Sex Crime Victories 33

NOT CHARGED – Child Molestation & Kidnapping, State v. Mr. B. (DMC No.7243) (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR 2006-166803): Mr. B. was a teacher at a local elementary school and was accused by a student of fondling her breast over her clothes. We had Mr. B. take a polygraph test, which he passed. In addition, there were no other witnesses to corroborate these allegations. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office still insisted on proceeding to Grand Jury, however there was no indictment returned. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office then made a Motion to the Court to release the findings of the Grand Jury (which is necessary in order to discuss Grand Jury findings), and that Motion was granted. Even though Mr. B. was not indicted, he was still forced to resign his position. He was initially facing years in prison, but ended up with no charges being filed.

NOT CHARGED – Child Molestation, State v. Mr. W. (DMC No.7266) (Pinal County Sheriff’s Office): Mr. W. was a teacher for Special Education students in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. He was accused of improperly touching a student, and was put on Administrative Leave. We were able to show that the actual incident involved a 12-year old student who kept falling asleep in class. When Mr. W. went up to her and rubbed her back in order to wake her (with 30 other students in the room), she woke up and claimed that her bra strap had become undone. She then retracted some other allegations she had made against Mr. W. and no charges were brought against him. In addition, he had no adverse record placed on his teaching license. Lastly, he then transferred to teach at a local high school and was paid for all of the time he had been placed on Administrative Leave.

(DMC No. 7078) State v. Ms. P.: Ms. P. was accused by his step daughter-in-law of molesting his step-granddaughter, who was 5 years old. A “confrontation call” was conducted in which she tried to get him to confess to molesting the child and inserting something inside her. Mr. P. said this was completely crazy, and told her that she needed to take the child to the doctor immediately. A search warrant was later served on his house by police, and he hired our office. We had Mr. P. pass a polygraph test, then we met with detectives and Mr. P. to explain that these allegations were either being fabricated by the child’s mother, the granddaughter, or she may have actually been molested by her biological father, who was a convicted sex offender who had recently been released from prison. Ultimately we were able to convince the prosecutors to not file any charges, preventing Mr. P. from potentially facing life in prison.

(DMC No. 7081) State v. Mr. L.: Mr. L. was a 49 year-old male who had 2 younger twin sisters. One of the younger sisters was abusing crack and taking advantage of their elderly mother. Mr. L. helped get the sister kicked out of the mother’s house. She retaliated by telling her mother that Mr. L. had molested her, her sister, and their brother. Ultimately police came to the house to help the sister remove her items from the house. At that time she told police about her accusations against Mr. L. We were able to show the police that she was a crack addict, was on anti-anxiety medication, and was making these allegations up to retaliate against Mr. L. No charges were brought against him. Had he been charged and convicted, he would have been facing potential life in prison.

(DMC No. 218) State v. Mr. S.: Mr. S.’s adult daughter began having sexual problems with her husband, and began seeing a psychiatrist. She then developed “repressed memories” and accused Mr. S. of molesting her when she was a child. The Bishop was told this information, and reported it to the police. We had Mr. S. take and a pass a polygraph. He denied that this ever occurred, and the detective agreed that the charges would not be forwarded to the County Attorney’s Office. Mr. S. was initially facing life in prison, and ultimately, no charges were filed.

(DMC No. 471) State v. Mr. W and Mr. H.: Mr. W. and Mr. H. were college students who were at a local bar when they met several girls and went back to their apartment. Both Mr. W. and Mr. H. are in the bedroom with the alleged victim, and all three (3) proceed to have sex. She is specifically asked if she wants to do this and she states “yeah”, and then takes off her clothes. On the ride home, her friend began calling her a “slut” and she then reports the incident as nonconsensual to the local police department. Numerous witnesses were interviewed by our office; we provided all information to the County Attorney’s Office. The County Attorney reviewed all evidence and made the decision to formally “turn down” the case, no charges were filed.

