“Ghost Prosecutions”: Can the State Convict You of Battery if the Victim Never Shows Up?

By: John Guidry

Every criminal defense attorney runs into this issue: an alleged victim of domestic violence decides “not” to press charges.

• The Reality: We all know it’s not the victim’s decision. The State of Florida decides whether to file a lawsuit (criminal charges) against you.
• The Trend: Prosecutors, in their zeal to bolster conviction stats, are increasingly attempting to prosecute battery cases without a victim in the courtroom.

Can they do it? Am I speaking of prosecutors in China, or the good old U.S. of A? I am talking about Orlando, Sanford, and Kissimmee. Let’s look at a case where they tried this and failed.

Is the prosecutor moving forward even though the victim wants to drop the charges?

They might be missing an essential element. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: Holborough v. State (The Independent Witness Trap)

The case is Holborough v. State, 103 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

• The Charge: Felony Battery (upgraded from misdemeanor because of a prior conviction).
• The Facts: A police officer saw Holborough “straddling a woman… repeatedly hitting her.”
• The Strategy: The victim did not testify. The State thought they had a slam dunk because they had an “Independent Witness”—the cop who saw the whole thing.

The Problem: Who is She? The cop saw Holborough hitting a woman. True enough. But how does the cop know who this woman is?

• The Testimony: The officer testified that he asked the woman her name, and she showed him her Florida ID. He told the jury the name he saw on the card.

The Ruling: The “Name Game” Hearsay

The defense attorney objected to the officer’s testimony as Hearsay.

• The Definition: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
• The Logic: The officer didn’t know the woman. He was simply repeating what she told him (or what her ID card “told” him). Since the woman wasn’t there to be cross-examined, the ID card was a “testimonial statement” that the defense couldn’t challenge.

Identity is an Essential Element The Appeals Court reversed the conviction.

• The Rule: “For crimes against persons, the name of the person victimized is an essential element of the crime that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• The Failure: You cannot prove the name of a victim simply by having a cop say, “She showed me an ID.” Without the victim there to say, “That is my ID, and that is my name,” the identity remains unproven.

The Result: The State failed to prove the victim was the person named in the charging document. Case dismissed (technically remanded, but effectively dead).

John’s 2026 Update: Body Cams & Facial Recognition

Note: In 2012, the cop read the ID. In 2026, the Body Cam reads it for him.

1. “Evidence-Based Prosecution” (The Ghost Trial) Prosecutors now use a strategy called “Evidence-Based Prosecution” for domestic violence.

• The Tactic: They assume the victim won’t show up. They build the case entirely on 911 Calls (Excited Utterances) and Body Cam Video of injuries.
• The Defense: We use Holborough to fight this. Even with 4K video of the fight, if the State cannot legally prove the name of the victim (because the victim refuses to appear), they cannot convict you of hitting “Jane Doe.”

2. The Body Cam “Zoom” Loophole In Holborough, the officer testified about the ID. Today, they just play the video of the ID card.

• The Argument: The State argues the video is “Real Evidence,” not Hearsay.
• The Counter: We argue Crawford v. Washington. The ID card is being used as a “Testimonial Statement” to prove identity. If we can’t cross-examine the owner of the ID, the video of the ID should be inadmissible.

3. Biometric “Face Matches” The newest threat is Facial Recognition Software.

• The 2026 Reality: Police run the Body Cam footage through a driver’s license database to “identify” the victim without asking her name.
• The Fight: This is the new frontier. We challenge the reliability of the algorithm. If the software has a 98% accuracy rate, that means there is a 2% Reasonable Doubt. You cannot send someone to prison based on a “Probable Match.”

Make Them Prove Every Element

The State loves to skip steps when victims don’t cooperate. But the law requires them to prove who was hit, not just that someone was hit. If the victim isn’t there, the State’s case often falls apart—if you know where to push.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s challenge the identity.

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.