouldn't have been throwing a remote at the wall probably right but was the injury to Mia willful that's our million-dollar question and that's why I get paid the big bucks Alex aimed at the wall not anywhere near Mia that Ricochet not just from the wall to Mia but from the wall to a chair to Mia's

face that was unexpected this is more akin to Reckless conduct recklessness is not enough for a conviction of domestic violence in California so contestant 2 once again your analysis was spoton perhaps you can even leave rocket science in your past and have a future up here on the bench like me another point for contestant 2 fascinating we're peeling back the layers of willful actions but hold on to your gavs folks we are just getting started now are you ready to tackle our next legal puzzle scenario three listen up contestants those at home during a heated

argument Jamie tries to grab her boyfriend Chris's phone to see who he's been texting in the struggle Jim's elbow accidentally connects with Chris's nose causing it to bleed so the question was Jaime's action willful in terms of causing this injury no way that this was willful Jamie was just trying to get the phone she wasn't trying to hurt Chris she didn't mean to hit Chris's nose they were both in this scuffle this was clearly an accident it was not willful So my answer final answer is going to be no not willful well Jamie may not

have intended to cause physical injury her actions still do meet in my mind the legal definition of willful she purposefully engaged in this physical struggle to get the phone and that inherently carries a risk of physical contact you know that if you're going to get in a physical struggle with someone else over something that you you might hurt them and going back to her Honor's rules the law does not require the intent to injure just a willful action that leads to the injury so to me by choosing to engage in this struggle to take the

phone Jamie acted willfully So my answer is yes this was willful all right thank you contestants but let's cut to the Chase and get the answer here what exactly was Jaime's willful act here her willful act was trying to grab the phone she purposely tried to grab the phone so that was willful yes but what about the elbow to Chris's nose I mean that's what caused the injury that was an unintended consequence that was not a separate intentional action and that nose injury that wasn't foreseeable just from the phone grab so the answer here is

going to be not willful all right so that means that contestant won you have nailed it one point to contestant one scenario 4 Tom and his partner Sam are in a heated argument as Sam tries to walk away Tom grabs his arm to stop him from leaving now Tom not realizing his own strength at the moment grips harder than he intended and he leaves finger shaped bruises on Sam's arm so was Tom's action willful look how I see it here is that Tom knew exactly what he was doing when he grabbed Sam's arm to stop

Sam from leaving he wanted to stop Sam and he used physical Force to do so it doesn't matter that he didn't mean to grip that hard the point is that he decided to grab Sam and that is what caused the bruises Tom made a choice and that makes this So my answer is going to be yes this was willful Final Answer Tom's Act of grabbing Sam's arm was intentional the injury itself and causing the injury itself wasn't willful the legal definition requires a purpose or willingness to commit the act and in this case the act

in question it's causing injury not just grabbing the arm Tom did not intend to bruise Sam he merely just wanted to prevent Sam from leaving his lack of awareness of his own strength suggests that the injury was an unintended consequence So my answer is no not willful all right let's examine this case with the scrutiny that it deserves Tom intentionally grabbed Sam's arm that is a purposeful act plain and simple the fact that he didn't intend to cause a bruise to Sam's arm does not change the willfulness of that action Tom willingly and intentionally made

this contact and that contact that action of grabbing someone's arm it comes with an inherent and pretty obvious risk that you could do it too hard and you could injure them now this case beautifully illustrates a common misconception in domestic violence cases the law doesn't just look at the intent behind the injury it considers the choice to engage in potentially and obviously harmful Behavior contestant one you got this one right one point to contestant one well well well the plot thickens let's see if our final scenario can break this tie game point scenario number five

Emma angry after a fight with her boyfriend Jack storms out of the room and slams the door behind her now Jack is following her closely behind she hears his footsteps behind her and she does know that he is following when she slams the door unbeknownst to her he has put his hand forward and the door Slams on his fingers causing a painful injury so the final question as I'm sure you've guessed is was Emma's action willful in terms of causing injury to Jack look Emma knew that Jack was right behind her and she slammed the

door anyway she chose to use Force knowing that he was there I think that she was angry and that she acted willfully my answer final answer is going to be yes this was willful H well unfortunately I have to agree with contestant one on this one legally speaking Emma's actions meet the criteria for willfulness she made this conscious decision to slam the door knowing that Jack was right behind her the definition of willful doesn't require an intent to injure as her honor told us just a requirement that you intended to commit this act by choosing

to slam the door with the knowledge of Jack's presence Emma did act willfully so I know that this is going to result in a tie and I really do hope that the producers have accounted for this because I know we're almost out of time here but my answer is going to be that yes it was willful all right let's break this down shall we Emma will ful slam that door no doubt about it and perhaps she shouldn't have done that but her intention here was to express anger Not to cause any injury to Jack Emma

didn't slam this door thinking this will teach Jack a lesson for an action to be willful in domestic violence we need some sort of intent or knowledge that harm would occur now is it reasonably foreseeable that if you slam a door and someone is following behind you that maybe they could put their hand or their foot or something out and it could get slammed in the door sure this is more recklessness or negligence this isn't willful this isn't you know slamming the door on Jack's hand but thinking it won't hurt him she didn't mean to

slam the door on his hand at all and let me tell you usually these cases and these issues are decided by juries not judges this is a case where I think it would be very unlikely that a jury would convict Emma and would say that her actions were willful here so the verdict is that no this was not willful looks like neither contestant gets a point we are at a two to two tie folks seems like we might need a rematch we have two you know rather bright contestants here and you can see how reasonable

arguments could be made in a lot of these cases as to whether or not an action is willful to me as a judge a lot of it comes down to how good each lawyer is the prosecutor versus the defense attorney and how well they can frame these issues when they fall into a potential gray area you know who can convince the jury who can tell the better story if you are facing domestic violence charges I really hope that this video helped you I believe that knowledge is power and I know that if I were facing

domestic violence charges I would be trying to learn everything that I can to sort of get an idea of where I stood whether or not I had an attorney yet so if it takes me dressing up and acting badly on YouTube I'm happy to do it if it helps you learn let me know in the comments if you did like this format or if you prefer something more traditional and if you have a criminal case that you need help with feel free to give me a call you can find my number down below you can

also book a consultation there and if you did find this helpful please don't forget to like subscribe ring the bell and follow me on Instagram Tik Tok and Facebook