Wolf Discusses Multiple Lawsuits Against Quarterback Deshaun Watson on 104.3 the Fan with host Dan Jacobs
Deshaun Watson of the Houston Texans currently faces 21 civil lawsuits and more may be on the way. The lawsuits have all been filed by female massage therapists who accuse Watson of sexual misconduct ranging from inappropriate touching to forced oral sex. Watson maintains his innocence and denies the allegations.
Tony Buzbee, a well-known Texas attorney, filed the first lawsuits in mid-March, citing a “disturbing pattern of preying on vulnerable women.”
Buzbee has maintained that he would submit evidence backing up these claims to the Houston Police Department. But in a strange turn of events, Buzbee took to social media to announce that he would seek out investigative alternatives to ensure justice for his clients.
This announcement has stirred skepticism, which could impact the credibility of the allegations in the court of public opinion. In a recent radio interview with Dan Jacobs on 104.3 The Fan, Wolf discussed Buzbee’s controversial announcement.
“There’s really not two sides to this story…there’s two separate subjects,” said Denver defense lawyer and Court TV analyst Jeffrey Wolf. “There’s the legal work being done…which is abysmal, and there’s the alleged conduct of Deshaun Watson and the alleged criminal activity that’s happened to a myriad of women.”
“Everybody keeps talking about how Buzbee isn’t suing for money,” Wolf continued. “He’s suing for the minimum monetary amount required to get into the court he wants to do the lawsuit in—that’s what he says at the top of every lawsuit. But at the bottom of every lawsuit, he says that the plaintiffs want all monetary damages to which they’re entitled as well as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct.”
In other words, Buzbee is talking out of both sides of his mouth…
“This is about money,” concluded Wolf, “that’s the conclusion I drew after reading the lawsuits.”
Listen to the entire interview for more commentary from Denver defense attorney Jeffrey Wolf!
Wolf Discusses DA’s Decision to Drop Von Miller Case On Dan Jacobs, The Fan
On Friday, the Douglas County District Attorney’s Office said the case against Von Miller did not meet the standards of probable cause of admissible evidence “to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt…”
The investigation allegedly involved interactions between Miller and his former girlfriend, Megan Denise, who has since recanted statements about text messages shared on social media.
Police in Colorado are legally obligated to make an arrest, if they believe there’s probable cause that domestic violence occurred. “But that didn’t happen to Von Miller,” said Denver defense lawyer and Court TV correspondent Jeffrey Wolf. “Instead, the police took the matter into advisement.”
In a recent radio interview with Dan Jacobs on 104.3 The Fan, Wolf discussed the optics of the case and how Miller’s treatment by the DA’s office isn’t representative of a defendant’s experience when faced with similar allegations of domestic abuse in Colorado.
“Von Miller, like anyone else, is absolutely innocent until proven guilty…” explained Wolf. “So I’m not saying Von Miller did something. What I am saying is the DA’s office treated him differently than they would have treated any other defendant in our state.”
“This is happening to people in our communities every day…” Wolf continued, “to our neighbors, to our coworkers, and to our friends. And nobody gives them the benefit of the doubt.”
Listen to the entire interview for details about the DA’s decision; plus, more commentary from defense attorney Jeffrey Wolf.
Wolf Discusses Von Miller Investigation On Stokley & Zach, The Fan
Von Miller has not been charged regarding allegations made by Miller’s ex-fiancée, Megan Denise—but the decision to charge (or not charge) Miller has yet to be finalized by the DA’s office. Miller’s future on the Denver Broncos may be impacted by pending charges.
In a recent radio interview on Stokley & Zach, Denver defense lawyer and Court TV correspondent Jeffrey Wolf fields questions about new information released by the Parker Police Department.
“These types of statements are incredibly rare…What they’re basically saying is: we think there’s a case. We talked to the DA’s office, they tend to disagree with us, now we’re going to put it in the public sphere for everyone to know, and the DA is going to have to answer for it.”
“Every DA’s office has an intake department,” Wolf continued. “The intake department is the place where the police submit a case to them and say: here’s our probable cause…the intake department decides what, if any, crimes to charge. That’s where this case sits right now…it will certainly end up in John Kellner’s office for a final say.”
When asked to speculate about the future of the case, Wolf made it clear that it’s difficult to know much with so little information.
“It’s pretty rare for a police department to release a statement saying that they released a case to the DA’s office that they think is bogus…What we do know is that Von has a good lawyer in Harvey Steinberg. We know the victim is recanting. We know the DA’s office is dragging their feet, and Parker PD is putting those feet on a fireplace.”
CLICK PLAY to listen to the entire interview with Defense attorney Jeffrey Wolf.
