A. A. G. Was charged with misdemeanor domestic assault on October 30th, 2025.1 Mr. Isaac is the victim of A. A. G.’s assaultive act. In the case of instant concern, officers discuss A. A. G.’s prior bad act on body worn camera video.2 On November 14th, 2025, Jordan Isaac was charged with Domestic Assault – Strangulation and Domestic Assault- Misdemeanor pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.2247, subd.2 and 609.2242 subd. 1(2) respectively. A. A. G. Is the complaining witness. Mr. Isaac was reasonably put in apprehension of serious bodily harm and has filed a notice of self-defense.
THERE IS INSUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE TO PROCEED WITH TRIAL. The prosecutor must possess substantial evidence that will be admissible at trial and that would justify a denial of a motion for directed verdict. State v. Rud, 359 N. W.2d 573, 579 (Minn. 1984). The purpose of the probable cause challenge is to “protect a defendant who is unjustly or improperly charged from being compelled to stand trial.” Rud, 359 N. W.2d at 579. 1 ••-CR-••-•••• 2 Defense Exhibit 1 disclosed in MNDES ••-CR-••-•••• Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/25/2025 10:59 AM ARGUMENT Evidence Dictates a Motion for A Directed Verdict Would Be Granted.
The Government would not be able to overcome Mr. Isaac’s assertion of self-defense. A person is justified in using reasonable force when he “reasonably believes” that he is “resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person.” State v. Lampkin, 978 N. W.2d 286, 291(2022). In Lampkin, the Court noted that self-defense was not limited to resisting only assault or other offenses that result in bodily harm. Id. Self-defense permits a person to forcefully resist “an offense against the person” with no express requirement that the resisted offense involve bodily harm.
Id. Citing Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(3). There is no duty to retreat from one’s own home before defending oneself against a co-resident. State v. Glowacki, 630 N. W.2d 392, 401 (Minn. 2001). Evidence of A. A. G.’s assaultive conduct against Mr. Isaac is admissible under Minn. Stat. 634.20 and Minn. R. Evid. 404 (b).3 A. A. G. Participation in the act is clear and convincing, relevant to Mr. Isaac’s defense and not more prejudicial than probative.4 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Isaac moves the court to dismiss the charge for lack of probable cause. 3 The Defense has filed notice of intent to introduce evidence under Minn.
Stat. 634.20 4 Defense Exhibit 1.
