A female victim recently showed a District Court judge a picture of a bruise on her arm as part of her evidence that she needed protection of the court. The victim had previously had a final protective order against the same respondent. The judge denied the order, as well as a cross-filed petition by the respondent.

Court Watch monitors aren’t lawyers, but the petition accompanied by a photograph of a bruise, from a layperson’s perspective, certainly seemed to meet the “preponderance of evidence” standard.  It appeared far more likely than not that the respondent committed an abusive act.

We hope she appeals the decision to Circuit Court, where the judge will “start fresh” and look again at her evidence.