USA v. DECAPRIO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
UNITED STATES
v. 	Case No. 3:25-MJ-470-HTC
DENNIS R. DECAPRIO
__________________________/
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON BENCH TRIAL
Defendant Dennis R. DeCaprio has been charged by information with one
count of simple assault on his wife, L.T, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5). The
Court held a bench trial on January 26, 2026. 	Based on the evidence presented at
trial and for the reasons set forth below and in open court, the Court finds Defendant
NOT GUILTY of the offense charged.
I. 	Evidence Presented at Trial:
The evidence at trial established that on July 15, 2025, Defendant and L.T.
were instructing a motorcycle riders class at Corry Station, Pensacola, Florida, when
the two had a verbal disagreement over where the Defendant was positioned on the
course during the practical aspect of the instruction. 	The verbal disagreement
continued while Defendant was putting motorcycles into the CONEX boxes located
near the course, and escalated as the two were in Defendant’s truck driving to the
classroom to continue the theoretical instruction.
Evidence concerning the dispute between the Defendant and L.T. and the
events leading to Defendant’s arrest included testimony from L.T., Officer S. Roa
(the responding officer), and Defendant. 	Additionally, some of the events in
question were captured on L.T.’s Meta glasses and the truck’s dash camera. 	As
discussed more below, L.T.’s and the Defendant’s accounts conflict. 	Those
testimonies and the video evidence are summarized below.
A. 	L.T.’s Testimony
According to L.T., despite the verbal dispute, she got into Defendant’s truck
so they could head to the classroom. Once inside the truck, Defendant continued to
Case 3:25-mj-00470-HTC Document 16 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 8

Page 2 of 8
3:25-mj-470-HTC
verbally insult her and curse at her, drove aggressively – turning the wheel back
and forth, and wanted to hit her. She, thus, wanted to get out of the truck and
“jumped” out when she saw a police car patrolling the area. After she got out of
the truck, she hid behind some trees, but the Defendant found her as he was
driving around with his truck.
At one point, as she starts crossing a road to go into a building, the Defendant
stops the truck and starts backing up, “burn[ing]“ the asphalt. The truck was coming
in her direction, and she ran when she saw the backup lights. She tried to get on the
grassy area because she was afraid Defendant was trying to run her over with the
truck. When she saw the truck, she was scared and felt like her life was in danger.
She did not know what speed the truck was traveling. Once she got into the building,
she saw a police officer and gave her statement to the officer. That officer was
Officer Roa.
L.T. admits, however, that Defendant never hit or laid his hands on her.
B. 	Officer Roa’s Testimony
According to Officer Roa, she was patrolling the perimeter at Corry Station
when she observed Defendant’s truck over by the motorcycle course, driving at a
high rate of speed. As the truck was coming around the corner of the CONEX boxes,
it looked like it was about to do donuts. Around that time, however, she received a
call for service for a medical emergency and, thus, had to leave the area. 	She
returned to the area about 5 minutes later and saw L.T. walking down the road. L.T.
waved her down.
L.T. looked emotionally distressed, was crying and shaking, and stated she
needed help. She said that she and Defendant were both instructors and got into an
argument. 	The Defendant became aggressive, and she told him she was going to
call the police. 	When Defendant slowed the truck down, but while it was still
moving, she jumped out of the truck and had to jump into the bushes to avoid being
hit. L.T. was evaluated by medical and, based on L.T.’s statement, the Defendant
was arrested.
After Defendant was taken into custody and advised of his Miranda rights,
Defendant gave a voluntary statement and told Officer Roa that L.T. assaulted him
and attempted to choke him and rip his shirt off. L.T. also tried to get him to hit her.
Officer Roa, however, did not notice any marks on the Defendant or that his shirt
was ripped.
Case 3:25-mj-00470-HTC Document 16 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8
3:25-mj-470-HTC
Officer Roa also admitted that even though L.T. stated that she jumped out of
the truck onto asphalt, she did not observe any rips in her clothing or scrapes on her
hands. Additionally, Officer Roa stated L.T. admitted Defendant never touched her
during the incident.