(DMC No. 648) State v. Mr. R.: Mr. R.’s son and daughter in law were going through a particularly ugly divorce. They had only been married for 2 years, and their daughter was now 4 years old. Because Mr. R. was financing his son’s divorce, his daughter in law made Charges that he had molested the 4 year old. The daughter in law’s ex-husband, who was a convicted child molester, was currently in prison. In addition, the daughter in law had accused 4-5 other people of molesting the daughter over the past couple of years, including 2 babysitters, the daycare center and another grandfather. We had Mr. R. take a polygraph, which he passed. We then sat down with the Detective who administered a voice stress analysis test. A medical exam showed the 4 year old girl had a bacterial infection, although it had nothing to molestation. After sitting down with the prosecutor and reviewing the case with him, we were able to convince him to not file charges, protecting Mr. R. from facing the rest of his life in prison.

(DMC No. 1059) State v. Mr. C.: Mr. C. was going through a particularly rough divorce, when his 7 year old daughter made Charges that he had molested her while he was on vacation in Flagstaff with her for 4 days. Although the divorce proceedings had not been finalized, Mr. C.’s soon to be ex-wife had attempted to sell off his separate property (a boat) and engaged in other illegal activities. When he was calling the police regarding his wife’s activities, the Charges of child molestation surfaced. Although Mr. C. was potentially facing life in prison, we had him take a polygraph which he passed, and we sat down with the Detective to explain the situation. We also produced all of his divorce proceeding records, and we were able to convince the Detective to not file charges.

(DMC No. 1135) State v. Mr. H.: Mr. H. adopted his daughter when she was approximately 5 years old. She had been abused by her previous parents, and had issues with Reactive Attachment Disorder. She had made other false claims and had stolen items in the past. In this particular case, she told her adopted brother that she had been molested for the previous 2 and ½ years, kept a diary, and allegedly had a sheet with a semen stain on it. She was now 15 years old and wanted to get out of the house to live with her boyfriend. We were able to have a polygraph examination conducted, and insisted that Detectives test the bed sheet. In the end, we were able to convince the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to “turn down” the case and not file charges, protecting Mr. H. from facing life in prison.

(DMC No. 1159) Mr. F.: Mr. F. was accused by a 14 year old girl of allegedly exposing himself and masturbating while in his car in a Safeway parking lot. We were able to conduct interviews with the 2 other high school students who were with her, who stated they could not clearly see him engaged in masturbatory activity. In addition, we produced a receipt showing that Mr. F. was at the bank across the street from the Safeway approximately 45 minutes prior to this alleged incident taking place. In the end, we convinced the Detective not to file charges, protecting Mr. F. from facing a felony and several years in prison.

(DMC No. 1356) State v. Mr. T.: Mr. T.’s 14 year old step-daughter began having mental issues and was taken to see a psychiatrist. She stated that she had been “having dreams that my dad has been raping me.” She also complained of hearing voices. At one point she even stated that she thought she might be pregnant (although she did have a boyfriend). Because the forensic evidence would only show that she was having sexual intercourse (which she admitted to having with her boyfriend), and because she was not pregnant, we offered to have our client undergo a polygraph examination. In the meantime, the girl became more delusional and was admitted into a mental hospital. Due to the fact that we were able to speak with the Detective and produced her medical records, we were able to convince him not to file charges, protecting Mr. T from facing the rest of his life in prison.

(DMC No. 1466) State v. Mr. L.: Mr. L. was having problems with his wife and his mother in law. In the past, the mother in law had accused him of molesting his daughter when she was 3 years old. The daughter was now 8 years old and was known to frequently tell lies. The daughter now claimed that Mr. L. had had anal sex with her 50 plus times. Upon a forensic medical exam, only 1 small anal fissure was found. We brought in a doctor who reviewed the findings and stated this was consistent with merely a “hard stool” and in no way amounted to evidence of anal rape. C.P.S. was brought in, and they interviewed the family the girl was now staying with. The family stated the girl would constantly tell lies and make up fantastical stories. As far as her knowledge of certain sex acts, it was discovered that her babysitter’s brother was a registered sex offender and had been discussing the sex acts with all the children the babysitter brought over. In the end, we met with the Pinal County Attorney and they decided to not charge Mr. L., protecting him from facing life in prison. However, they did begin an investigation into the babysitter’s brother, who was a registered sex offender.

