The Globe has more details. Arraignment is tomorrow.
Milan Lucic arrest: Boston police report details alleged argument (bostonglobe.com)
Havent heard *that* name in awhile.Lucic’s marketing rep, Cleon Daskalakis, told the Globe at the time that the couple had an argument but that it wasn’t violent.
I saw him mind the net in a Bs alumni game about 10 years ago -- he played the position very spryly against my area's local pick up team. "Cleon" is one of the all-time great first names.Havent heard *that* name in awhile.
It likely depends on whether his wife decides to pursue prosecution and/or what was on the 911 tape. Regardless, he may ultimately decide it's in his best interest to do some type of plea or agree to a resolution with some probationary conditions. He clearly should get treatment for alcohol abuse ASAP, irrespective of the criminal court case. The Bruins need to release him yesterday either way.Lucic plead not guilty in court today. Released on his own recognizance, ordered not to consume alcohol or abuse the victim. Pretrial hearing scheduled for January 19.
I would guess this results in a plea deal.
According to the police report, during the 911 call the victim stated he tried to choke her. When the police arrived they noticed and documented red marks on her chest and asked again if he had tried to strangle her but she said no. She also refused medical treatment. I could be wrong but I believe the state can still prosecute without the victims cooperation though I'd imagine getting a conviction becomes more difficult.It likely depends on whether his wife decides to pursue prosecution and/or what was on the 911 tape. Regardless, he may ultimately decide it's in his best interest to do some type of plea or agree to a resolution with some probationary conditions. He clearly should get treatment for alcohol abuse ASAP, irrespective of the criminal court case. The Bruins need to release him yesterday either way.
If the 911 call can be characterized as "non-testimonial" in that there was an "ongoing emergency" when she made those statements and the primary purpose by police was to assist in that ongoing emergency when the dispatcher asked her questions, then absolutely they will be able to go forward with a prosecution even without her cooperation or possible assertion of marital privilege. And with the other corroborating details as you listed there, it sounds like they would have a fairly solid case.According to the police report, during the 911 call the victim stated he tried to choke her. When the police arrived they noticed and documented red marks on her chest and asked again if he had tried to strangle her but she said no. She also refused medical treatment. I could be wrong but I believe the state can still prosecute without the victims cooperation though I'd imagine getting a conviction becomes more difficult.
You’re not wrong, but it’s just the common verbiage of how the order is written."Ordered not to abuse the victim" that he already abused is such a weird and gross statement.
The Commonwealth can, but it’s generally unlikely, assuming no serious priors or more serious injury. If she doesn’t cooperate with the prosecution, this is unlikely to go very far in the legal system.According to the police report, during the 911 call the victim stated he tried to choke her. When the police arrived they noticed and documented red marks on her chest and asked again if he had tried to strangle her but she said no. She also refused medical treatment. I could be wrong but I believe the state can still prosecute without the victims cooperation though I'd imagine getting a conviction becomes more difficult.
Even if it’s a hearsay exception, it can’t be offered for the truth of what’s being asserted, right? I can conceive of ways to get it in, but not really in ways where the probative value outweighed the prejudicial.If the 911 call can be characterized as "non-testimonial" in that there was an "ongoing emergency" when she made those statements and the primary purpose by police was to assist in that ongoing emergency when the dispatcher asked her questions, then absolutely they will be able to go forward with a prosecution even without her cooperation or possible assertion of marital privilege. And with the other corroborating details as you listed there, it sounds like they would have a fairly solid case.
It definitely can get in. Firstly, as being non-testimonial to satisfy 6th Amendment issues and then likely as an excited utterance as a hearsay exception. It then becomes fair game to argue with the jury. It's definitely not as compelling as when the declarant (Lucic's wife) is not there to testify or be subject to cross-examination, but that goes to the weight and not admissibility.Even if it’s a hearsay exception, it can’t be offered for the truth of what’s being asserted, right? I can conceive of ways to get it in, but not really in ways where the probative value outweighed the prejudicial.
That quote jumped out at me as well. Is it normal language in these situations?"Ordered not to abuse the victim" that he already abused is such a weird and gross statement.
Just cut him now.
Apparently so. That jumped out to me as well, but according to a lawyer friend, those conditions are often on the record in DV incidents because not only is it obviously a crime, but it would also be a violation of the bail, which means no more bail.That quote jumped out at me as well. Is it normal language in these situations?
