Defense Strategy Overview

---

How the defense framed the case — and what the court accepted.

This page outlines the core arguments and framing techniques used by the defense in Devney v. Laramie Plains Properties, as reflected in the judge’s oral ruling, case filings, and trial context.

It does not quote the defense attorney directly, but summarizes the positions the court adopted and the themes presented throughout trial.

The purpose of this page is to give readers — including attorneys, students, and advocates — a clear sense of how the defense constructed its narrative and how those arguments shaped the court’s conclusions.

1. Emphasizing That “It Wasn’t That Bad”

A central tactic of the defense was minimizing the seriousness of what happened on March 21, 2024.

This included:

• downplaying the intrusion
• suggesting the event was brief
• arguing the workers acted reasonably
• framing the exposure as minor or accidental
• focusing on the blanket covering
• suggesting there was no real vulnerability

The court adopted this framing by concluding:

“Nothing extreme or outrageous occurred.”

This minimization stands in stark contrast to the emotional reality captured in the 911 call.

2. Claiming the Workers “Didn’t Hear” the Statement About Being Not Decent

The defense positioned the workers’ failure to hear as the explanation for:

• why they did not leave,
• why they stayed in the living room,
• why they continued work despite your warning.

This argument was accepted in the ruling, which stated there was “no evidence” the workers knew you were naked.

This effectively erases my testimony that I told them I was not decent — and avoids credibility analysis entirely.

3. Arguing I Moved for Reasons Unrelated to the Incident

Throughout the case, the defense repeatedly pushed the idea that:

• my relocation was due to a breakup,
• my moved to be closer to community,
• the incident did not play a meaningful role.

The court adopted this argument in full, citing the move as evidence that the emotional impact was not severe.

This ignores:

• the timeline of my move,
• the trauma of remaining in the same apartment,
• therapist documentation,
• my affidavit,
• and the fact I lived with my ex after the breakup.

4. Suggesting Alternative Explanations for My Distress

Rather than disputing the event itself, the defense often redirected the cause of distress to:

• prior trauma,
• unrelated stressors,
• relationship issues,
• or general anxiety.

The judge echoed this by referencing “eggshell plaintiff” concepts, implying my reactions were due to past experiences.

This tactic shifts responsibility away from the defendants and onto the victim — a common defense strategy in IIED cases.

5. Casting Doubt on the Authenticity of My Emotional Response

A major theme was the defense’s attempt to suggest:

• the emotional reaction was overstated,
• the distress was exaggerated,
• the 911 call did not reflect actual trauma,
• my panic was not caused by the intrusion.

The court’s ruling reflects this minimization by concluding the emotional harm did not meet the legal threshold for outrage.

This ignores the contemporaneous 911 call and how trauma responses manifest in vulnerable situations.

6. Treating Forced Digital Consent as Legitimate Consent

The defense leaned heavily on the maintenance portal’s checkbox despite the court acknowledging:

• it was impossible to uncheck “consent,”
• tenants could not submit repair requests otherwise,
• the system was flawed.

This allowed the defense to argue that I had “consented” to entry even though the mechanism itself was coercive.

The court adopted this reasoning, treating the glitch-driven checkbox as meaningful consent.

7. Arguing That the Lease Allows Unlimited, No-Notice Entry

The defense took the position that the lease language gave LPP:

• unrestricted access,
• at any time,
• without notice,
• for non-emergency reasons.

The ruling mirrored this, declaring that the lease “clearly allowed entry at any time without notice.”

This is one of the most controversial aspects of the case, as few jurisdictions interpret landlord-tenant agreements this broadly.

Additional Framing: “He Could Have Called or Emailed Instead”

Another component of the defense’s consent argument was the suggestion that I “assumed the risk” of automatic entry because I used the online maintenance portal instead of calling or emailing the office.

This position implies:

• tenants must guess which communication method gives them rights,
• the portal is a trap for those who choose convenience,
• and using the official system provided by the landlord creates consent the tenant never intended.

This argument is especially problematic because:

• the portal is the primary, encouraged system for maintenance requests,
• the checkbox could not be unchecked,
• tenants had no way to request repairs without forced consent,
• the lease never stated that different communication methods = different rights,
• and most reasonable tenants would expect all communication channels to respect their privacy.

In effect, the defense’s argument that “he could have emailed” reframes a design flaw as a tenant mistake, creating a “gotcha” standard of consent that would be unworkable for most renters.

