“Tough luck.” That’s the message from the state Appellate Court to two men trying to challenge family violence protective orders against them, their attorneys charge.
In two separate cases decided days apart this month, the court denied a demand by each man to require the trial court to hold a full adversary hearing on the restraining order. Their attorneys want the right to call witnesses – even if those witnesses are the complaining “victims” themselves. It’s a due process requirement necessary before the state can deprive a person of fundamental liberties, argue the defendants’ attorneys, Jon Schoenhorn and Philip Russell.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
