Top Stories

Judge dismisses all charges against Hope Solo

Hope Solo Seattle Reign training 2014 ISI

By CAITLIN MURRAY

The legal saga surrounding Hope Solo’s alleged assault last summer is over and her case has been dropped.

Citing a lack of cooperation from the alleged victims, Judge Michael Lambo ruled Tuesday to dismiss both of the misdemeanor assault charges Solo faced, according to Seattle-area reports. The refusal of the alleged victims to comply with the legal process left Solo unable to defend herself, Lambo said.

Solo, 33, had been charged with two counts of fourth-degree domestic violence assault for allegedly attacking her 17-year-old nephew and his mother, her half sister, in June. But the alleged victims were uncooperative, failing to go through court-ordered depositions and changing their stories, according to Solo’s attorney, Todd Maybrown.

Solo’s criminal trial was slated to start next week. Solo, who is training with the USWNT in California with permission from the judge, was not present at Tuesday’s hearing.

“Today’s decision brings closure to what has been one of the most difficult and emotionally draining times of my life,” Solo said in a statement posted on Facebook. “I always had faith that once the facts of the case were presented, I would be cleared of all charges and I am so happy and relieved to finally have it all behind me.”

With the ruling, it appears there will be no doubt as to the star goalkeeper’s standing with the U.S. Women’s National Team. The team will compete in the World Cup in June.

U.S. Soccer had come under fire for not punishing her and even going as far as to tout her record-breaking 73rd shutout match in September. But the federation stood their ground, vowing to let the legal process play out before making decisions to reprimand Solo.

Solo’s club, Seattle Reign FC, had benched her for one match after the incident for skipping a road game, but said any consequences over the criminal charges would come once the legal process was over.

Solo, for her part, has maintained her innocence throughout and expressed confidence the charges against her would be dismissed. Speaking to SBI in September, she lamented false assumptions being made in the press as she focused on preparing for the World Cup.

Court documents alleged the incident occurred June 20 when Solo was visiting her sister’s Kirkland, Washington home. The victims alleged that Solo punched her nephew in the face and attacked his mother when she tried to intervene. Solo’s nephew allegedly broke a wooden broom over her head and pointed a broken BB gun at her.

The USWNT is in a training camp until Jan. 25. After that, the USWNT will open 2015 with a pair of overseas matches Feb. 8 against France and Feb. 13 against England.

Comments

  1. Let this be an example of the RIGHT way to react to a alleged crime of an athlete. Don’t ruin her life any more than it already is. Innocent until proven guilty am I right?

    Reply
  2. I wonder if all those who were ready to convict her on the basis of the initial story will be more prudent in the future. I think the answer is no. I can’t believe some people. If there is anything you should have learned by now, it should be to not jump to conclusions based on first reports. We have seen time and again how initial reports are so often one-sided and/or incomplete.

    Reply
      • by “SBI” you mean “the internet”, right? i can’t imagine you think that behavior is in any way unique to this site.

    • Yeah, just a bunch of dudes complaining about how unfair it is to be male in a female dominated society here.

      Occasionally you’ll catch a “wussification of America” and a “Thanks Obama” thrown in for some color…pun intended.

      Reply
      • wtf…i think your comment is the first time i’ve seen “Thanks Obama” here. and maybe i just visit the wrong (right?) sites, but i pretty much only see “Thanks Obama” used as a joke.

        the internet is bad enough already. you don’t have to exaggerate it.

    • You are, of course, right about early reports of incidents being incomplete, even completely wrong. Rice’s was incomplete at best, Solo’s was ?, the Ferguson case was likely wrong in the beginning(there is no evidence Brown tried to surrender, but hands-up saying don’t shoot has become a mantra), the female terrorist in the French market, apparently wasn’t even there and may not have even been in France at all during any of the attacks. In some of these case we will never know what really happened, but a common thread is that the early reports are at best flawed.

      To compound the problem, too often people only remember those things that fit their own preconceptions and cannot shed those prejudgements even after they are shown to be false. So if you love Hope, surely she was proven innocent, if you hate her, surely she intimidated family members and escaped justice.

