Skip to main content

Judge rules Jerry Jones must submit to paternity test amid lawsuit

Nikki Chavanelleby:Nikki Chavanelle02/29/24

NikkiChavanelle

Jerry Jones Cowboys
Kyle Terada/USA TODAY Sports

Jerry Jones’ attempt to avoid a paternity test in a lawsuit brought forth by a woman claiming to be his biological daughter has failed this week. After hearing from both sides in the case on Feb. 19, a Dallas County judge ruled that Jones must submit to the testing to determine the paternity of Alexandra Davis.

Jones’ attorneys, state Sen. Royce West, Levi McCathern and Charles Babcock, appealed a previous ruling against them, arguing that the Dallas Cowboys team owner had a right to privacy in this matter. However, as Davis attempts to win both the paternity suit and a defamation suit against her alleged biological father, the judge is ruling in her favor. Her lawyers called the decision a “huge victory,” according to the Dallas Morning News.

To try to avoid the paternity test, Jones’ lawyers argued that the 27-year-old woman has a presumed father – the man who was married to her mother when she was born. However, Davis’ attorneys, Kris Hayes and Andrew Bergman, cited a court document from Arkansas that states “in plain and apparent words” that her mother’s husband is not her biological father.

“Alex is in a position where she really no longer has to hide her truth or live under the thumb of fear and maybe she’s going to finally get some peace and we hope other families will have that same benefit from the judge following the law,” Davis’ attorney Kris Hayes said, via DMN.

Davis moving ahead with defamation suit

Davis’ lawsuit, originally filed in March of 2022, follows an agreement between Jones and her mother, Cynthia Davis, that the family would not identify the Cowboys owner as her father. She allegedly received about $3.2 million from her mother’s agreement with Jones, including four years of tuition at Southern Methodist University, trips around the world, and about $70,000 for a Range Rover.

In a separate defamation suit, Davis claims that Jones “initiated a deliberate plan” to portray her as “an ‘extortionist’ and a ‘shakedown artist’” after she initiated a lawsuit to prove that the business magnate is her biological father.

The judge, Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, concluded that the comments made were either true or “not defamatory,” according to ESPN‘s Don Van Natta Jr. He also ruled that Davis is a “limited public figure,” which means Jones would have had to trigger the higher “actual malice” standard to prove defamation liability against Davis.

Top 10

  1. 1

    Ryan Williams

    Auburn LB calls out true freshman WR

    Trending
  2. 2

    Shedeur Sanders

    No suspension for ref shove

  3. 3

    CFP using BCS formula

    Predicting CFP Top 25 using BCS formula

    New
  4. 4

    Lee Corso

    ESPN to meet on College GameDay future

  5. 5

    Hoops AP Top 25

    Big shakeup in CBB Top 25

View All

Jones seeks delay in start of jury trial

Jones and his lawyers are seeking a delay to the start of his sexual assault lawsuit trial, the Dallas Morning News reported on Tuesday. The jury trial, which is currently scheduled for March 18th of this year, will hear the case being presented against Jones, the Dallas Cowboys Football Club and the National Football League by a woman who alleges the 81-year-old kissed her and “forcibly groped” her in 2018.

The NFL team owner’s lawyers have filed for a delay on the grounds of “conducting formal discovery.” They’d like the jury trial to begin no sooner than March 3, 2025, which is more than a year from now and more than five years after the personal injury lawsuit was filed in 2020.

Although the case was previously dismissed, an appellate court brought the case back in February of 2023 after the complainant “made a good faith attempt to amend her pleadings in response to the court’s special exceptions order.” The appeal on Jones’ behalf went through to the court in May, according to the latest court documents.

The woman, J.G., is seeking damages due to “severe emotional distress,” “psychological pain and suffering” and for medical expenses.