Jack Callis, a 24-year-old Baltimore Ravens fan, was arrested for assaulting a fan of the opposing Washington Commanders, during a game between the Ravens and the Commanders. Callis faces serious charges, including one count of first-degree assault and three counts of second-degree assault.
During his hearing, Brian Thompson, defense lawyer argued Callis has a cocaine and alcohol problem and needs to be in treatment until trial, not jail. His lawyer argued that Callis had been on a couple week cocaine and alcohol bender,” before the incident. However, Calis has now been denied bail.
In his plea for Callis’s release from pretrial detention, his lawyer emphasized that his client took immediate steps to address the situation by hiring legal representation and turning himself into the Baltimore Police in the Southern District.
Thompson, his lawyer also said that Jack Callis has:
"Got one of the most recognizable faces in the country right now... There’s no way this kid can go anywhere, even if he was inclined to, and he’s clearly indicated to this court that he is not inclined to flee but inclined to come back here and face the charges — and he did.”
To support Jack Callis's case, attorney Brian Thompson presented several arguments to the judge. He requested that Callis be released from pretrial detention so he could participate in an intensive outpatient program, where he would reside in a recovery house.
Thompson also challenged the severity of the charges against Callis, claiming the prosecution had over-reacted. He acknowledged the distressing nature of the viral video depicting the incident, but emphasized that the actions involved were merely “punches” and did not involve any weapons. Thomas argued:
“As ugly as the video is, and I’m not going to sit here and tell you that it’s not, these are punches... No one pulled out a gun. No one pulled out a knife. No one beat someone with a billy club.”
Despite Thompson's arguments, District Judge LaTina Burse Greene decided to deny Jack Callis bail, characterizing the incident as an “unprovoked assault.”
She indicated that she would be open to reconsidering her decision if both the defense and prosecution presented a suitable plan for releasing Callis into an inpatient treatment program that would include 24/7 home detention.
What criminal history does Jack Callis have?
The authorities have now found out that Jack Callis has had a criminal history which his father has tried to conceal. For starters, he was expelled from his school St. Paul’s for reportedly sharing inappropriate images among students with special needs. This pattern of misconduct which started very early on in Jack's life, led to his expulsion from three different private schools in Baltimore.
In 2022, Callis found himself in trouble again when he was arrested by authorities at the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office for hosting an illegal open house party.
During this incident, he refused to allow officers entry into his home, even recording the encounter and insisting, “You need a warrant to enter.” His behavior escalated as he verbally confronted the authorities, obstructing their attempts to carry out their duties.
As a result, he was placed under emergency detention, though his family intervened by paying the fines required for his release. Subsequently, Callis was declared not guilty in that particular case, but was placed on probation.
Furthermore, Callis' actions have had a detrimental impact on his professional life. Following the viral video of the assault, authorities shared the footage with his employer for identification. This led to his termination, with the company Maury Donnelly & Parr Inc. stating on Twitter
“MDP has a zero-tolerance policy for violence and aggressive behavior. This individual is no longer employed with our firm.”
Trending
However, his current legal troubles are far more severe. He now faces a potential maximum sentence of 25 years in prison due to the recent assault incident, where one victim reportedly suffered memory loss and a swollen mouth, while the other two victims sustained minor injuries.
Reply
