Milan Lucic arrested after domestic incident - on indefinite leave from Bruins

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
21,544
Havent heard *that* name in awhile.
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.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,865
306, row 14
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.

View: https://twitter.com/wbznewsradio/status/1726975938116620786?s=20


Not sure what the next steps are for the Bruins. I assume there is a process the team needs to go through but a recent example is Alex Galchenyuk was arrested on numerous charges (not DV) in Arizona and they terminated him within 4 days.
 

Rusty13

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
5,583
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.
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.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,865
306, row 14
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.
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.

As for releasing him, I agree he should be gone. I just don't know the logistics behind how to do it and it's complicated by the fact he was/is on LTIR.

The NHL and NHLPA do have a player assistance program that is designed for players and families to seek confidential help for mental health, substance abuse and anything else. It may be something to utilize if he seeks treatment.
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
634
New York, USA
Seems very clear that alcohol is a major contributing factor. I hope his wife and kids feel they are in a safe place. I hope that Lucic accepts and receives the help he needs to better himself as a father and husband. I also hope there is a way for the family to reconcile what happened and find peace in their very public situation.

It’s always very disappointing when someone you look up to (family, sports hero, etc) lets you down. I feel for his kids and truly hope it isn’t a long standing pattern of behavior. Stinks.
 

Rusty13

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
5,583
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.
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.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,806
South Boston
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.
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.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,806
South Boston
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.
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.
 

Rusty13

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
5,583
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.
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.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,794
Melrose, MA
So, my wife, who defends cases like this, said that she would try to keep the 911 tape out, which sometimes works. Not all 911 calls meet the "excited utterance" exception - she'd have to hear the call to render an opinion on how likely it would be to be admitted.

Without the victim testifying (which seems unlikely), the odds of DA moving forward with it are pretty low and her willingness to have her client plead would also be pretty low. Jurors tend to be reluctant to convict without the victim testifying.
 
Apr 12, 2023
3
That quote jumped out at me as well. Is it normal language in these situations?
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.
 

Boston Brawler

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2011
9,906
@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.
 

Preacher

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
6,671
Pyeongtaek, South Korea
@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.
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.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,806
South Boston
And the prosecutors dropped the charges, because that’s generally what happens in DV cases when the victim won’t testify.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,806
South Boston
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.
What do you think, dude?
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,865
306, row 14
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.

Issue #3 is he's in the Player Assistance Program. I'm not sure if he can voluntarily leave or if the folks in the program need to sign off on his returning to the NHL? Plus I would imagine he's facing discipline from the league.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,995
deep inside Guido territory
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.
Can they just waive him and if he clears send him to Providence?
 

McDrew

Set Adrift on Memory Bliss
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,095
Portland, OR
I have no information to confirm any of this, but I could see the refusal to testify as part of a negotiated separation/divorce agreement that allows them both to start their own work separately and with minimal external resistance.

I don't think that is likely though.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,506
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.
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."
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,500
Hopefully Lucic is on board with this. His lawyer did say he was looking forward to continuing his NHL career as soon as possible, hopefully with the Bruins.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,632
Ok then, I'll ask. What's your opinion on Lucic's situation? And how should the Bs respond?
That's not the question that was posed.

The question was: "I have a Lucic jersey. As a grown adult, can someone tell me how I'm allowed to feel about wearing it?"

The answer, of course, is: wear it if you want to, don't if you don't. It's not your responsibility to search the depths of your soul everytime someone does something shitty. If it bothers you, don't wear it. But if anyone feels that you wearing a limited championship jersey you've owned for 15 years represents your view on domestic assault...? That's a them problem.
 

Rusty13

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
5,583
What do you think, dude?
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.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,806
South Boston
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.
Do you have a lot of experience with DV cases getting prosecuted without the cooperation of the victim? Especially with no prior convictions?