Judge Denies Request to Seal Video Evidence in Josh Jacobs Battery Case

A Brown County judge on Thursday denied a request to permanently seal video evidence in the misdemeanor battery case involving Green Bay Packers running back Josh Jacobs, transferring the decision on whether to release the footage publicly to the Hobart-Lawrence Police Department. The ruling by Judge Marc Hammer on September 24, 2026, during a status conference, means that evidence, including home surveillance video, will not be automatically shielded from public view, despite arguments citing victim privacy under Marsy’s Law.

The decision marks a significant development in the ongoing legal proceedings against Jacobs, who was convicted earlier this month of misdemeanor battery and criminal damage to property. The NFL has also requested the video for its own investigation into potential violations of its personal conduct policy, with Jacobs currently on the commissioner’s exempt list, preventing him from practicing or playing.

Judicial Ruling and Public Access

Judge Marc Hammer’s denial came after victim’s attorneys had filed a motion seeking to seal evidence, specifically home surveillance video that, according to court filings, captured an argument and showed Jacobs throwing the victim to the ground. The attorneys cited Marsy’s Law, a Wisconsin constitutional amendment approved in April 2020, which grants crime victims 16 specific rights, including a right to privacy, as reported by FOX6 News.

Prior to the September 24 status conference, Judge Hammer had initially declined a similar motion due to a formatting error, prompting the victim’s attorneys to resubmit their request. However, the judge’s final decision on Thursday was to deny the permanent sealing of the video, instead placing the authority for its public release with the Hobart-Lawrence Police Department, according to WTAQ-WLUK. The judge also struck down any previous requests for the video directly to the police department.

Case Background and NFL Implications

The charges against Jacobs stem from a May incident involving his then-girlfriend at his Hobart home. Prosecutors from the Brown County District Attorney’s Office alleged that Jacobs and his girlfriend engaged in an argument that escalated, resulting in him throwing her to the ground and damaging her phone. Investigators noted that the victim suffered a head injury, as detailed in court documents obtained by FOX6 News.

Jacobs, 28, pleaded no contest to both misdemeanor charges on September 10. Following his plea, a Brown County judge ordered him to pay a $1,000 fine for the misdemeanor battery charge. Additionally, a deferred judgment agreement was approved for the misdemeanor criminal damage to property charge. Under the terms of this agreement, Jacobs must avoid further legal trouble, undergo counseling and battery intervention, maintain distance from the victim, and pay restitution. If these conditions are met over the next year, the property damage charge will be dismissed.

The legal proceedings have drawn attention from the NFL, which is conducting its own investigation into Jacobs’ conduct. The league’s interest in the video evidence underscores the potential for further disciplinary action under its personal conduct policy. Jacobs’ placement on the commissioner’s exempt list signifies that he is currently barred from team activities, pending the outcome of the league’s review and potentially the public release of the video by the Hobart-Lawrence Police Department.

Follow-up Questions

• What is Marsy’s Law and how does it relate to this case?

  Marsy’s Law is a Wisconsin constitutional amendment, approved in April 2020, that grants crime victims 16 specific rights, including the right to privacy. In this case, the victim’s attorneys invoked Marsy’s Law in their motion to seal the video evidence, arguing it was necessary to protect her privacy

  The underlying reporting is available from fox6now.com.

• What are the immediate implications for Josh Jacobs’ NFL career?

  Josh Jacobs is currently on the NFL commissioner’s exempt list, meaning he cannot practice or play. The NFL has requested the video evidence for its own investigation into potential violations of its personal conduct policy. The public release of the video could further impact his standing with the league

  What remains unclear: The exact disciplinary actions by the NFL are still unknown and depend on their investigation and the potential public release of the video

• What happens next regarding the video evidence?

  With Judge Hammer’s denial, the decision to make the video public now rests with the Hobart-Lawrence Police Department. The timeline for their decision or whether they will release the footage is not yet specified

  What remains unclear: It is still unclear when or if the Hobart-Lawrence Police Department will decide to release the video to the public

Perspectives

Victim’s Privacy Advocates vs Judicial Transparency Advocates

Story lens

Victim’s Privacy Advocates

Advocates for victim privacy, particularly under Marsy’s Law, would view the judge’s decision as a setback for the victim’s right to privacy. The public release of sensitive video evidence, even if it helps establish facts, could lead to re-traumatization and unwanted public scrutiny, undermining the protections intended by such laws. Their primary concern is the potential emotional and psychological impact on the victim

Judicial Transparency Advocates

Proponents of judicial transparency emphasize that open court records are crucial for public trust and accountability, especially when public figures are involved. They would likely support the judge’s decision to deny sealing, arguing that the public has a right to access evidence in criminal proceedings. This transparency helps ensure that justice is administered fairly and without undue influence, even if it conflicts with privacy desires