Published on
The State Attorney’s Office has declined to pursue criminal charges against former Melbourne City Councilwoman Yvonne Minus after an investigation into claims made by Vice Mayor David Neuman that the 74-year-old woman threatened to kill him during a heated September 24 council meeting. Official records show prosecutors cited inconsistent witness statements and insufficient evidence as the reason for the no-file decision.
According to documents from both the Melbourne Police Department and the State Attorney’s Office, the incident occurred immediately after a contentious debate over Mayor Paul Alfrey’s proposal to rename a city street after conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The motion failed with only the Mayor and Neuman voting in favor of it. Emotions ran high. Neuman, a large and physically imposing younger man, was speaking with members of Turning Point USA when Minus, who previously held Neuman’s council seat, approached him.
Neuman reported to police that Minus told him “I’m going to kill you” three times and that he feared for his life. But one of his own witnesses contradicted his account. According to the sworn statement of witness Christopher Bachelor, Minus was responding sarcastically to Neuman after he himself said “I feel like everyone wants to kill me in here right now.” In Bachelor’s account, Minus replied “I’m going to kill you” as a direct response to his remark, not as an unprovoked threat. It’s also worth noting that the Melbourne City Council meetings are staffed with several on-duty police officers who are present both inside and outside the meeting, along with a metal detector that all visitors must go through. Nothing in the report indicates that Neuman contacted one of the on-duty officers present at the meeting when this incident actually occurred. The report indicates that the investigation actually took place the following day. (The full affidavit is located at the end of this article)
Police records note that Neuman later acknowledged he did make the comment about feeling like “everyone wants to kill me,” though he claimed it occurred after Minus had already threatened him. Another Neuman witness, Philip Prada, who admitted he did not perceive Minus as an actual threat, expressed broader concerns about “ANTIFA” and unspecified individuals in the audience rather than any danger posed by the elderly former councilwoman.
After reviewing the investigative file, Assistant State Attorney Randy Loboda concluded there was not enough evidence to prove any crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The office formally notified Neuman in writing that the case would not be prosecuted, citing the inconsistencies in statements and the lack of support for a criminal charge. The State Attorney’s Office letter explicitly states that the evidence does not meet the threshold required for prosecution, despite Neuman’s insistence otherwise.
Despite these findings, Neuman and the Space Coast Young Republicans publicly criticized prosecutors for declining the case, suggesting political bias or incompetence. These accusations were made even though the decision came from the local State Attorney’s Office, which is itself run by a Republican.
The group issued multiple statements accusing the State Attorney’s Office of delaying action, ignoring witnesses and failing to treat Neuman’s claims as credible political violence. Notably, their public posts omit the contradictory witness account indicating that Minus was responding mockingly to Neuman’s own exaggerated comments about feeling targeted.
Minus, a long-serving and widely respected community figure, is a 74-year-old grandmother known for decades of civic involvement. Neuman, is being accused by members of the public for attempting to paint himself as a political victim, particularly in the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk road naming controversy. His insistence on portraying this exchange with a significantly older woman as a credible murder threat has generated skepticism in political circles and among residents who view the situation as an overreaction. However, at the same time, several citizens on the Space Coast Young Republicans Facebook page expressed they don’t feel safe with her “walking around free.” They have also implied that somehow Minus’ relationship with the Melbourne Police Chief who work together on community relations, is working in her favor even though it was the Melbourne Police Department that actually recommended the charges to the State Attorney’s Office.
The official investigative documents and all witness statements reflect that Minus displayed no threatening body language and made no movements indicating intent to harm. Neuman told detectives he felt threatened because Minus is “a very powerful woman in Melbourne” and could “have anybody come over to my house.” Neuman went on to state that he didn’t sleep at his home out of fear for his life.
Ultimately, the case was closed with prosecutors determining that there was no prosecutable crime to pursue.
Minus maintained that the entire situation had been blown out of proportion. She initially agreed to speak with detectives, then chose to wait for legal counsel, which is standard practice for many citizens facing accusations.
In declining the case, the State Attorney’s Office cited long-established Florida case law requiring more than mere words to constitute the crime of assault or threats against a public official.
The prosecutor referenced H.W. v. State (2012), which held that:
• Assault requires an intentional threat
• An apparent ability to carry it out
• And a well-founded fear that violence is imminent
• Words alone are insufficient without an overt act toward violence HW v State
In that case, even a juvenile repeatedly saying someone would die “that day” was ruled insufficient because there was no act showing imminent danger.
Florida courts have consistently held that:
“A person’s mere intention to commit an assault is not enough; there must be some overt act.”
The State Attorney’s Office applied the same standard here. Minus is a 74-year-old woman with no record of violence. She made no threatening movement, gesture, or act of any kind. She walked away immediately after the brief exchange.
There was no overt act, no ability, and no imminence.
With the State Attorney’s Office issuing a clear and final decision, and the evidence from his own witness contradicting Neuman’s narrative, the matter appears legally resolved. But Neuman continues to promote the allegation publicly, insisting he was the target of political violence. He has stated he has contacted Florida’s Attorney General to intervene. Critics argue that he is inflating a political disagreement with a 74-year-old woman into a dramatic threat narrative for political gain.
As of now, Neuman has not accepted the findings of his own party’s prosecutor, nor acknowledged the contradiction in the witness statements that ultimately led to the case being dismissed.
The Melbourne City Council did vote unanimously to conduct a hearing to decide whether or not Mrs. Minus should be removed from the appointed boards she sits on.
Neuman-Minus-923 MPD-no-file-letter SAO-letter-to-D-Neumann-no-file-decision
