Twitter: Details from Lewis's court appearance

[CooterBrown]

and any statement he made before he was Mirandized is also inadmissible....

Not all suspects have to be mirandized before questioning. Only those that have been arrested. If a cop walks up and says, "what happened?" anything the suspect says can be used against him. If the cop arrests him and then asks, "what happened?" Miranda applies.

In legal terms, Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation. If he is not in custody, it doesn't apply. The meaning of "Custody" is whole long discussion but essentially, it depends on the totality of the circumstances.

 

[CooterBrown]

Having worked both sides of these kinds of cases, I can tell you this: If he did not hurt her, he needs to take the stand and tell the jury that he did not hurt her. Yes, the law says he has a right not to testify and the jury can't use his failure to testify against him. But this is the real world, not the abstract legal world. If he didn't do it, the jury expects him to get on the stand and say, "I did not hurt her." Only then will it truly become, "she said/he said."

Of course, with that said, if his attorney managed to make her look like a liar during his cross-examination, there would be no need for him to testify. But, I have no idea what is going on in that courtroom. I thought they'd be through in one day.

 

[gimmesix]

One of my points was you sound like a karate expert with that explanation of yours about no bruises. The avg person isn't going to be able to forcefully drag a person and they don't have visible bruises. I also said I think folks will make up things that seem far fetched just not to seem like a misogynistic person or caring when sometimes the case is exactly how it looks. I know I didn't say that as clear but I'm trying to be more clear to avoid further confusion.

My stance isnt what you said. I only quoted you because of the funny to explanation about no bruises. All that threats and the like can be dv who said it couldn't be? I didn't. Just dont do that mr morality thing you're doing saying this is how I'm coming off when the majority of my post was about the no bruises and some folks being afraid of being called a misogynist. It doesn't even get into the dv part so don't add some new chapter to my book lol.

Have you never grabbed someone to restrain them and it not leave a bruise? My brother and I used to beat on each other all the time (well, he mostly beat on me) and there were often no signs of it.

Now, if I even throw an angry look at my wife, she gets a bruise, but not everyone bruises as easily. Not every place that you touch someone bruises as easily as others. There are a lot of people I could grab by the ankle and drag across the floor who would not be bruised by it. If I put my hands around their neck "forcefully" but did not then apply pressure to choke them, I would be surprised if they bruised.

I don't see it as far-fetched at all that he could have done what he is being accused of without there being physical signs of it. The question is whether he did them and if so, whether that is enough to get him convicted of domestic violence.

I will say I'm surprised that his attorneys have not worked out a plea deal to a lesser charge, but if he did nothing, then I can't blame him for fighting it.

 

[gimmesix]

Having worked both sides of these kinds of cases, I can tell you this: If he did not hurt her, he needs to take the stand and tell the jury that he did not hurt her. Yes, the law says he has a right not to testify and the jury can't use his failure to testify against him. But this is the real world, not the abstract legal world. If he didn't do it, the jury expects him to get on the stand and say, "I did not hurt her." Only then will it truly become, "she said/he said."

Of course, with that said, if his attorney managed to make her look like a liar during his cross-examination, there would be no need for him to testify. But, I have no idea what is going on in that courtroom. I thought they'd be through in one day.

It certainly doesn't look like a case that should have lasted more than a few hours.

 

[DFWJC]

Sure, here it is:

 

[Philmonroe]

Have you never grabbed someone to restrain them and it not leave a bruise? My brother and I used to beat on each other all the time (well, he mostly beat on me) and there were often no signs of it.

Now, if I even throw an angry look at my wife, she gets a bruise, but not everyone bruises as easily. Not every place that you touch someone bruises as easily as others. There are a lot of people I could grab by the ankle and drag across the floor who would not be bruised by it. If I put my hands around their neck "forcefully" but did not then apply pressure to choke them, I would be surprised if they bruised.

I don't see it as far-fetched at all that he could have done what he is being accused of without there being physical signs of it. The question is whether he did them and if so, whether that is enough to get him convicted of domestic violence.

I will say I'm surprised that his attorneys have not worked out a plea deal to a lesser charge, but if he did nothing, then I can't blame him for fighting it.

Yes I've grabbed someone but not forcefully and it not left a bruise. That's was my thing in saying that not just grabbing someone period and it never left a bruise.

I find it far fetched when people are angry and violent like they seem to say that there is no bruises from doing the actions. Maybe he is skilled but most times if people are angry enough to be violent they aren't thinking let me grab a person in a way to not make bruises so I can get out of a situation. I think that's the minority of people that think like that in that situation. He could be one of them.

I can see why he didn't work out a lessor deal. How some are acting nowadays about dv like it's some new craze that might mess up his career if he is innocent of course.

 

[tyke1doe]

I am the editor of a newspaper and these are things that we see every day in police reports. Domestic violence isn't just about bruising, so not everyone who suffers it comes away with visible marks. You can definitely grab someone and drag them without leaving bruises. You can definitely threaten to choke them, which appears to be the implication, without leaving a mark. Both of those can be abuse.

I've acknowledged in each post I've written that she might not be telling the truth. But to be fair, I've got to also acknowledge that she might be. The ones who are justifying some bologna are those that are just blowing this off as made-up crap without knowing if that's the case.

