Domestic Violence Defense

Mitkevicius Law provides a robust defense in DV cases, often involving intensive investigation and a readiness to go to trial to prove your innocence or reduce the charges. Here’s our approach:

​

Thorough Investigation of Facts:

We treat every DV allegation with healthy skepticism and a demand for evidence. Our team will gather all available evidence: 911 call recordings, police bodycam footage, photographs of injuries (or lack thereof), medical reports, witness statements (neighbors, family members, even children’s observations if appropriate). We don’t just rely on the police report, which often is one-sided. Frequently, DV incidents are essentially one person’s word against another’s. We will interview you in detail to get your account – what led up to the incident? Were there any motives (jealousy, divorce, child custody battle, etc.) that could cause a false claim? Did anyone else witness your interaction or can attest to the accuser’s behavior? We have investigators who can track down and interview people. If there are text messages, emails, or social media posts around the time of the incident, we obtain those – sometimes an alleged victim might admit in a text that “I was upset and exaggerated” or conversely we might find evidence that someone planned to call police as a threat. In one case, we uncovered Facebook messages where the accuser discussed “teaching him a lesson” by lying – that completely broke the case open. Not every case has a smoking gun, but we dig for anything that can support your innocence or impeach the accuser’s credibility.

​

Evidence of False Accusations or Motives:

Building on the above, if we suspect a false accusation or ulterior motive, we pursue it rigorously. For example, if the accuser is not a U.S. citizen and we suspect U visa motivation, we may subpoena their immigration records (if accessible) or ask pointed questions about their knowledge of the U visa program. If there’s a divorce or custody case ongoing, we coordinate with family law attorneys to see if the DV claim surfaced right when those disputes arose (a known tactic in some custody battles is to attempt to get the upper hand by accusing the other parent of abuse). We might collect character letters or past history: has the accuser made prior accusations against anyone that were unfounded? On the flip side, we also examine if you have any past incidents – the State will, and so will immigration – and we plan how to address or mitigate those if they exist. Essentially, we aim to show if the allegation is part of a pattern of deceit or strategy by the accuser. We may use private investigators to gather background on key witnesses. Uncovering lies or inconsistency is key: DV trials often boil down to credibility. If we can provide a jury with reasons to doubt the accuser’s story, that’s often enough for reasonable doubt.

​

Challenging the Prosecution’s Evidence:

Sometimes, domestic incidents do result in injuries or police observations that seem damning (like red marks, upset household, etc.). However, injuries can occur in self-defense or during a mutual argument, or be much less serious than claimed. We work with forensic experts or medical experts when needed to interpret injury photos – for example, a slight bruise might be consistent with an accident rather than an intentional hit. We also look at the timeline: Did the accuser delay reporting? Did their story change between the initial call and later statements? These inconsistencies are golden for cross-examination.

 

Additionally, Florida has hearsay exceptions that allow certain statements (like excited utterances on a 911 call) to be used even if the victim doesn’t testify. We prepare to confront those too – perhaps by showing the statements were not reliable or that later the accuser recanted. In many DV cases, the alleged victim may decide not to cooperate with prosecution. We navigate that carefully: while the State can sometimes proceed without them, a reluctant or absent victim often weakens their case. We never encourage anyone to hide or not cooperate, but if it’s happening, we use it to our advantage. We might file motions to exclude evidence if proper procedure wasn’t followed (e.g., if the police entered a home without consent or warrant and gathered evidence, or if Miranda rights were violated during a heated exchange). Our stance is to challenge everything – from the constitutionality of the arrest to the reliability of witness testimony.

​

Aggressive Trial Defense:

We pride ourselves on being trial-ready in DV cases. Josef Mitkevicius has significant trial experience and does not shy away from taking a “he said/she said” case to a jury – because often, that is the only way to truly clear an innocent client’s name. In trial, we meticulously cross-examine the accuser, bringing out any motives to lie, inconsistencies in their story, and anything favorable you told us (e.g., if they claim you hit them repeatedly but medical reports show only minor bruising, we highlight that discrepancy). We present any evidence of your innocence – maybe neighbors heard her screaming threats at you, or maybe right after the incident, she sent you an apologetic text (indicating guilt on her side). We can also present character evidence under certain conditions: if allowed, testimonials of your peacefulness or the accuser’s aggressiveness can be powerful. We ensure the jury understands the context – cultural misunderstandings (for instance, loud arguing might be seen as normal in some cultures but a neighbor calls 911 thinking it’s violence), language barriers (perhaps you couldn’t articulate your side to police due to English difficulty), etc. Our goal is to instill reasonable doubt in every juror’s mind. Remember, the burden is on the State to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – we hold them to that burden. And if the evidence is just one person’s accusation and your denial, that can often fall short of “beyond a reasonable doubt” when skillfully argued.

​

Self-Defense and Defense of Others:

In some cases, our client did have a physical altercation but for a justified reason – self-defense or defending a child, for example. Florida law allows use of force in self-defense if you reasonably feared imminent harm. We will assert self-defense if it fits: this means we might acknowledge a fight occurred but argue that you were actually the victim or potential victim and had to protect yourself. For instance, perhaps your partner was the aggressor (throwing objects at you, hitting you first) and you pushed them away causing them to fall. That’s not a crime; that’s self-defense. We can introduce evidence of the accuser’s violent history if known (with proper procedure, sometimes prior incidents where they were aggressive can be admitted to support your fear of them). If self-defense is believed by the jury (or even before trial, if we make it evident to the prosecutor), it can lead to acquittal or the State dropping the case. We also consider Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law – though typically for other contexts, it can apply in homes and DV situations too. We may file a pretrial motion to dismiss under Stand Your Ground if the facts strongly support that you were defending yourself and had the right to do so. That’s an immunity that, if granted by a judge, ends the case early.

​

Expose U-Visa or VAWA Fraud:

Coming back to the immigration angle – if we find credible evidence that the accuser is lying to gain immigration status, we will shine a blaring light on that. We might use expert testimony on how the U visa process works to show the jury a possible motive. We will cross-examine the accuser on their knowledge of immigration benefits for victims (if relevant and allowed by the court). Some judges may not allow extensive discussion of that in front of a jury, but we can subtly get it in by questioning biases or interest in the outcome. Additionally, if appropriate, we can forward evidence of fraud to immigration authorities – not as retaliation, but because it’s a crime to file a false U visa claim. Our primary aim though is to get your charges dropped or win at trial – which naturally undercuts any fraudulent victim claim the accuser might be making. (If you’re acquitted, they can’t get a U visa from your case because there’s unlikely to be the required cooperation with prosecution or any conviction.)