Husband was picked up for DV and I need advice please.

[Ohiogal]

You could contact the public defender's office and ask if you can assert spousal priviledge. You would still have to show up to court, but would not have to answer questions if spousal priviledge is available in your state. I also recommend you look at the AARDVARC website that discusses domestic violence. Take the quiz "am i in an abusive relationship?" You might not think it is applicable, since this is the angriest your husband has ever been, but take a look anyway. For me, I went through many years of marriage before my husband became physically violent toward me. It started with breaking things. Only toward the end did I realize how many warning signs I overlooked. This website is pretty clear at pointing these warning signs and red flags out. I am not suggesting you abandon your spouse, but don't overlook signs either. Things may get better for you. I hope so. But it could get worse. Good luck.

Spousal privilege DOES NOT exist in DV cases in Ohio.

 

[>Charlotte<]

The truth is you were never in any danger...The guy fell over in his own chair and broke it because he had one to many

Where the hell do you get off telling this woman she was never in any danger?!? You have no idea what was going through her husband's head. And who told you he "fell over" the chair? Did you forget to add "wink-wink-nudge-nudge"? Anyone who is that angry could have been thinking anything, and could have done anything. I don't know that he considered hitting her with the chair before he changed his aim to the wall, but you certainly don't know that he didn't. And you're making declarative statements to this perfect stranger that she was "never in any danger"? What the hell is wrong with you?

DV laws should be used to prosecute serious offenders who have a history of violence and are truly dangerous.

DV laws should be used to prosecute those who have made victims of their domestic relations, and divert those who show a potential willingness to do so.

 

[double-trouble]

Where the hell do you get off telling this woman she was never in any danger?!? You have no idea what was going through her husband's head. And who told you he "fell over" the chair? Did you forget to add "wink-wink-nudge-nudge"? Anyone who is that angry could have been thinking anything, and could have done anything. I don't know that he considered hitting her with the chair before he changed his aim to the wall, but you certainly don't know that he didn't. And you're making declarative statements to this perfect stranger that she was "never in any danger"? What the hell is wrong with you?

I didn't tell her she was never in danger. She told all of us she was never in any physical danger. She said she had a loud arguement with her husband. I simply stated that I believed her.

DV laws should be used to prosecute those who have made victims of their domestic relations, and divert those who show a potential willingness to do so.

In relationships people argue.. we don't live in candy land. Being charged with domestic violence for having an arguement when nobody was physically injured to begin with is absolutely outrageous. You would have this man lose his job? go to counceling? and serve probation for having an arguement and breaking his chair? The punishment does not fit the crime especially when there is no crime.

Go back and read her statements. Wake the hell up. Laws like this are dividing families and doing far more harm than good. If a family member is truly abusive and a danger to others and it can be proven than he desirves whatever punishment he gets. But having an arguement with your wife isn't anything new or sinister. Its real life and it happens.

 

[Ohiogal]

I didn't tell her she was never in danger. She told all of us she was never in any physical danger. She said she had a loud arguement with her husband. I simply stated that I believed her.



In relationships people argue.. we don't live in candy land. Being charged with domestic violence for having an arguement when nobody was physically injured to begin with is absolutely outrageous. You would have this man lose his job? go to counceling? and serve probation for having an arguement and breaking his chair? The punishment does not fit the crime especially when there is no crime.

Go back and read her statements. Wake the hell up. Laws like this are dividing families and doing far more harm than good. If a family member is truly abusive and a danger to others and it can be proven than he desirves whatever punishment he gets. But having an arguement with your wife isn't anything new or sinister. Its real life and it happens.

Just quit. THERE WAS A CRIME ALLEGED. Whether or not it -- the crime -- actually happened depends on whether or not the prosecutor can prove it. OP MUST testify if she is subpoenaed and she must tell the truth.

 

[double-trouble]

Just quit. THERE WAS A CRIME ALLEGED. Whether or not it -- the crime -- actually happened depends on whether or not the prosecutor can prove it. OP MUST testify if she is subpoenaed and she must tell the truth.

There was an alleged crime because the police have to justify an arrest. That requirement alone makes it a bad law because it becomes subject to policy and not truth and justice.

I don't understand why you are seemingly upset with me or why you want to see her family suffer. I agree that if she is subpoenaed she should absolutely tell the truth. Do you really think the DV charge will stick after reading her own statements? Do you really think a jury will convict this man after they hear her testimony? Why are you so hungry to send this man to prison? Aren't we to presume he is innocent in the first place until he is proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt? Again she said she was never in any physical danger. Get a grip Ohiogal.