(DMC No. 1472) State v. Mr. S.: Mr. S. had taken some photographs of his male acquaintances, who were 21 and 23 years old. When the photos were developed, the Walgreens employees notified police. A Detective thought the people in the photos may be under 18 years of age. We made contact with the detective, informed her of the ages of the 2 male acquaintances, and also pointed out that under the scientific matrixes used to identify the ages of people in photographs; this wasn’t even a close call. The Detective agreed to not to file charges and stated she would be destroying the photos. We indicated she could not destroy the photos as 1) they were evidence and, 2) our client had done nothing wrong. The photographs were returned to our client, and no charges were filed.

(DMC No. 1481): Mr. S. had met a girl at his apartment complex, and they had 6-7 beers while at his house. They eventually had consensual sex on the couch, and when Mr. S. informed her he was tired and would be going to sleep so she should leave, she stated, “Why do all the guys want me for sex only?” She then left his apartment crying, and ran into Mr. S.’s roommate by the pool. She told the roommate she had been coerced into having sex, and she contacted police. We were able to meet with Detectives and explain the situation. In addition, we asked them to give the young woman a polygraph, at which time she became nervous and stated she no longer wanted to cooperate with the police. We were able to convince the Detective to not file charges, protecting Mr. S. from facing decades in prison.

(DMC No. 1597) State v. Mr. O: Mr. O. had a neighbor who he had kissed approximately 5-10 times in the past 6 months. This neighbor was married, and her husband found out about it. The neighbor then claimed it had only happened once, and that he had “attacked” her. Before we met with Detectives, we had Mr. O. take and pass a polygraph examination. We then met with the Detective and offered to have Mr. O. take their polygraph and voice stress analysis tests. The Detective was not interested, and forwarded the case to the County Attorney’s Office for charging. Upon review by the County Attorney’s Office and upon meeting with us, they cleared the case exceptionally and “turned down” prosecution.

(DMC No. 1882) State v. Mr. J.: Mr. J. had gone through a divorce with his wife, and had visitation with his 14 year old daughter, who was mildly retarded. After the daughter went home, his ex-wife called C.P.S. and reported that Mr. J. had been molesting her. When the daughter was interviewed, she stated that she had been touched, then said it was an accident. She went back and forth between the 2 stories. We met with Detectives and C.P.S. workers and were able to convince the Detectives to not file charges. However, in an abundance of caution, C.P.S. “substantiated” the charges, and this caused Mr. J. to lose his visitation rights. That being said, he was facing the rest of his life in prison and charges were not filed. When his daughter turned 18, they reconnected their relationship and she later admitted she had been pressured by her mother to make up these allegations.

(DMC No. 2066) State v. Mr. T.: Mr. T. and his family belonged to a nudist club in Apache Junction. Neighbors began to have concerns about his children and called C.P.S. The children were interviewed by C.P.S., who all denied being molested. We personally interviewed 2 of the kids, who denied ever being molested by their father. In the end, C.P.S. “unsubstantiated” the allegations, and we convinced the Detective not to file charges, protecting Mr. T. from facing decades in prison.

(DMC No. 2650): Mr. S. was divorcing his wife after only 15 months of marriage. During the divorce, the biological father of the wife’s 3 year old daughter accused Mr. S. of molesting his daughter. When the charges were made, the girl also made allegations against her biological father. We had Mr. S. submit to a polygraph, which he passed. When we sat down with Detectives, we provided our polygraph results and also had our client consent to a police polygraph. We were able to convince the Detective to decline filing charges, protecting Mr. S. from facing life in prison.