8. Portraying Testimony as “Similar” to Avoid Credibility Weighing

One of the defense’s most strategic moves was framing the testimonies as “similar enough” so the judge would not need to:

• evaluate credibility,
• weigh inconsistencies,
• assess plausibility,
• reconcile contradictions.

The judge adopted this approach directly:

“I did not have to judge credibility… the stories were similar.”

This avoided addressing:

• how long the workers stayed,
• what I said,
• what they heard,
• how they responded,
• and where their accounts diverged.

9. Avoiding Discussion of the 911 Call

The 911 call — a powerful piece of evidence showing immediate distress — did not appear in the judge’s reasoning.

This suggests the defense succeeded in:

• minimizing its importance,
• redirecting focus away from it,
• framing it as unrelated,
• or convincing the court to view it as non-probative.

In IIED cases, ignoring contemporaneous emotional evidence is unusual — and noteworthy.

10. Recasting Me as “Sophisticated” to Reduce Protections

The defense argument that I was a sophisticated renter was designed to:

• weaken claims of vulnerability,
• imply awareness of lease risks,
• suggest I voluntarily accepted intrusive terms.

The court adopted this framing completely.

This argument is rare and legally questionable, but it served to reduce the perceived severity of the intrusion.

11. Framing the Incident as Unremarkable or Commonplace

The defense repeatedly attempted to downplay the systemic issues by framing LPP as:

• tenant-friendly,
• community-oriented,
• responsive,
• beloved by tenants,
• engaged in goodwill events (BBQs, raffles, giveaways).

This narrative was used to offset the seriousness of the intrusion and distract from privacy concerns.

Such “feel-good” framing does not address the legal problem but is a classic persuasion tactic.

Additional Tactic: Using the Audience for Emotional Framing

During the trial, the defense also used a performative moment involving the audience.

On Monday, after Trinity was brought back to the stand (clearly more prepared), the defense attorney had her:

• identify several people seated in the courtroom,
• acknowledge family or community members present,
• and speak emotionally about how “hard this has been” on their family.

This served two purposes:

1. It created an emotional display to draw sympathy toward the defendants.

By shifting focus to their personal hardship — rather than the incident itself — the defense created an atmosphere suggesting they were victims of the situation.

2. It subtly legitimized Trinity’s authority and narrative.

Introducing supporters in the gallery gives the impression of a credible, community-backed testimony, even when it adds no factual weight.

It can influence the tone of the room in a bench trial, where the judge sees these emotional cues directly.

This moment did not address:

• the contradictions in testimony,
• the lease issues,
• the forced consent system,
• the privacy violation,
• or the actual facts of the incident.

Instead, it functioned as a stage-managed sympathy play designed to offset the weakness of the substantive evidence.

12. The 90-Day Notice Issue the Defense Built Their Case On — And Why It Fell Apart

Originally, the defense relied heavily on the argument that my non-renewal was purely routine and had nothing to do with the March 21st incident. Their claim was that they provided me a standard 90-day notice, and therefore any suggestion of retaliation was unfounded.

However, during trial, this narrative collapsed under their own admissions.

My attorney later calculated the dates using a standard online court-approved day-counting tool she had already submitted into the record. Based on the official timeline, my lease ran through June 20th at 11:59 PM. Counting backwards, that meant I was actually given 91 days, not 90 — meaning their mathematical foundation for the “routine notice” justification was incorrect.

When this discrepancy was raised, the judge stated that the court would need to “count the days” themselves to confirm the accuracy. My attorney pointed out that the court already had the verified day count included in our filings. The judge declined to use it and instead said they would calculate the timeline offline.

From my perspective now, looking back with everything we know:

• The math was wrong.
• The online court calculator had already been provided.
• The judge avoided confirming it in real time.
• And the ruling ultimately sided with the defense on the basis that the notice was “routine” and “not retaliatory.”

Summary of the Defense Strategy

The defense strategy, as reflected in the ruling, relied on:

✔ minimization

✔ alternative explanations

✔ refocusing responsibility

✔ exploiting consent loopholes

✔ leaning on the lease

✔ avoiding credibility disputes

✔ shifting distress to unrelated causes

✔ normalizing intrusive landlord practices

This page highlights how those arguments shaped the outcome — and why the ruling has drawn interest from attorneys, students, and advocates reviewing the case after the fact.

If You Are a Legal Professional

I welcome:

• reflections
• questions
• critiques
• and perspectives on this analysis.

Contact: wyomingreform@gmail.com