Wolf Talks About Von Miller On Dan Jacobs, The Fan
Denver Broncos’ star linebacker, Von Miller, is reportedly under a criminal investigation. On Friday, Jan. 15, the Parker Police Department confirmed that a criminal probe is underway.
According to recent messages revealed by Von Miller’s ex-fiancée, Megan Denise, Miller allegedly sent violent messages to Denise following news that she was pregnant. However, Denise quickly recanted the private messages and posted this response to the media frenzy:
“…at no point in our relationship was there any type of physical abuse or violence by Von.”
“When domestic violence allegations are made…the police HAVE to make an arrest…they have no choice,” said defense attorney and Court TV correspondent Jeffrey Wolf. But according to Wolf, this isn’t always the case when you’re a beloved, eight-time Pro Bowl player.
“When the police arrive at a scene or get a phone call, and the person being accused on the other end is somebody like Von Miller, who’s a hero in this town for sports, they pick up the phone, they call their sergeant and say: “Hey, I’ve got somebody making an allegation against Von Miller.” And the sergeant says, “Give me a second, I’ll call the DAs office.”
“Anybody who’s lived in Colorado for any length of time knows that we really play by two sets of rules in the court system of our state…there’s what happens to everyone else, and what happens [to players from] the Broncos, Nuggets, and so on…”
Wolf discussed the recent allegations against Miller with Dan Jacobs on The Dan Jacobs Show. CLICK PLAY to listen to the entire recorded Podcast.
Colorado Court of Appeals Decides Against Warrants For Forced Blood Draws In DUI Cases
If you have a Colorado driver’s license, you have given express consent that you will submit to a chemical test for alcohol or drug use if a police officer finds probable cause that you were driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while ability impaired (DWAI).
Drivers who refuse will have their licenses revoked, and that refusal may become evidence in their trial for driving under the influence.
However, police may forcibly restrain drivers for the purpose of performing a test, but only if they believe the person has committed four types of crimes: homicide, vehicular homicide, assault, or vehicular assault.
In the case under consideration, a Fort Collins police officer encountered a driver who showed signs of intoxication, and the driver refused a roadside sobriety test.
After learning the driver had previous DUIs, the officers obtained a warrant and forcibly took a blood sample, even though the driver had not been suspected of the four listed offenses.
“The General Assembly has decided that, in the case of someone who is suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs but is not suspected of one of the four listed offenses,” wrote Judge Christina F. Gomez, “the driver may be motivated to cooperate with testing by threatened punishments but may not be forced to undergo such testing.”
Denver defense attorney and Court TV correspondent Jeffrey Wolf believes the court’s decision should instill confidence in public safety:
“If law enforcement can get a warrant to intrude so far into one’s privacy as to take blood from their body, it is a bridge too far that could lead to widespread abuses of privacy rights,” he explained. “Therefore, I do not believe the public should be concerned about law enforcement being deprived of a tool to apprehend drunk drivers, but rather heartened that privacy rights are being respected and protected.”
Click here to read the complete article; plus, more insights from defense attorney Jeffrey Wolf.
CBS Denver Interview: Elijah McClain
On Monday this week, Aurora City Council paused the use of ketamine until an investigation into the death of Elijah McClain is complete.
McClain, a 23-year-old African-American massage therapist from Aurora, Colorado, was violently detained by police last year and injected with the powerful sedative. According to the Adams County coroner, it is unclear what exactly caused McClain to go into cardiac arrest.
In a recent interview with CBS Denver, defense attorney Jeffrey Wolf condemned the use of ketamine by emergency responders.
“It’s something that should stop being used altogether,” said Wolf. “Any doctor will tell you that you don’t give someone a medication as severe as ketamine without knowing what else could be on board or what other conditions they might have.”
Judge erred by excluding defendant from courtroom
The Colorado Constitution gives defendants the right to “appear and defend in person and by counsel,” and the Sixth Amendment guarantees the ability to confront witnesses. More broadly, Colorado recognizes that a criminal defendant has the right to be present at all phases of his prosecution.
So, what happens when a defendant and his lawyer are barred from observing all judge and jury communications during a trial?
“The problem really is that a jury is there to judge the defendant. They are judging everything from their clothing, haircut, posture, demeanor, facial expression and hand gesture. Every blink of the defendant’s eye is there, on display, to be judged,” said Colleen Kelley, criminal defense attorney and partner at Wolf Law, LLC. “When the defendant is suddenly absent, these ‘judges’ of behavior are free to wildly speculate about the most sinister explanation for the defendant’s absence.”
Click here to read the complete article and more insights from defense attorney Colleen Kelley.
