Immediately after the ruling of the Ledbetter case, the court deputies escorted Mr. Ledbetter out of the courtroom and presented Mr. Griever. Mr. Griever had been spending the last five weeks in jail after violating a two TPOs (Temporary Protective Order) issued by the court. Mr. Griever was accused of stalking his ex-wife, Mrs. Anderson, on two occasions and has violated his previous bond requirement of no communication outside of child visitation. Detective Moore was sworn into court and was asked to present his perspective on the case. Detective Moore immediately pulled out his police report and detailed fourteen incidences that violated the TPOs and bond agreement that were currently in effect. Attorney Citronberg began to question …show more content…
During the witness recollection, Mr. Lengen cleverly created an instance in which the was able to briefly review his police report and reveal emails sent by Mr. Grievers. Mr. Grievers recently sent six emails prior to the TPOs unrelated to child visitation and sent a message threatening to “tie up” the victim. The defense attorney argued that the nature of the email was apologetic and the sole purpose of the emails was to admit to wrongdoings and ask for forgiveness. Attorney Lengen immediately responded by stating that “the nature of the emails does not dismiss the obvious violations of a prior court’s order”. The defense attorney tried to dismiss the claim and continued to questioned the witness. The exchange between the witness and defense attorney appeared unprofessional as both parties began to use informal terminology and debated over the interpretation of several instances. The defense attorney believed that all emails mentioned the sporting events of the sons while the witness argued that there was direct no correlation to child visitation and therefore violated the previous court order. Their disagreement over semantics seemed to unsettle attorney Lengen and he intervened in their