 

[CdwJava]

There was an alleged crime because the police have to justify an arrest. That requirement alone makes it a bad law because it becomes subject to policy and not truth and justice.

The police make an arrest based upon probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred and that the suspect has committed the crime. It does NOT mean that the crime did, in fact, occur, only that there is sufficient probable cause to believe it did. The charge does not exist to justify the arrest, the arrest was made because there was good cause to make the charge.

In this instance the charges seem to fit the offense alleged. None of us can say whether the DA will pursue it or whether a jury will convict if it is pursued. But, a domestic violence related incident seems to have occurred and the elements of the law have been broken.

If one gets so angry that he starts breaking chairs, there IS a problem there! That is some serious anger. Shall I walk you through the process of escalating violence in the cycle of DV?

The OP's original question was primarily concerning being subpoenaed to court: "I know I have to go - but do I have to say anything?" The answer to that is, "Yes!"

As Ohio does not apparently allow a DV suspect or victim to hide behind spousal privilege, she does not have a choice.

 

[Ohiogal]

There was an alleged crime because the police have to justify an arrest. That requirement alone makes it a bad law because it becomes subject to policy and not truth and justice.

I don't understand why you are seemingly upset with me or why you want to see her family suffer. I agree that if she is subpoenaed she should absolutely tell the truth. Do you really think the DV charge will stick after reading her own statements? Do you really think a jury will convict this man after they hear her testimony? Why are you so hungry to send this man to prison? Aren't we to presume he is innocent in the first place until he is proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt? Again she said she was never in any physical danger. Get a grip Ohiogal.

I have a grip. YOU know NOTHING about the law. So please don't pretend you do. You have not stated anything here that is substantially correct or relevant. You have vented and whined but there is nothing. It is very possible that the DV charge will stick. Prison? Really? You know that he will go to prison if found guilty? On What are you basing that?

Other things you are incorrect about: it is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; no one is stating he is guilty or that a crime has been committed -- a crime has been alleged; the protection order is to protect the alleged victim and if found not guilty, he will no longer be restrained; by your logic, the police should NEVER be able to arrest anyone unless there has been a trial first.

 

[double-trouble]

The police make an arrest based upon probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred and that the suspect has committed the crime. It does NOT mean that the crime did, in fact, occur, only that there is sufficient probable cause to believe it did. The charge does not exist to justify the arrest, the arrest was made because there was good cause to make the charge.

You must take into heavy consideration the fact that Police are required to make an arrest if someone claims a domestic violence incident. If they must make an arrest they must be able to justify it and they will regardless of the reality or truthfulness of either party. Do you see the problem now? If "probably cause" doesn't exist then they will make it exist.

In this instance the charges seem to fit the offense alleged. None of us can say whether the DA will pursue it or whether a jury will convict if it is pursued. But, a domestic violence related incident seems to have occurred and the elements of the law have been broken.

You're entitled to your opinion. Now convince 11 other Jurors that a crime had taken place that night without any evidence of domestic violence other than a loud arguement and a broken chair.

If one gets so angry that he starts breaking chairs, there IS a problem there! That is some serious anger. Shall I walk you through the process of escalating violence in the cycle of DV?

Is there a video of her husband breaking the chair or throwing it at anyone?

Did her husband admit to any wrong doing?

Would the fact that he was under the influence affect the validity of his testimony? Due to the psychological strain, emotional intensity, and influence of alcohol; could he have admitted to comitting a crime that never actually occured. Note that some people do confess to crimes they never truly committed out of some emotional or psychological struggle.

Was the OP under the influence as well and if so couldn't that also affect the validity of her own testimony? Especially if she was upset and frustrated with her husband. False or unclear and clouded accusations do occur. Thankfully we have a court system that allows defendants, plaintiffs, and victims to come forward with much clearer evidences and testimony.

The OP's original question was primarily concerning being subpoenaed to court: "I know I have to go - but do I have to say anything?" The answer to that is, "Yes!"

I'm sure she appreciates all of our input. It is also good to discuss an issue in its entirety rather than pick one little piece of it and call it a closed case.

As Ohio does not apparently allow a DV suspect or victim to hide behind spousal privilege, she does not have a choice.

She doesn't need to hide or be intimidated by you, or the DA, or her husband. If there truly is a problem she certainly knows how to handle it and can cooperate with the DA. It is extremely important that she does fully cooperate with the DA no matter what. Because if there truly was not a crime then her cooperation and testimony will provide over whelming evidence that there was no real crime committed by either party.