Typically, we have commanders fill out a military protective order (MPO) when there is an allegation of DV. There’s also a required cooling off period where the servicemember is moved into the barracks for at least 72 hours but some places it’s 7 days. The MPO has several stipulations that will prevent the soldier from contacting the spouse or being within a certain distance from the spouse. It includes contact in person or via electronic means or even through a third party. There’s a requirement now to file the MPO with the MPs which gets fed into the national database. It’s not enforceable off post but at least the local law enforcement will know about it.@Preacher
I am not a lawyer, but had a few domestic violence cases in my unit while a Company Commander. This type of language was there, and it was there for digital/verbal abuse as well (which was more likely as we almost always separated the couple). It could be why that language is there.
If the 911 call can be characterized as "non-testimonial" in that there was an "ongoing emergency" when she made those statements and the primary purpose by police was to assist in that ongoing emergency when the dispatcher asked her questions, then absolutely they will be able to go forward with a prosecution even without her cooperation or possible assertion of marital privilege. And with the other corroborating details as you listed there, it sounds like they would have a fairly solid case.
What do you think, dude?It definitely can get in. Firstly, as being non-testimonial to satisfy 6th Amendment issues and then likely as an excited utterance as a hearsay exception. It then becomes fair game to argue with the jury. It's definitely not as compelling as when the declarant (Lucic's wife) is not there to testify or be subject to cross-examination, but that goes to the weight and not admissibility.
Can they just waive him and if he clears send him to Providence?I think they can terminate him and deal with a grievance later, but he has a full no-move so there's some grey area in there. With the charges being dropped, I'm not sure if they have cause to terminate.
There's also the roster/cap issues. He's on LTIR and they've been using it and don't have any cap space. They can move Poitras to LTIR but that puts them like $100,000 short of being able to do something about Lucic meaning they'd have to expose someone to waivers just to terminate Lucic. They don't have anyone who is waiver expempt they could paper down.
No because of the NMC. He would have to consent to being waived.Can they just waive him and if he clears send him to Providence?
Got it, thanks.No because of the NMC. He would have to consent to being waived.
I don't know the CBA language, but I would like to think the Bruins could say, "yeah, the legal charges were dropped, but we heard the 911 tape and read the police report. This isn't court. Goodbye."I think they can terminate him and deal with a grievance later, but he has a full no-move so there's some grey area in there. With the charges being dropped, I'm not sure if they have cause to terminate.
That’s best for the team and Lucic. Let him get some rehab for the alcohol problem. Hopefully that is part of the program he’s in with the PA.Lucic to remain on LOA for the remainder of the season.
View: https://twitter.com/RochieWBZ/status/1758596244245487654?s=20
Great question! Don't have your own opinion. Whatever peer pressure tells you...do it, bro. You should start a poll.Dumb Question: I still have a Lucic 2011 Winter Classic Sweater. Should I ditch it?
Ok then, I'll ask. What's your opinion on Lucic's situation? And how should the Bs respond?Great question! Don't have your own opinion. Whatever peer pressure tells you...do it, bro. You should start a poll.
That's not the question that was posed.Ok then, I'll ask. What's your opinion on Lucic's situation? And how should the Bs respond?
Thanks. This is helpful. Not necessarily in the way you intended, but helpful nonetheless.Great question! Don't have your own opinion. Whatever peer pressure tells you...do it, bro. You should start a poll.
It was how I intended. Love you.Thanks. This is helpful. Not necessarily in the way you intended, but helpful nonetheless.
I didn't hear the audio of the 911 call that was apparently played in court, but it sounds like it didn't meet the "ongoing emergency" exception per the judge's ruling. It also doesn't sound like the Commonwealth pushed hard to prosecute this case though. I hope Lucic and his wife find peace, and if there is an ongoing alcohol problem that he addresses it. I'm glad it appears the Bruins will move on without him, regardless of the court resolution.What do you think, dude?
Do you have a lot of experience with DV cases getting prosecuted without the cooperation of the victim? Especially with no prior convictions?I didn't hear the audio of the 911 call that was apparently played in court, but it sounds like it didn't meet the "ongoing emergency" exception per the judge's ruling. It also doesn't sound like the Commonwealth pushed hard to prosecute this case though. I hope Lucic and his wife find peace, and if there is an ongoing alcohol problem that he addresses it. I'm glad it appears the Bruins will move on without him, regardless of the court resolution.