C. 	The Defendant’s Testimony
The Defendant testified that the argument between him and L.T. started after
the practical aspect of the instruction was over and she complained to him that he
was not respecting her as an instructor/coach. 	As he was trying to put the
motorcycles away during the break between the practical instruction and the
classroom instruction, L.T. continued to “carry on,” so he told her to stop whining
and insulted her several times. 	She told him to hit her, and he said no. 	She then
grabbed him and put her hands on his throat.
Once back inside the truck, after picking up some 2 x 4’s, L.T. said something
to him, and he insulted her again. She then grabbed his collar and yanked on it. He
did not put his hands on her even though she told him to hit her. He claims he never
tried to hit her. 	However, because she had blindsided him when she grabbed his
collar, he put his arm up and raised his fist at her in a defensive move in case she
tried to grab him again. At that point, he tried to get the attention of the patrol car
but was unable to do so.
After L.T. got out of the truck, Defendant put away the 2 x 4’s and then drove
around to find her to go to the classroom with him. He did not see her in his vision
when he backed up the truck. According to Defendant, L.T. was never behind the
truck but was on the right side of the truck in the grassy area when he backed up the
truck. He never intended to scare her or intentionally put her in fear.
D. 	The Video Footage
L.T. was wearing Meta glasses and recorded some of the interaction on the
camera that comes with the glasses. What was captured by the glasses is up to L.T.
because she must push a button on the glasses to start and stop the recording.
Additionally, she also downloaded video footage from the truck’s dashcam. 	As
discussed below, the video footage, however, does not tell the whole story and what
is shown calls into doubt the truthfulness of L.T.’s testimony and the statements she
made to Officer Roa.
Case 3:25-mj-00470-HTC Document 16 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 8

Page 4 of 8
3:25-mj-470-HTC
The Government admitted into evidence a thumb drive containing 4 different
videos, labeled 1A through 1D.
Footage 1A, which was captured by the Meta glasses, begins with the
Defendant and L.T. in the truck. 	The Defendant is seen in the driver’s seat. 	L.T.
can be heard but not seen. 	The collar of Defendant’s t-shirt can be seen stretched
and pulled almost past his shoulder. The Defendant is visibly angry and in one brief
second turns toward L.T. with his arm raised and his hand clenched in a fist,
appearing to lean toward the direction of L.T., before turning back toward the
driver’s side window and putting his hands back on the wheel to turn it to the right.
As the Defendant raises his arm, L.T. can be heard saying to the Defendant “hit me.”
The Defendant does not, and instead says, “there is a cop right there” and proceeds
to drive toward the patrol car, honking to get the officer’s attention.
Seconds later, as the truck approaches the patrol vehicle (which is driving
away), L.T. can be seen grabbing the door’s upper handlebar and saying “he hit me,
he hit me. I show you.” She then calls out “Policia” but the patrol car continues to
drive away. 	She tells Defendant she wants him to stop the car. 	The Defendant
continues to drive for approximately 6 more seconds, across the grass, between the
CONEX boxes and back to the asphalt motorcycle course, before stopping the truck.
Once the truck stops, L.T. gets out of the truck and runs back onto the grassy area
where the patrol car was traveling, but it is no longer in sight. The video shows L.T.
running for approximately another 20 seconds before the video stops recording.
Footage 1B, which was also captured by L.T.’s Meta glasses, records L.T. as
she is walking around Corry Station. 	In the video, L.T. can be heard saying “I’m
afraid of my husband, he hit me, I’m looking for police.” L.T. appears to be speaking
to herself or for the camera.
About 5 seconds into the video, Defendant’s truck comes into the screen. As
he is driving, the Defendant yells to L.T. “let’s go.” She responds, “no, I’m looking
for the police. 	I don’t go with you, you go.” 	The two continue to speak – the
Defendant says, “Don’t come home” and L.T. says, “okay, I don’t.” L.T. appears to
be walking behind the truck, a good distance away from the truck, and to the side of
the truck as it is moving ahead of her. Additionally, there is a row of bushes between
L.T. and the truck. This video stops as the truck drives away.
