For those seeking detailed recaps of the trial up to this point, please check out all of the extensive coverage we’ve done up to this point. Links, in order, can be found here, here, here, and here.

A seven person jury, comprised of four men and three women, came to a unanimous decision Tuesday night that saw four of five claims, two of which were counter claims, ruled in favor Colorado Avalanche goaltender Semyon Varlamov in his case against ex-girlfriend Evgeniya Vavrinyuk. The first three claims, filed by Vavrinyuk against Varlamov, were assault, battery, and outrageous conduct. The final two were counter claims filed by Varlamov against Vavrinyuk: malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

The rulings saw the jury find in favor of Varlamov on all counts except malicious prosecution, which went in Vavrinyuk’s favor. As a result of the findings, Vavrinyuk is ordered to pay damages to Varlamov in the amount of $126,000 a result nothing short of devastating for Vavrinyuk, who filed the suit when the criminal charges stemming from an incident at the couple’s apartment in October, 2013 were dropped in December of that year.

In order to rule in favor of Vavrinyuk on the assault and battery claims, the plaintiff had to prove the defendant was the aggressor, initiating physical contact with the intent to do physical harm. Because of the evidence showing Vavrinyuk admitted to initiating physical contact, this was clearly ruled in favor of Varlamov, removing the outrageous conduct claim in the process and eliminating the possibility of being awarded damages in Vavrinyuk’s favor.

The counter-claims filed by Varlamov, malicious prosecution and abuse of process, went in each direction. In order to prove malicious prosecution, the defense had to prove the plaintiff brought a criminal case by an oral or written plan, the case was settled in favor of the defendant with a statement of no probable cause, and was motivated by malice. Unless every single one of those was proven to be true, the jury had to rule in favor of Vavrinyuk, which they did.

The abuse of process claim, however, was ruled in favor of Varlamov, resulting in the awarded damages. In order to rule in favor of Varlamov, the defense had to prove the plaintiff brought a criminal case whose principle reason was other than a desire for justice. The defense was obviously successful in this endeavor.

The damages awarded were for any economic loss, such as attorney fees and expenses for attorney fees. In addition, the plaintiff was seeking damages for emotional distress, which required a mental evaluation of the plaintiff. Because Vavrinyuk refused to answer several questions, she violated court order and compromised the emotional distress claim. Other penalties were incurred by the plaintiff’s legal team throughout the process of the civil suit as multiple violations of court orders resulted in various fines against Vavrinyuk.

Before coming back with the verdict, the day in court was highlighted by powerful statements made by both sides during closing arguments.

Vavrinyuk’s attorney, Olaf Muller, started the closing arguments with a question for the jury to ponder, asking “Was it acceptable for this man, this Olympic athlete, to attack Miss Vavrinyuk and harm her the way he did?” Muller’s closing would revolve around a variation of that question as he pressed the jury to look inwards and ask themselves if they were okay with a man of Varlamov’s size and stature doing what he allegedly did to Vavrinyuk. He also consistently took the defense to task for questioning a woman’s choice to dress in provocative clothing to a Halloween party and enjoy consuming alcohol at a party.

The defense, led by Laura Menninger, countered by bringing up the multitude of inconsistencies with Vavrinyuk’s stories and behavior throughout the process. There were frequent mentions of her admitting to multiple people she lied to police, as well as of her erratic behavior and multiple threats of seeking revenge against Varlamov. The defense drove home the raw number of people who testified Vavrinyuk was unstable, untrustworthy, and/or simply seeking a monetary payout from Varlamov.

In the end, the jury agreed with Menninger and Varlamov walks away from this ugly incident with a renewed focus on helping the Avalanche make a playoff push. Muller stated after the trial was over he will appeal and seek a new trial.