      Reply
  3. Since in theory you could subpoena the family and make them show up, this is a thinly disguised dismissal for lack of evidence presented as some sort of discovery dispute or violation of her right to a speedy trial. The judge could just as easily have framed it as, your witnesses have recanted and refused to cooperate, you have no case against this woman, dismissal on the merits (no favor to the zealous prosecutor, who would take an “L”). He does the prosecutor a favor by changing the frame to rights and process. It’s slightly dirty aesthetics for Solo because ending it this way she’s not vindicated at trial but freed on a technicality. Maybe the judge wanted it to end that way. It will presumably be enough for NWSL/US Soccer to use as a Ray Rice comparison shield, allowing her to move on with her career, but still a little stain that won’t quite wash out.

    Reply
  4. Who knows.

    Sounds like she got drunk and loopy and drama and maybe some punchage ensued. After everybody cooled off, I suspect nobody really wanted her in jail.

    Like I said, the appropriate punishment for such things is usually a lifetime of uninvites to family functions. Which has probably already happened.

    It’s a yellow warning flag – and there are several attached to her – but I haven’t seen any glaring indications she’s a menace to society and belongs in the Cross-Bar Hilton, or even needs to be kicked out of the game.

    Reply
    • Alcohol was involved both times. Rice went to counseling, his wife didn’t cooperate (also), and the prosecutor apparently didn’t stop and consider there might be objective evidence…..the film. So that prosecutor cuts him loose. Then the film emerges — probably someone upset at how easy he got off — and all heck breaks loose.

      The main difference is there is no video to convict Solo with in court or public opinion.

      But there is also the irony that by holding onto the case longer, the prosecutor gave the judge the ability to dismiss based on witness uncooperativeness, meaning Solo gets an even cleaner escape than Rice. Rice at least basically copped to something. Solo had better lawyers? Rice had a more indulgent and sloppy prosecutor? Because if Rice’s prosecutor had held out and ever found the tape it wouldn’t have mattered what the witness thought, the tape would have convicted him. He’d be doing time. Because if Solo’s lawyer copped a plea quick like Rice, she never gets off on the technicality.

      Reply
      • The incidents aren’t really comparable, and your account of the rice assault is completely inaccurate.

        Both the prosecution and the defense in the rice case had access to the in-elevator casino surveillance video basically immediately.

        The video is probably the reason the charge against rice was upped from simple to aggravated assault while the charges against rice’s fiance were dropped.

        Also, solo didn’t “get off on a technicality.” Unless you consider lack of evidence a technicality.

      • So, you assume her guilt to begin with. I am appalled with these comments. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      • Not correct. Courts are not in the business of clearing people of wrongdoing. That a crime is not proven by reasonable doubt does not mean that the person did not factually commit the crime.

      • This is the other Paul. The one who IS a lawyer. Kevino is right. Victims refusing to testify DOES NOT equal “cleared of all wrongdoing.” It just means that there was not evidence to proceed with the trial. This can occur a variety of ways among which: (1) weak evidence to begin with, (2) destruction/contamination of evidence (2) lack of cooperation of the key witnesses (as is the case here). The latter can occur a variety of ways: (1) intimidation or (2) paid/bought off through out of court settlement.

        On a side note, I know that I am not the only person named Paul in the world,let alone this site. However, this is fairly small community, and I would think that is new poster saw that there was already a poster with that name, the 2nd poster would change their handle. I know I would. It’s not a big a deal, but it is a little annoying. I read this site for a while before I started posting and there was not another Paul when I started posting. Anyway, not a big deal.

      • Well I’m not a lawyer and I’m not even named Paul, so keep that in mind…

        But our lawyer friend Paul left out another reason the victims could have for not testifying, maybe they realized a petty family bickering/argument/confrontation is not worth ruining a family member’s career over. Maybe they had enough time to cool down that they don’t wish to pursue this anymore and want it all put behind them.

    • I’m totally with you on all accounts. Not cute and its kind of a farce it went this far.

      Its all very interesting when it gets to the deposition phase and people are held liable/accountable for their statements. Its all very easy to make accusations until you’re held liable for any lies you tell.

      Reply
      • You don’t know that. Sometimes, you are right, but sometimes victims change their stories because they were influenced to do so.

      • If you change your story, one version cannot be correct. The person changing the story must know one version is not accurate and saying something you know not to be true is called lying, whatever the motivation.

Leave a Reply to Paul Cancel reply