Footage 1C is from the truck’s dashcam. 	It shows the truck driving around
the motorcycle course and the Defendant can be heard telling himself that he does
not know where L.T. went. About 38 seconds later, the Defendant appears to spot
Case 3:25-mj-00470-HTC Document 16 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8
3:25-mj-470-HTC
L.T. and asks her if she’s “done f_ing around.” The truck continues to drive in the
area where L.T. is walking and the Defendant tells L.T., “let’s go.” This is the same
sequence that is captured by the Meta glasses in Footage 1B. 	Unlike the footage
captured by the Meta glasses in Footage 1B, however, the dashcam footage shows
L.T. walking to the side of the truck, on the other side of the bushes on the paved
roadway.
At 1:23 of the video, the truck is seen heading toward the roadway and getting
on the roadway, well ahead of L.T. The truck stops at 1:29 on the video and then
Defendant accelerates briefly and begins driving backwards on the roadway, before
coming to a complete stop at 1:40. The Defendant can be heard getting out of the
truck and appears to be walking toward L.T. because voices can be heard some
distance from the truck. 	Defendant tells L.T., “Your last chance, are you coming
home or not, coming home?” 	There is a pause as if L.T. is saying something in
response, but her voice cannot be heard. The Defendant then says, “you going to hit
me some more,” before he insults L.T. again, and gets back into the truck. 	This
exchange lasts for approximately 30 seconds. At 2:07, L.T. can be seen again in the
camera’s view, walking well ahead of the truck, on the grassy area on the other side
of the roadway, toward some buildings. Once back inside the truck, the Defendant
yells “bye bye” and drives away.
Footage 1D captures part of the events that are contained in Footage 1C,
except that it is from the Meta glasses. 	It starts with footage of the truck on the
paved roadway backing up. Based on the angle of the camera, L.T. is not behind the
truck as it starts to back up. Instead, she is to the side of the truck on the grassy area.
L.T. then walks away from the truck, staying to its side before turning back around
toward the truck. L.T. then walks behind the truck, while it is stopped, and crosses
the roadway to the left side of the truck. L.T. can be heard saying, “he is nervous,
he wants me to go with him, I don’t go,” before the recording stops. L.T.’s narrative
appears to be for the camera.
The Defendant also admitted video footage from the Meta glasses and the
dashcam into evidence. While some of the footage is similar to the footage admitted
into evidence by the Government, there are also some additional events captured in
the Defendant’s videos.
The footage from Video 1 starts with L.T. recording her interactions with the
Defendant while the two are still at the motorcycle course and the Defendant is
putting motorcycles into the CONEX boxes. As Defendant is doing so, L.T. can be
heard telling the Defendant to “respect” her as a “coach” and that she is not his wife
Case 3:25-mj-00470-HTC Document 16 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 8

Page 6 of 8
3:25-mj-470-HTC
when they are instructing. This video corroborates the Defendant’s recitation of the
events - that the two’s argument continued as he was putting the motorcycles away.
The footage from Video 2 is from inside the truck and shows the Defendant
getting out of the truck to get 2 x 4’s. The importance of this video, according to the
Defendant, is that it shows the shirt of his collar is intact and unstretched.
The footage from Video 3 is identical to the Government’s footage 1A.
The footage from Video 4 is the same as the footage in Government footage
1B, except slightly shorter.
The footage from Video 5 is the same as the Government’s footage 1D, except
shorter.
II. 	Discussion
Because 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5) does not define the term “assault,” courts have
looked to the common law meaning of assault. See United States v. Alvarez-Murillo,
722 F. Supp. 3d 648, 650 (W.D. Tx. 2024). Under the common law, “assault” has
three meanings – (1) an attempted battery1; (2) an actual battery; and (3) an act that
puts another in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm. 	See id.; see also, United
States v. Dellis, 558 F.3d 177, 180 (2d Cir. 2009) (referencing Blackstone’s
definition of assault as “an attempt or offer to beat another, without touching him:
as if one lifts up his cane, or his fist, in a threatening manner at another; or strikes at
him, but misses him”).
In this case, the Government has charged Defendant with two acts that it
contends put L.T. in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm: (1) the Defendant
raised his fist to L.T. while the two were in the truck; and (2) the Defendant
threatened her with his truck when he backed it up on the roadway.
The Court has considered the testimonies of Officer Roa, L.T., and the
Defendant, as well as the video evidence, and finds the evidence is insufficient to
prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
1 A “battery” at common law means “a harmful or offensive contact” with another. See Alvarez-
Murillo, 722 F. Supp. 3d at 650.
