attorney_tj_grimaldiAttorney and partner TJ Grimaldi of McIntyre Thanasides was featured in the Tampa Bay Times’ latest news story regarding updates to the highly controversial Curtis Reeves’ Stand Your Ground case.



T.J. Grimaldi, who represents Nicole Oulson, was reacting to a suggestion that Reeves might qualify for another chance at a self-defense claim under Florida’s retooled “stand your ground” law, after having been turned down once.

“I am almost at a loss for words over the constant unnecessary delays in this case,” Grimaldi wrote to the Tampa Bay Times.

“While sitting in the status hearing the other day, it was painfully transparent that the defense is delaying this case for two hopeful outcomes: one, force the prosecutors to provide a plea deal; or two, wait for Mr. Reeves to become frail and/or too sick to stand trial.”

Nearly four years have passed since a confrontation over a mobile phone at the Cobb Grove 16 cinemas ended in gunfire, killing Chad Oulson. His widow sued the theater, and Grimaldi represents her in that case.

Additionally, Reeves, 75, faces a second-degree murder trial.

To read the full story, click here.

TJ Grimaldi

TJ Grimaldi

TJ Grimaldi joined McIntyre in 2011. McIntyre recruited TJ to create the divisions of personal injury and family law, as well as to expand the existing criminal defense practice at the firm. During TJ’s tenure at McIntyre, he has helped oversee and grow these practice areas. He continues to practice in these divisions while also expanding his own practice areas to include estate planning and immigration law. TJ is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Florida and the United States District Court for the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida.


  • John Puhy says:

    The facts of the Reeves shooting case are strikingly similar to the Michael Dunn “loud music” shooting- but with wildly divergent outcomes, thus far, legally.
    1. Dunn was overcharged with first degree murder, when second degree, absent “premeditation”- though not clearly defined, was probably more appropriate.
    2. Reeves, the conflict initiator/escalator/shooter, as was Dunn, was charged with second. Legal observers saw a black victim in Dunn as charge decisive.
    3. Dunn, despite two hearings, never bonded out.
    4. Reeves, after six months, did.
    5. After two years plus, Dunn had two trials, was sentenced to life and had his first appeal denied by the Florida 1st DCA (a second is pending).
    6. Incredibly, after four years, Reeves has had no ajudication. Indeed, Escobar’s 2017 motion to the 2nd DCA to have the charges vacated has interested the court so that it’s asking the lower to reply by Feb. 15. So Reeves could skate.
    John Puhy

    • TJ Grimaldi says:

      Hi John, thank you for your comment. I agree with many points of your assessment, and I also agree that Curtis Reeves and his attorney are clearly delaying the case, or at the very least, dragging it out as much as possible. However, the Reeves case is very complex; I believe even more complex than the Dunn case you are drawing a comparison with. This fatal shooting occurred in a movie theatre with many eye/ear witnesses. Additionally, as a result of the complexity of the security at the theater and police response that day, the additional witnesses are significant. However, this does not change the fact that Mr. Reeves took the life of a loving husband and father who does not get the benefit of sharing time and love with his family, while Mr. Reeves sits at home enjoying his wife, children and grandchildren. We will see what comes of the Curtis Reeves case this year and understand more, hopefully, sooner rather than later.

      • John Puhy says:

        Mr. Grimaldi,
        While not wanting to cover plowed ground, this is cathartic. Humor me.
        I don’t deny Reeves’ complexity, but it might not be the hurdle it seems. As you know, courts understand that multiple witness descriptions often clash, differing significantly as to both the unfolding of events and the principals’ verbiage. Simplistic, but a jury will lend what weight to them it will.
        The Dixon couple, if not discredited (Reeves’ wife, for example, claims, as alibi, to have a time-stamped Publix receipt proving they couldn’t have been at the theater when alleged), should testify, showing “pattern and practice”- that Reeves is a cliche’, an old, white man mad at the world for no particular reason, armed.
        Aren’t Reeves’ pre and post-attorney massaged comments telling? To wit:
        1.”What the fuck have I done?”
        2. Instructing Vivian not to say “another fucking word.”
        3. “My life is ruined.” And this from a man who was texting just minutes prior.
        1. “I realized I was in a life or death struggle.”
        2. “I thought he was going to beat the shit out of me.” Really? His fear of Oulson, similarly sized, was so strong that he both unilaterally began and ratcheted up the fracas? Judge Barthle saw through this ruse this and properly rejected it.
        You’ve certainly read the defense’s Writ of Prohibition motion, focusing on tangentially interesting but irrelevant factoids such as Reeves’ and his wife’s advanced age, years married, family, years with the police, and, largely, what a wreck he is (though, apropos to nothing, if so physically dissolute, why was he carrying? In a million-to-one chance that he’d thwart a mugging? More likely that he’d misdraw, wound himself, a bystander, or display the poor judgement of the powder keg that he did, and is, at Cobb).
        Re the charge of aggravated assault, per Nicole, my vague recollection of extenuatings is”intent.” She wasn’t on his radar, so that might not be going far.
        But, however specious one might find Escobar’s filing, you must agree that it struck a chord with someone at the 2nd, and if the D.A.’s agenda is to secure a trial, that ain’t good.