There's a post I just read that says he acknowledges that he put his hands on her neck. Does that sound like "some bologna" to you? If it does, then I'm not sure I can explain to you what's wrong with that.

Thank you for bringing some sensibility to this thread.

 

[DFWJC]

This is why if i was a famous person i am not picking up girls from the clubs or parties. That's how you get set up. Problem is these dudes going to the hiphop clubs getting in bad situations. Go to a jazz club. Grown and sexy not young and dumb.

 

[Texas_Pete]

In my Allen Iverson voice: "we talking bout pillows!"

 

[gimmesix]

Yes I've grabbed someone but not forcefully and it not left a bruise. That's was my thing in saying that not just grabbing someone period and it never left a bruise.

I find it far fetched when people are angry and violent like they seem to say that there is no bruises from doing the actions. Maybe he is skilled but most times if people are angry enough to be violent they aren't thinking let me grab a person in a way to not make bruises so I can get out of a situation. I think that's the minority of people that think like that in that situation. He could be one of them.

I can see why he didn't work out a lessor deal. How some are acting nowadays about dv like it's some new craze that might mess up his career if he is innocent of course.

I think it depends on what you do. If you're angry and you punch someone in the face, it will most likely leave a cut or bruise. However, if you punch someone in the stomach, there often isn't really a sign of it that remains for long even though it might bring that person to his or her knees. Certainly, if you dragged someone across the floor forcefully by the neck, it would leave bruising, but if you take them by the foot and drag them or drag the person by his or her clothing, it might not leave any lasting mark.

I don't think that happens in a minority of cases where the person is thinking through what they are doing. I think it really just depends on what the person ends up doing in anger. A lot of things hurt that do not leave marks. I don't think the angry, violent person thinks, "Oh, I can do this and it won't leave a mark," but rather it's just how they happen to react. It's like some might get angry and push another person while the next guy might get angry and throw a punch.

Some men get angry at their girlfriends/wives and punch them while others have at least enough control to only shove them, committing domestic violence in a "lesser" way. It's good to see with Lewis, whatever happens, that he appears to at least have a modicum of self-control considering what he could have done to her.

 

[Alexander]

 

[Alexander]

 

[gimmesix]

Thank you for bringing some sensibility to this thread.

One of the things I make a big deal about with our paper is reporting sex-related and violence-related crimes. We get a lot of flak for that from readers who don't want to see "bad news" on the front page because it hurts the image of the city, but I staunchly defend my decision because I believe that those who commit those crimes need to be called out prominently for it. They don't need to be able to just explain it away, if it's not brought to light, to protect their reputation.

I'm glad we drafted Lewis for what he can bring to our team, but I can't just laugh off what he is accused of. If he did it, then he deserves to be held responsible for it. We get some readers who think DV is a "private" matter, but I was talking to the mayor here a while back and he said that DV reports to the police far outnumber any other kinds of calls that they receive. As long as we continue to trivialize the situation or blame the victims we fail to see how serious it is. I could put up some numbers, but I'll leave it at that.

As I said, I hope Lewis proves to be innocent of the charges. However, if he's guilty, then he needs to carry that stigma around with him and hopefully not put himself in such a situation again.

 

[Alexander]

Sounds like this one will be pretty quick.

 

[StylisticS]

Sounds like this one will be pretty quick.

I was about to say the same. If she didn't testify about that part, come up with a decision tonight and get him to Oxnard tomorrow.

 

[JohnsKey19]

Sounds like this one will be pretty quick.

The real deliberation will be deciding between Chik Fila and Buffalo Wild Wings.

 

[ThreeandOut]

A guilty verdict here could result in Lewis beating being sentenced to standing in the corner for 10 minutes on timeout.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am the editor of a newspaper and these are things that we see every day in police reports. Domestic violence isn't just about bruising, so not everyone who suffers it comes away with visible marks. You can definitely grab someone and drag them without leaving bruises. You can definitely threaten to choke them, which appears to be the implication, without leaving a mark. Both of those can be abuse.

I've acknowledged in each post I've written that she might not be telling the truth. But to be fair, I've got to also acknowledge that she might be. The ones who are justifying some bologna are those that are just blowing this off as made-up crap without knowing if that's the case.

There's a post I just read that says he acknowledges that he put his hands on her neck. Does that sound like "some bologna" to you? If it does, then I'm not sure I can explain to you what's wrong with that.

The standard is supposed to be without reasonable doubt. If all you have is two conflicting stories and the prosecution has no evidence to corroborate their narrative then I do not see how that standard is met.

It could be DV. It could be divine providence but the law is innocent until proven guilty.

As for his acknowledgement, he describes a melee where he is defending himself trying to get him off of her where he may have pushed her off at the neck. Context is important. He denies knocking her down and choking her.

As is typical the woman is not examined at all whatsoever for violent action.

 

[Sydla]

A guilty verdict here could result in Lewis beating being sentenced to standing in the corner for 10 minutes on timeout.

They'll just cut Lucky again.

 

[CooterBrown]

Thank you John Counts, whoever you are.

As I said before, you can never tell what a jury will do. But if the prosecutor focused on pillows, I'd bet money on "not guilty."