BROWN COUNTY, Wis. — Green Bay Packers running back Josh Jacobs has pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor charges stemming from an alleged domestic incident involving his girlfriend, while a Wisconsin judge has temporarily ordered evidence in the case to be sealed from public access.
The legal developments occurred on the same day, raising new questions about public access to court records, the privacy of the alleged victim, and the potential implications for the NFL player as he remains on the league’s commissioner’s exempt list.
Jacobs entered a plea agreement Thursday, resolving the two misdemeanor charges of battery and criminal damage to property. Under the agreement, Brown County Judge Marc Hammer sentenced the running back to pay a $1,000 fine for the battery charge. The criminal damage to property charge was handled through a deferred judgment, which could result in the charge being dismissed after one year if Jacobs satisfies a series of court-ordered conditions.
On the same day, one of Jacobs’ defense attorneys, Clarence Duhac III, filed a motion seeking to seal discovery materials associated with the case. Judge Hammer approved the request in a temporary order, restricting public access to a range of evidence and investigative records.
The decision has drawn attention because prosecutors previously relied on home surveillance footage as part of their case against the professional football player.
Josh Jacobs Accepts Plea Agreement in Wisconsin Case and Video
The plea agreement represents a significant development in the legal proceedings involving Jacobs, who plays running back for the Green Bay Packers.
Josh Jacobs Full Video
Jacobs pleaded no contest to battery and criminal damage to property charges. A no-contest plea generally means that a defendant does not contest the charge, allowing the court to proceed with sentencing without the defendant formally admitting guilt in the same manner as a guilty plea.
For the battery charge, Judge Hammer imposed a $1,000 fine.
The second charge, involving criminal damage to property, was resolved through a deferred judgment. Under the court’s order, that charge will be dismissed after 12 months if Jacobs complies with all the required conditions.
Those conditions include committing no further criminal acts, avoiding contact with the victim, submitting to supervision through CJS for the next 12 months, completing a battery-related course, and paying restitution to the victim.
The requirements place Jacobs under court supervision for a year and establish specific obligations he must meet before the criminal damage charge can be dismissed.
The potential dismissal is conditional. Jacobs must satisfy the court’s requirements throughout the specified period, and the outcome depends on his compliance with the terms of the agreement.
The case has attracted attention because Jacobs is a prominent NFL player whose professional responsibilities and public profile have added scrutiny to the proceedings.
Judge Temporarily Seals Discovery Materials
The court’s decision to restrict access to evidence came through an order signed by Judge Hammer on the same day Jacobs entered his plea.
Duhac, one of Jacobs’ defense attorneys, filed the motion requesting that discovery materials in the case be sealed. The judge approved the motion temporarily, citing concerns about the privacy, dignity, personal security, and emotional well-being of both Jacobs and the alleged victim.
Discovery materials can include a broad range of information collected or exchanged during criminal proceedings. According to the order, the materials may encompass police reports, supplemental reports, dispatch records, communications, audio recordings, photographs, video footage, witness statements, investigative notes, forensic evidence, medical or treatment-related information, digital evidence, and other documents or media.
The order states that releasing the material publicly could threaten or substantially impair the privacy and personal security of the defendant and the victim, as well as their ability to participate safely in the criminal justice process.
The judge also clarified that the restriction is not intended to interfere with legitimate law enforcement activities, criminal prosecutions, judicial proceedings, or disclosures required by law.
Instead, the stated purpose is to prevent unnecessary public distribution of information that could identify the victim, reveal sensitive personal details, or create a meaningful risk of harm.
The order describes the seal as temporary, pending a further motion that may be filed by the victim, Jacobs, or both parties.
However, the document does not establish a specific expiration date for the temporary restriction. As a result, it remains unclear how long the evidence will remain sealed or when a further decision about public access might be made.
Police Deny Requests for Records and Video
The temporary sealing order has already affected efforts by journalists to obtain records connected to the investigation.
WISN 12 News reported that its investigative team submitted several public records requests seeking documents and video associated with the case.
On Tuesday, Hobart-Lawrence Police denied the requests, citing the court order sealing the evidence.
The denial means that records sought through those requests were not made available to the news organization under the requests described in its reporting.
The decision has particular significance because the evidence reportedly includes surveillance footage from Jacobs’ residence. Prosecutors previously referenced that footage in the criminal complaint, describing it as corroborating relevant portions of the alleged victim’s account.