(DMC No. 2967) State v. Mr. S.: Mr. S. was having a BBQ at his house with a woman he used to date. Various 10 year old boys were also at the BBQ. As he was pulling up a video game site for the kids, some photos came up from pornographic websites. The woman saw this, and reported it to the police approximately 2 months later, after their relationship had fallen apart. We were able to sit down with the Detective and explain this was inadvertent on our client’s part. In addition, we spoke with the prosecutor at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, who agreed to “turn down” the charges. Mr. S.’s computer was then returned to him from police evidence. Had Mr. S. been charged with these allegations, he would have faced lifetime registration as a sex offender.

(DMC No. 3041) State v. Mr. D.: Mr. D. was at a local nightclub in the V.I.P. room when he met the alleged victim. Mr. D. had been drinking with her and another girl, and all 3 were kissing. The alleged victim went home with him, and they engaged in consensual sexual activity. The next morning she gave him her work schedule, they made another date, and he drove her home. By that night, she called Detectives and claimed she had been drugged and raped. We had the alleged victim’s blood sample analyzed, which showed no drugs in her system. We also retrieved photos which had been taken that night at the bar, which showed the alleged victim to be perfectly lucid. Lastly, we sat down with Detectives with Mr. D. and he passed a police polygraph. We were able to convince the Detective to not file charges, protecting Mr. D. from spending decades in prison.

(DMC No. 3500) State v. Mr. P.: Mr. P.’s niece was 14 years old and had come to live with him and his wife. She was sent to their house because she was having sex with different boys. In addition, the girl’s mother was on drugs and had signed custody of the children over to them 2 other times. The grandmother now had custody of the children. The mother claimed the girl (now 16) had told her she’d been having sex for 2 years with Mr. P. She then asked to borrow money. When she was not loaned money, she then contacted the police. We were able to speak with the Maricopa County Attorney, and got the reviewing prosecutor to “turn down” charges, as both mother and daughter had criminal histories and were making these accusations in order to extort money.

(DMC No. 3562) State v. Mr. G.: Mr. G. had dropped his 3 year old daughter off at day care, and they noticed she had severe diaper rash and a possible yeast infection. Mr. and Mrs. G. had been in regular fights with the daycare center due to them losing their daughter’s clothes, bad pick-up times and extra financial charges. The daycare center called the police and claimed the rash looked like “molestation.” They also called C.P.S. We sat down with the Detective, along with Mr. G., and he explained the situation. We also had our doctor review the results obtained by the State’s medical examination at Child Help. Our independent doctor found no evidence of molestation, only an infection due to diapers not being changed by the daycare center. Lastly, we had Mr. G. take a polygraph, which he passed. C.P.S. deemed the charges “unsubstantiated” and we were able to convince the Detective not to file charges, protecting Mr. G. from spending the rest of his life in prison.

(DMC No. 3704) State v. Mr. C: Mr. C. had just graduated from High School and was at a party with a 17 year old junior, who was the girlfriend of a friend of his. They began drinking and had sexual intercourse. When the friend found out, the girl claimed she had no memory and claimed she must have been raped when she passed out. The police were called, and they arrested Mr. C. We were able to meet with the Detective, however, he still forwarded the case to the County Attorney’s Office for charging. When we sat down with the County Attorney, we explained they had “no reasonable likelihood of conviction” and this was a clearly a case of a girl “covering her tracks.” The County Attorney agreed with us, and “turned down” charges, protecting Mr. C. from spending decades in prison.

(DMC No. 3818) State v. Mr. C.: Mr. C. was accused by a neighbor in an apartment complex of touching the woman’s 10 year old daughter. Mr. C. was an elderly man who had heart problems. The alleged victim’s mother had been using drugs in the apartment and had been threatened with eviction numerous times. It appears this girl was making these charges in order to garner attention from her mother and other people in the complex. We were able to meet with Detectives, and we agreed to have our client submit to a polygraph. Due to Mr. C.’s heart condition and medications, the police polygrapher was unable to obtain an accurate polygraph. Once all issues were reviewed, we were able to convince the Detective to not file charges, protecting Mr. C. from facing the rest of his life in prison.

