- Procedural Errors: If Lanez’s attorney can show that the trial court improperly admitted evidence, or excluded crucial testimony, this could be grounds for appeal.
- Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Lanez could argue that his trial lawyers failed to provide competent representation, impacting the fairness of his trial.
- Newly Discovered Evidence: If compelling new evidence emerges that was not available at the time of trial, it could justify a new trial.
However, Lanez’s lead case (the criminal matter) involves a violent felony with substantial evidence presented at trial, including victim testimony, forensic evidence, and witness statements. Courts historically uphold convictions in similar high-profile cases unless major due process violations occurred, and Lanez’s criminal conviction of the violence he perpetrated against Megan – justified the restraining order she requested.
Given that Lanez’s criminal conviction involved a shooting with multiple witnesses and forensic evidence, overturning it, or the underlying Restraining Order, would be extremely difficult.
The ruling in Megan Thee Stallion’s case is a testament to the evolving legal landscape surrounding restraining orders. The Perez v. Torres-Hernandez precedent played a pivotal role in reinforcing Megan’s right to protection. While restraining orders can be misused, they remain essential tools for safeguarding victims from further harm.
