Assault Defense Attorney Achieves Non Prosecution Outcome

The client was employed as a floor supervisor at a mid sized hospitality business operating in Washington DC and was responsible for managing customer relations and on site staff conduct during peak service hours. 

On the date in question, a dissatisfied customer became verbally aggressive toward a junior employee over perceived service delays, raising their voice and gesturing in a threatening manner in a public area of the premises. 

Observing the escalation and concerned about employee safety and disruption to other patrons, the supervisor approached the customer calmly to de escalate the situation. 

As the customer continued hostile gestures, including clenched fists and abrupt movements, the supervisor briefly made physical contact with the customer’s forearm solely to create distance and request calm.

No injuries were reported, no strikes occurred, and the interaction lasted only seconds before other staff intervened.

Under District of Columbia law, assault may be established by an intentional act that either causes an immediate harmful or offensive touching, or places another person in reasonable apprehension of such contact, provided the force used is unlawful and not legally justified.

The assault defense attorney analyzed whether the client’s conduct constituted unlawful force or instead fell within lawful, minimal contact aimed at preventing escalation. 

Evidence showed that the client did not strike, push, or threaten the customer and that the brief contact was reactive and defensive rather than aggressive. 

Importantly, the absence of intent to harm or intimidate was central, as DC courts consistently distinguish between criminal assault and reasonable intervention to maintain safety. 

The legal review concluded that the statutory elements of assault were not met based on intent, degree of force, and surrounding circumstances.

The defense team immediately collected written statements from multiple employees who witnessed the interaction, all of whom confirmed that the supervisor acted to calm the situation rather than provoke it.

Surveillance footage from the business floor was preserved and reviewed, showing the customer’s aggressive posture and the limited nature of the supervisor’s contact. 

Character statements were also submitted demonstrating the client’s clean employment record, absence of prior complaints, and consistent training in conflict de escalation. 

The assault defense attorney framed the evidence chronologically to show a clear sequence of escalating customer behavior followed by proportionate, non violent intervention.

In formal submissions to investigators, counsel emphasized that the conduct lacked the requisite criminal intent and did not rise to the level of offensive or harmful force under DC standards. 

The defense argued that treating brief, safety motivated contact as assault would improperly criminalize routine managerial duties in high stress service environments. 

By aligning factual evidence with established DC assault principles, the attorney demonstrated that the case was unsuitable for prosecution and more appropriately characterized as a workplace safety response.

After reviewing witness accounts, video evidence, and legal submissions, law enforcement concluded that the supervisor’s actions did not constitute assault under District of Columbia law. 

Investigators specifically noted the lack of aggressive intent, the minimal and momentary nature of the contact, and the credible safety rationale for intervention. 

As a result, the case was closed with a formal decision not to forward charges to the prosecutor, allowing the client to avoid arrest, court proceedings, or any criminal record. 

The client returned to work without disciplinary consequences and implemented updated de escalation protocols to reduce future risk.