(DMC No. 3892) State v. Mr. M.: Mr. M. was going through a particularly nasty divorce with his wife, and they had four (4) girls between the ages of four (4) and eleven (11). During the divorce proceeding, Mr. M.’s soon to be ex-wife claimed that the four (4) year old and six (6) year old had claimed that their vaginas were touched for a sexual purpose. We had Mr. M. take and pass a polygraph, and then we sat down with the detective and presented the polygraph, along with affidavits of friends who stated Mr. M.’s wife was untruthful. The detective declined to route this case for prosecution due to the fact that there was no independent medical verification of any molest. In addition, he cited the meeting with our office and the passed polygraph. Mr. M. was facing potentially life in prison.

(DMC No. 4111) State v. Mr. M.: Mr. M. was accused by his roommate’s twelve (12) year old daughter of touching her two (2) different times. Although he was facing 20-46 years in prison, we were able to convince the detective that these charges were without merit. The alleged victim would stay with her father on a join-custody agreement. She did not like staying with her father, and wanted to be home with her mother and sisters. When Mr. M was confronted by his roommate, and the alleged victim’s mother, he is the one who insisted on the police being called. We also had Mr. M. pass a polygraph prior to meeting with detective.

(DMC No. 4112) State v. Mr. M.: Mr. M filed a Modification of Child Custody, and shortly thereafter his ex-wife made accusations that Mr. M had molested their 2 ½ year old daughter. She made these claims stating that a doctor had indicated the child had “red private parts”, and that the daughter was stating that Mr. M. has touched her “pee-pee”. We had Mr. M. take and pass a polygraph, and we sat down with CPS investigators. They “unsubstantiated” the charges, and we had all of these items forwarded to the detective. The detective then indicated he would not be sending the case to the County Attorney’s Office. Originally, Mr. M. was facing the loss of his child and years in prison. In the end, his ex-wife was shown to be untruthful, and Mr. M. gained the upper hand in his custody battle.

(DMC No. 4119) State v. Mr. V.: Mr. V. was an employee at a local high school who was accused of having sex with a sixteen (16) year old student. The student had made a very explicit statement about various items which would be found at Mr. V’s household. A search warrant was executed, none of these items were found. We also invoked Mr. V’s Fifth Amendment Rights, and no interview was conducted on him. DNA was subsequently conducted on Mr. V’s sheets, and there was no evidence found. Due to the lack of hard evidence, we were able to prevent charges from being filed again Mr. V. He was initially facing mandatory prison time due to the fact that he was considered to be in a position of authority over a student.

(DMC No. 4124) State v. Mr. C.: Mr. C has a child out of wedlock with a former girlfriend, and they now had shared custody. His daughter was 2 ½ years old, and she would come over and stay at his apartment. His ex-girlfriend had been particularly nasty in trying to obtain sole and separate custody when she made allegations that Mr. C’s daughter was molested. We had Mr. C immediately take a polygraph, and we sat down and spoke with detectives. The prosecutor found that these charges were without merit and did not file them against Mr. C (even though he would have been facing life in prison).

(DMC No. 4129) State v. Ms. G.: Ms. G. was a teacher at a local high school who was accused of having sexual contact with a fifteen (15) year old male student. The male student ultimately refused to cooperative with police, and would not partake in a “confrontation call”, whereby he would seek to obtain a confession on tape from Ms. G over the phone. In addition, Ms. G invoked her rights and would not allow herself to be interviewed, and we were the only ones the police were allowed to have contact with. Due to a subsequently lack of evidence, charges were not brought against Ms. G. This is an example of protecting a client by utilizing their Fifth Amendment Rights to their full advantage.

(DMC No. 4169) State v. Mr. C.: Mr. C was accused of Sexual Misconduct with his niece when was a minor. She waited years to make any allegations, and then filed a civil suit in a different state. We were able to work with her attorneys in another state, and with local law authorizes. By way of a civil settlement which involved no admission of wrong doing, the case was finalized and no charges were brought against Mr. C. He would have been facing potentially life in prison if he had been charged and convicted.