 

[double-trouble]

I have a grip. YOU know NOTHING about the law. So please don't pretend you do. You have not stated anything here that is substantially correct or relevant. You have vented and whined but there is nothing. It is very possible that the DV charge will stick. Prison? Really? You know that he will go to prison if found guilty? On What are you basing that?

There is certainly a possibility that he can serve jail time. He can certainly lose out on employment opportunities as well if he has a record of DV. He may certainly have to pay a fine and pay for counceling etc.

I'm not venting or whining. I'm simplying discussing an alternative view. You and others have an issue with it apparently. But thats what happens when you don't go along with the rest of the crowd. If your IQ was a little higher i'd enjoy having this conversation with you.

Other things you are incorrect about: it is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; no one is stating he is guilty or that a crime has been committed -- a crime has been alleged; the protection order is to protect the alleged victim and if found not guilty, he will no longer be restrained; by your logic, the police should NEVER be able to arrest anyone unless there has been a trial first.

Please go back and carefully read some of the commentary here. People are already making statements such as: "elements of the law were broken." And "if your husband is TRUELY remorseful, then you will not try to hide his actions but be forthcoming with them. He needs to follow the restraining order, attend anger management, and IF the order is lifted conditionally, you need to help yourself by helping him not break the order." I think I am the only person thus far who has presumed innocence under the law as its stated.

He will also no longer be restrained if the OP makes that request to a judge or to the DA.

By my logic serious crimes should be thoroughly investigated without prejudice. The Court will presume innocence until it is proven to the contrary. While your alone in jail being treated like a caged animal and in harms way.. you are completely on your own regardless of whether or not your innocent.

 

[Proserpina]

There is certainly a possibility that he can serve jail time. He can certainly lose out on employment opportunities as well if he has a record of DV. He may certainly have to pay a fine and pay for counceling etc. If your IQ was a little higher i'd enjoy having this conversation with you.

I'm not venting or whining. I'm simplying discussing an alternative view. You and others have an issue with it apparently. But thats what happens when you don't go along with the rest of the crowd.



Please go back and carefully read some the commentary here. People are already making statements such as: "elements of the law were broken."

He will also no longer be restrained if she makes that request to a judge or to the DA.

By my logic serious crimes should be thoroughly investigated without prejudice. The Court will presume innocents until it is proven to the contrary. While your alone in jail being treated like a caged animal and in harms way.. you are completely on your own regardless of whether or not your innocent.

You do realize that you're trying to argue law with an attorney and a cop, right?

 

[double-trouble]

You do realize that you're trying to argue law with an attorney and a cop, right?

You realise that a Juror who can be anyone over 18 years of age, any ethnicity or race, employed or unemployed, ultimately decides whether or not the police or the attornies or even if the law itself is fair. I'm looking at this from a Jurors point of view.

Just because you are a cop or an attorney does not ultimately make your interpretation of a situation factual or more correct. Ultimately a Juror will consider the evidence and decide. The Juror can also judge the law itself.

Are you an attorney who seeks Truth and Justice or "how many prosecutions" can I win this week? Are you a Police Officer who protects and serves or do you play "How many arrests can I make this week?!"

 

[Proserpina]

You realise that a Juror who can be anyone over 18 years of age, any ethnicity or race, employed or unemployed, ultimately decides whether or not the police or the attornies or even if the law itself is fair. I'm looking at this from a Jurors point of view.

Just because you are a cop or an attorney does not ultimately make your assesment of a situation factual or more correct. To suggest that proves that there is a bias in occordance with everything I am trying to get across.

Are you an attorney who seeks Truth and Justice or "how many prosecutions" can I win this week? Are you a Police Officer who protects and serves or do you play "How many arrests can I make this week?!"

Re-read.

Seriously.

 

[double-trouble]

Re-read.

Seriously.

I'll state the facts again. A Juror will Ultimately weigh the evidence and decide. A Juror can also judge the law itself. Jurors can be anybodies and they are the ultimate authority. Re-read this until it sinks in that thick skull of yours.

 

[stealth2]

The guy fell over in his own chair and broke it because he had one to many.

And you know this... how?

 

[double-trouble]

And you know this... how?

I don't. However, if i'm to presume his innocence as the law states, then I must presume that the chair broke in a manner that did not include any violation of the law until it can be proven* contrary.