After Swisher win, prosecutors tell confused jurors they had to go to trial despite lack of evidence

Matthew Swisher won a quick “not guilty” verdict in Clark County District Court on November 6, 2025, and afterward jurors questioned prosecutors as to why they even brought a case to trial when they had such little evidence.

The two Clark County deputy prosecuting attorneys acted as if they had no choice. They said after law enforcement makes an arrest and charges are filed they need permission from supervisors to dismiss the charges, and they did not receive permission.

Swisher’s client was charged with fourth-degree assault, a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

His client was arrested in June 2024 after he called police to report that his uncle was intentionally blocking his truck with his own vehicle, preventing the client from leaving. That day, the client had planned to move his motor home, and his ex-girlfriend was refusing to remove her belongings from the motor home.

Police officers responded to what at the time was a civil issue. Then the uncle told officers that our client had opened his driver’s side door, threatened to “beat him up,” grabbed his shirt collar and attempted to yank him out of the truck. The uncle reported pain from where his seatbelt kept him from being removed.

The only witness was a neighbor, who was interviewed by police twice but not included in the police reports or included on the state’s witness list. Additionally, client’s ex-girlfriend first told police she was inside the motor home when the alleged assault occurred but then told a defense investigator she witnessed the event.

The state’s case hinged on supposed blood evidence. The client had a prior hand injury that was bleeding, and the uncle said there was blood splatter on the interior of uncle’s door and on his hand. The prosecutor argued that this blood meant the client must have been inside the vehicle and was sufficient to prove he made physical contact with his uncle.

However, at trial, one of the police officers testified he did not remember observing any blood on the uncle or on the truck. There were no photos of blood in evidence, and police did not photograph any injuries the alleged victim claimed he had.

The uncle did not come off as believable. He first said he remembered what happened but later testified he “lives in the present” and “doesn’t think about or remember the past” when confronted with inconsistencies in his testimony.

When asked about the blood he said had been on his hand, he became defensive – especially when Swisher pointed out that the blood was not in places one would expect if the allegations were true. The client’s right hand was bleeding, but the blood was allegedly on the uncle’s right hand and there was no blood on the uncle’s shirt, left hand or any place that would indicate the client grabbed him or his shirt.

Jurors also heard, through evidence presented by the defense, that police officers allowed the uncle and the client’s ex-girlfriend to complete written witness statements side by side and the officer left the two alone. That gave them time to corroborate their stories, Swisher argued. Jurors also heard the uncle and ex-girlfriend have been in close contact since the incident and had even driven to the trial together.

But jurors never heard from the ex-girlfriend.

When Swisher expressed concerns to the judge about potential witness tampering, the judge ordered the uncle not to talk to anyone during lunch. After lunch, a prosecutor reported to the judge that the uncle and ex-girlfriend had been outside talking to each other in direct violation of the judge’s order. Swisher successfully argued that the ex-girlfriend should not be allowed to testify.

During closing argument, Swisher highlighted the lack of evidence, the inconsistencies in the uncle’s stories and asked why police officers would leave the only witness out of their reports. And why, he asked, would his client have called 911 for help if he had just assaulted his uncle?

Attorneys were still in the courtroom about 10 minutes after jurors were sent off to deliberate when jurors said they had a verdict.