Case 3:25-mj-00470-HTC Document 16 Filed 02/03/26 Page 6 of 8

Page 7 of 8
3:25-mj-470-HTC
First, the video evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the
Defendant assaulted L.T. with his truck. 	Notably, there is no video showing L.T.
standing behind the truck when the Defendant backed it up on the roadway. Instead,
the video footage, when viewed together, shows L.T. walking or standing some
distance from the truck and either to its right or left side. 	Moreover, once the
Defendant stopped the truck, he gets out to talk to L.T. and tries, a final time, to get
her to leave with him. When L.T. makes it clear that she is not going to go with him,
he drives away. The video footage does not show L.T. running from the Defendant
or the truck as it is backing up and it does not show her having to jump in the bushes
to avoid getting hit as she contends. To the contrary, L.T. is seen, at various points
during that interaction, simply walking away from the truck toward the buildings,
and talking to the Defendant. The videos do not show Defendant taking any action
that would have caused a reasonable apprehension of bodily harm.
Second, the Court does not find the Government’s evidence to show beyond
a reasonable doubt that Defendant created a reasonable apprehension of bodily harm
when he raised his arm and fist in L.T.’s direction. The Court finds it significant in
this case that L.T. controlled when to turn on and off the Meta glasses and was also
responsible for downloading the video footage from the dashcam.2 The video
evidence, however, is missing a key sequence in the events that took place that day
- namely, there is no recording of what happened in the truck immediately before
Defendant raised his arm and fist, including how Defendant’s shirt got stretched and
whether L.T. had just hit or grabbed Defendant as he contends. 	That missing
sequence is particularly important here because it is relevant to showing whether
L.T.’s subjective fear for her safety was objectively reasonable. 	See United States
v. Hawkins, 303 F. App’x 17, 18 (2d Cir. 2008) (affirming conviction for simple
assault where evidence of verbal assaults combined with defendant’s aggressive
physical acts supported a finding that the victim’s subjective fear was “objectively
reasonable”). For example, if during the disagreement L.T. had been the aggressor
and had either grabbed or struck Defendant and Defendant had not retaliated or
touched L.T. in response, then any fear he would have done so at that instant may
not be objectively reasonable.
It is also important because the Court does not find L.T.’s testimony regarding
that missing sequence to be entirely credible. 	For starters, on cross-examination,
L.T. initially denied having touched the Defendant and testified that “maybe
2 Although L.T. was asked whether she controlled what was recorded on the Meta glasses, she was
not asked whether there was any additional footage from the glasses or the dashcam that was not
downloaded and provided to the Government.
Case 3:25-mj-00470-HTC Document 16 Filed 02/03/26 Page 7 of 8

Page 8 of 8
3:25-mj-470-HTC
something happened to his shirt in the wood,” when he got out of the truck to get the
2 x 4’s. When defense counsel continued to question her about the collar, she said,
she did not put her hands on him “in the car,” and then when she was asked “where
did you do it,” L.T. appeared to change her story and testified she had to hold on to
the Defendant in the car because he was driving so aggressively.
L.T.’s narrative for the camera also casts a shadow on her credibility. Namely,
despite admitting Defendant never touched her, she tells the camera repeatedly that
he hit her, including when the two are traveling toward the patrol car.
Likewise, L.T. told Officer Roa she “jumped” out of the truck onto the asphalt
while it was still moving, but that is not consistent with the video footage, which
shows the car had stopped and L.T. was able to step out of the vehicle.
In sum, when reviewed in light of the video evidence, the Court finds L.T.’s
testimony to be either contrary to the video or unsupported by it. Thus, based on the
totality of the circumstances, the Court does not find evidence sufficient to show
beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant, by his words or conduct, threatened to
inflict injury on L.T. or, with an apparent present ability to do so, caused a reasonable
apprehension of immediate bodily harm.
Accordingly, IT IS THE COURT’S JUDGMENT, as announced in open court
on February 2, 2026, that the Defendant is NOT GUILTY.
DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-mj-00470-HTC Document 16 Filed 02/03/26 Page 8 of 8