“Hooooowwwww Convenient”: Why the Courts Ignore Victims Who Say “I Wasn’t Scared”

By: John Guidry

Are our courts just paying lip service to alleged victims? As of January 8th, 2019, Floridians enacted Marsy’s Law, which requires our court system to keep alleged victims informed and give them a voice. But sometimes, nobody listens.

The Case: An alleged victim was utterly ignored by the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, and eventually, the appellate judges. In the recent case of Daniels v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020), Daniels was convicted of Aggravated Assault with a Firearm.

• The Facts: It was a classic “he said, she said.” A couple got into a heated argument. Initially, she told police Daniels punched her, threatened to kill her, and shot a gun through a car window.
• The Trial Testimony: At trial, the girlfriend told the jury a different story. She denied he hit her and said she “did not remember” if he shot the gun.

The Key Admission: Most importantly, she testified that “she was never in fear from having a gun pointed at her.”

Did the alleged victim tell the truth at trial, but the State convicted you anyway?

Don’t let them twist the facts. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Law: Fear is Required (Technically)

To understand why her statement is critical, let’s look at Florida Statute 784.011. An assault requires:

1. An intentional threat.
2. An apparent ability to do it.
3. Doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that violence is imminent.

The Defense Argument: The plain language says the other person (the specific victim) must be in fear.

• The Logic: If the victim testifies under oath, “I was not afraid,” then the State has failed to prove the element of fear. Case closed.
• The Reality: The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss. The jury convicted.

So much for Marsy’s Law. It seems Marsy’s Law only applies when it can be used to convict someone. When a victim tries to clear the air, they are ignored. As the Church Lady would say, “Hooooowwwww Convenient.”

The Ruling: Objective vs. Subjective Fear

Daniels appealed, arguing the Judge made a mistake. The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction.

• The Twist: They ruled that the victim’s actual (subjective) fear doesn’t matter if a reasonable person (objective) would have been afraid.“Just as a jury may reject a victim’s testimony that she was fearful… a jury may also reject a victim’s testimony that she wasn’t fearful, finding that a reasonable person would have had a well-founded fear.”

The Problem: This creates a crime where the “victim” doesn’t even know they were victimized. If we want to make it a crime for a “reasonable person” to be in fear, the Legislature needs to rewrite the statute. Until then, the courts are just ignoring the victim to secure a conviction.

John’s 2026 Update: The “Silent Victim” Trial

Note: In 2020, Daniels was convicted because the jury didn’t believe the victim. In 2026, the jury never even meets the victim.

1. “Evidence-Based Prosecution” (No Victim Needed) In 2026, prosecutors operate under “No-Drop” policies.

• The 2026 Reality: They don’t care if the victim wants to drop charges. In fact, they often prefer if the victim doesn’t show up.
• The Method: They simply play the 911 Call and the Body Cam footage. They argue: “Look at her face on the video. She is crying. That proves ‘Reasonable Fear,’ regardless of what she says today.”

2. AI Sentiment Analysis Prosecutors now use AI tools to analyze the “micro-expressions” and vocal tremors in the body-cam footage.

• The Danger: They bring in an expert to testify: “The AI detected a 98% probability of Terror in her voice.” This “scientific” proof overrides the victim’s own testimony that she wasn’t scared.

3. Marsy’s Law as a Shield for the State Ironically, the State now uses Marsy’s Law to block the defense from interviewing the victim.

• The Tactic: They claim that deposing a recanting victim is “harassment” under Marsy’s Law. This prevents us from getting the truth on the record before trial, forcing us to fight the “Reasonable Person” standard blindly.

Subjective Fear Still Matters

Despite Daniels, we still fight this. If the victim isn’t scared, there is no assault. We must force the jury to look at the person, not the hypothetical “reasonable man.”

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s tell the jury the truth.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.