With the discovery materials now temporarily restricted, journalists and members of the public may face limitations in independently examining the evidence underlying the allegations.
The order does not necessarily mean that the materials are unavailable to investigators, prosecutors, defense attorneys, or the court for legitimate legal purposes. Rather, its stated objective is to limit public dissemination while protecting the interests identified by the judge.
The case therefore highlights the tension between public access to information in criminal proceedings and the need to protect individuals from unnecessary exposure of sensitive personal information.
What the Criminal Complaint Says About the Incident
The charges stem from an incident that allegedly occurred on May 23 at Jacobs’ home in Wisconsin.
According to the criminal complaint, Jacobs was accused of throwing his girlfriend to the ground and damaging her cellphone during a confrontation.
The complaint alleges that Jacobs took the woman’s phone and refused to return it. The two subsequently struggled over the device before leaving the residence in separate vehicles.
The woman later followed Jacobs because, according to the complaint, he still had possession of her cellphone. The two eventually returned to the house.
Prosecutors allege that the confrontation escalated when the woman attempted to leave again through the garage.
At that point, Jacobs was accused of grabbing her and throwing her to the ground, causing her head to strike the ground.
The complaint states that responding investigators later observed a bump on the woman’s head, along with redness on her face and neck.
These details formed part of the allegations presented in the criminal complaint. They should be distinguished from independently established facts, and the complaint’s descriptions do not, by themselves, provide a complete account of everything that occurred.
Investigators also recovered home surveillance footage that prosecutors said showed Jacobs taking the cellphone from the woman while she was on the garage floor. The footage reportedly appeared to show him subsequently damaging the device.
Prosecutors cited the video as evidence supporting relevant portions of the woman’s statement.
The existence of the footage has become an important element of public interest in the case, particularly following the judge’s decision to restrict access to discovery materials.
The temporary sealing order, however, does not itself establish whether any particular recording will remain unavailable indefinitely.
Defense Team and Prosecutors Respond to the Sealing Order
WISN 12 News reported that it contacted Jacobs’ defense team for comment on the motion seeking to seal the evidence.
The report did not include a response from the defense regarding the request.
Brown County District Attorney David Lasee also addressed the matter, explaining that the state was not a party to the motions concerning the video or other evidence.
As a result, Lasee said he did not have information about the motion to seal.
His comments indicate that the request was handled through a motion involving the defense and the court, rather than one filed by the prosecution.
The judge’s order specifically identifies the privacy and safety interests of the defendant and the victim as reasons for restricting public disclosure. It also emphasizes that the restriction should not obstruct legitimate law enforcement or judicial functions.
Whether additional filings will clarify the scope or duration of the order remains uncertain.
NFL Status Remains Unchanged
The legal developments have also placed attention on Jacobs’ status with the NFL.
Jacobs remains on the commissioner’s exempt list, a designation that means he cannot practice or play while the restriction remains in effect.
The league’s response to the case could have implications for his availability with the Green Bay Packers, although the timing and nature of any future decision have not been established in the information reported.
An NFL spokesperson said the league could not comment on an ongoing investigation.
The commissioner’s exempt list is distinct from the criminal court’s proceedings. The court determines the legal outcome of the charges, while the NFL handles matters falling under its own policies and procedures.
Consequently, the resolution of the misdemeanor charges does not, on its own, establish when Jacobs will be permitted to return to football activities.
Any change in his status would depend on further developments and decisions by the league.
Questions Remain as the Case Moves Forward
Jacobs’ no-contest plea and the temporary sealing of evidence mark two important developments in a case that has attracted attention because of his position as an NFL running back.
The plea agreement establishes a $1,000 fine for the battery charge and a 12-month deferred judgment for criminal damage to property, subject to court-ordered conditions. At the same time, the judge’s order limits public access to discovery materials while allowing legitimate legal proceedings to continue.
The restriction leaves several questions unanswered, including how long the evidence will remain sealed, whether additional motions will be filed, and whether more information will eventually become available through the court.
The case also remains relevant to Jacobs’ professional future, given his continued placement on the NFL’s commissioner’s exempt list.
For now, the legal outcome of the two misdemeanor charges is governed by the terms of the plea agreement and the court’s order. The future of the sealed records and Jacobs’ status with the Packers will depend on subsequent developments.
As the proceedings continue, the case underscores the challenges of balancing transparency in the criminal justice system with the privacy and safety interests of those involved.