Interesting court ruling re: MMA

Interesting court ruling in a trial I had yesterday:

My client was charged with assault, and the prosecutor refused to make a deal because client is an MMA fighter.

At trial, prosecutor attempts to question alleged victim about fact that my client if an MMA fighter. I immediately object, ask to approach the bench, and tell the judge that my client's occupation has no relevance to whether he assaulted the victim. Prosecutor becomes very vocal and laughs at my objection, stating that as an MMA fighter my client is more prone to violence and therefore testimony regarding my client's occupation is definitely relevant.

The judge looks at me and says, "Well, he has a point? How do you counter that argument, counsel?"

Without hesitation I look back at the judge and say, "Your honor, if I bring a client in tomorrow who is charged with reckless operation of a motor vehicle, are you going to agree to dismiss the charges if I show that the client is a NASCAR driver, because obviously as a NASCAR driver, my client could never be a reckless driver.

And are you going to extend this logic to a physician who removes feeding tubes from someone in a permanently unconscious that physician more prone to commit murder?

I guarantee you the prosecutor can produce no evidence which supports his theory that an MMA fighter is more prone to violence, and therefore evidence that my client is an MMA fighter is not relevant and will serve only to unfairly prejudice the jury."

The Judge agreed with me and instructed the prosecutor that he was not to ask questions about my client's occupation.

Jury found my client not guilty on the assault charge. Booyah!

You rock man!

Idiot prosecutor used slippery slope logic and got crushed. Good job.

Cool story Law Dog, though I admit, I don't get the analogies. If a Nascar driver regularly drives 180 miles an hour, wouldn't the analogy in this case be for the prosecutor to assume that he/she was indeed guilty of reckless speeding?

Why would the judge dismiss?


"If a Nascar driver regularly drives 180 miles an hour, wouldn't the analogy in this case be for the prosecutor to assume that he/she was indeed guilty of reckless speeding?"

It's not reckless if it's the norm for that activity. Accidents happen all the time in racing. But, if normal drivers just got out there and started hammering away down the track at 180 they would probably crash. A good argument that nascar drivers are better drivers. Still shouldn't mean shit in court.


I am to analytical. . . I will leave this be.

Cool story Law Dog. Congrats.

Great job, man.

Was he guilty?

Fucking awesome!!

But he did it, didn't he?

That's an awesome job and good way to stick it to the moron prosecutor and the ignorant before the lecture judge lol

Great story! Although, "Booyah" hasn't been "in" for about 5 years now.

Aww shnap! I owned you, beotch! BA-BLAM!!!

Wow, good job law dog, I'm impressed!



That's the coolest story I've heard in a while.

Make sure you get your MA license because when I get sued/charged for A&B I'll be calling you!

good job man

congrats on the win

Nice Job Law Dog, score one for mma.

Hey Allen, What was that song you came out to at Mass Destruction?

"LMFAO, you must live in some country that allows character evidence to be admitted. In the US, we don't allow that type of evidence. What country do you live in?"

I live in Ohio, which is in America. In Ohio, character evidence is admissible as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. It's a debatable subject, but the judge did have the discretion to allow the testimony. (Of course, I would have appealed his ruling later if the jury came back with a guilty verdict).

The prosecutor was really just trying to get the info in as simple background information, but after I objected is when he made his ignorant comments.

"Fucking awesome!!
But he did it, didn't he?"

Not according to the jury.