Domestic violence cases generally share the common characteristic of having only two (2) substantive witnesses: The Complainant and the Accused.

In a recent St. Lucie County Domestic Battery case, [“Battery” is a 1st degree misdemeanor in Florida carrying a maximum penalty of one (1) year in the county jail,] the State of Florida had “prosecutor’s gold”: an objective third-party witness.

Better still for the State, the witness was an off-duty police officer with 19 years of experience with the Fort Pierce Police Department.

On May 30th this year, the off-duty cop was at his home, sitting on his patio when he called 911 to report what he claimed to be witnessing in real time: a brutal assault by R.T. on his live-in girlfriend, S.P., occurring in the backyard and back room of their house located directly behind the home where the law enforcement officer lived.

The cop’s description of the events, in his statement to 911, his handwritten statement, and his trial testimony were outrageous, and among other things included,
“He’s beating the sh*t out of her,” “he just picked her up and body-slammed her,” “he’s trying to throw her through the window,” “he’s going to Pound-Town now,” “he picked her up and threw her on the ground,” “She’s trying to run away, then he grabbed her and hit her again,” “he picked her up and slammed her against the slider door,” “he’s legit fuc*ing her up right now.”

The 911 dispatcher interrupted, asking the caller, “You said he tried to throw her through a window?” “Oh yeah,” the off-duty gendarme responded.

When the Port St. Lucie Police arrived in force at R.T. and S.P.’s home, they heard the couple shouting at one another through the front door; after law enforcement banged loudly on the door and ordered them outside, they emerged calmly and cautiously.

They both denied that anything physical had occurred between them, insisting they were merely having a raucous, animated argument about the kinds of things couples verbally spar about all the time.

The PSLPD, however, refused to believe the couple, noting that S.P. had red marks around the front and back of her neck, which she claimed were caused by R.T. when he tried to restrain her from leaving the home because she was too intoxicated and would likely hurt herself.

About nine (9) PSLPD officers rejected R.T. and S.P.’s account, instead crediting the off-duty FPPD officer’s report from across the backyard. They forced the shirtless R.T. to lie face down on the driveway and questioned him for approximately twenty (20) minutes, while other officers separately questioned S.P. about 30–40 feet away in the couple’s front yard.

When it became clear PSLPD was about to arrest R.T., S.P. became hysterical with the unfairness of PSLPD’s ‘almost-investigation’ as well as their equally bad decision to arrest her beau, which she believed to be an outrageous abuse of power.

PSLPD then took photographs of S.P. sobbing and crying because her lover was being wrongfully arrested, and the State, at trial, introduced those photos to show how ‘upset she was at having been beaten’ by R.T.

The best criminal trial lawyers, the Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyers, have not only experience and trial skills; they also have resources.

Resources like body-worn cameras (BWC’s) that accurately and objectively show how “investigations” are really conducted.

The BWC’s have audio tracks, so we can hear precisely what is being said and by whom, and exactly how those things were said, rather than merely by the rendition of law enforcement testimony, colored by biases, prejudices, and both intentional and negligent memory lapses.

Resources like technology that allow us to show the jury bird’s-eye views of the two houses, and what can be seen and from where, taken by satellites hundreds of miles in the overhead sky.

Those photos, along with photos of his yard taken by R.T. himself, allowed us to show the jury sight lines so restrictive that testimony about what allegedly had been “witnessed” could not possibly have been seen.

An audio track from a BWC captured the off-duty cop’s offhand remark to a PSLPD cop: “I would have gone over there, but I’ve been drinking beer.”

And a screenshot taken from one of the PSLPD officers’ BWC showing the FPPD cop emerging from his home, shabbily dressed, beer can in hand.

And arguably the most powerful resource of all, which has been with us since our system of trials was adapted from the British common law system: the resource of the ‘crucible of cross-examination,’ which John Henry Wigmore described as ‘the greatest legal engine ever devised for the discovery of the truth.’

In this case, those resources led the defense to move to suppress R.T.’s statements at the scene from evidence. The motion was granted.

The jury could see the limited sight lines available to the off-duty cop, making his observations, at best, unreliable.

Most importantly, the jury could see S.P.’s testimony, and take the time to hear what she was saying.

The panel took precious little time to reach the two-word verdict. Not that it really matters, but it took them all of nineteen (19) minutes to reach “Not Guilty.”

Supporting Court Documents

Copies of the official court documents are available below:

-Verdict Form – September 17, 2026 (PDF)
-Judgment of Not Guilty – September 17, 2026 (PDF)