State v. Mr. B (DMC 15596) – Felony Sexual Assault (47-year old adult/15-year old minor) and Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor (Not Charged) – Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down,” Glendale Police Department investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXX1):

Mr. B and his wife had adopted two daughters from a young age, who both attended Basha High School.  At some point, one of the daughters told a friend that her mom hits her and her dad raped her.  The friend then told the school Resource Officer and contact was made with the alleged victim.  After she gave her statement, the Officers then were interviewing her sister.  While the interview was going on, they saw that the alleged victim was sending Facebook messages, trying to coach the sister on what to say.

The sister stated that there had never been any abuse, and that her other sister, the alleged victim, would often make things up.  DCS was called in, and several days later both sisters were interviewed again.  This time, the second sister began to claim that she was being molested by the father.  We became involved and we had Mr. B take a polygraph.  We submitted this polygraph report (in which he passed) along with various Facebook messages showing that the two daughters had concocted this story because they were upset with their strict household rules.  We were also able to show some of the adoption records to the Detective, which showed that both daughters had rough childhoods prior to being adopted.  Ultimately, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down” the prosecution, and that successfully ended the case.  Originally, Mr. B could have spent decades in prison if he were convicted on these allegations.

State v. Mr. S (DMC 15561) – Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor (DCAC:  42-year old adult/13-year old minor), and Felony Sexual Abuse (DCAC) – Not Charged – Gilbert Police Department investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXXX8):

Mr. S had been in a divorce and shared custody with his ex-wife.  He had three daughters and a son.  His oldest daughter, the 13-year old, had supposedly disclosed that her father had touched her vaginal area.  Officers became involved, and they had her conduct a “confrontation call” with Mr. S, in which she was to try to get him to admit to a crime without him realizing he was being tape recorded.

During this call, she told Mr. S that he had touched her privates.  Mr. S stated that the only time he had ever touched her privates was when she was a baby.  Subsequently, DCS was called in to take custody of the children, and Mr. S was brought to the police station to be questioned.  We became involved in the case and were able to show that the 13-year old had been online and had created a fake KIK account, in which she claimed she was much older, asked for pornography, and claimed she was using pills.  It was also discovered that she had found some of Mr. S’s sex toys and had been using those.  Ultimately, we convinced the Detective to decline routing the file to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for the purpose of filing of any and all charges.  Mr. S received his children back from DCS, and their investigation was also closed.  Originally, Mr. S could have spent life in prison if these allegations were proven and he was convicted.

State v. Mr. T (DMC 15609) – Felony Sexual Assault (DCAC:  72-year old adult/11-year old minor), Felony Sexual Abuse, Felony Vulnerable Adult Abuse, and Felony Burglary – Not Charged – Pinal County Sheriff’s Office investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXX8):

Mr. T was a 72-year old man that was a neighbor of the alleged victim, an 11-year old girl with various mental deficiencies.  He went over to the victim’s house to borrow some hedge clippers from her father, and he would also be very nice to the neighbor girl over the course of time.  At some point, the neighbor girl alleged that she was being Sexually Abused by Mr. T.  Mr. T denied all allegations.

He was subsequently arrested and brought in for questioning.  Eventually, Mr. T was booked into custody and seen by a Pinal County Superior Court judge.  We then became involved and all charges were “scratched” until a full investigation could be conducted.  We then began our discussions with the Detectives in the case.  We informed them that Mr. T had since passed a polygraph, and also had medical limitations which would make most of the allegations impossible.  In addition, we interviewed other neighbors who had information that the girl had been looking at pornography on the internet.  Lastly, we insisted that DNA be tested on all items of clothing that the alleged victim claimed were involved.  After no DNA involving Mr. T was found, we convinced the Prosecutor to not re-file any of the charges.  Originally, Mr. T was facing life in prison if he were charged and convicted on any of these crimes.

State v. Mr. C (DMC 15539) – (2 Counts) Felony Sexual Conduct with Minor (DCAC:   23-year old adult/ 12-year old minor) and (1 Count) Felony Child Molestation (DCAC – Not charged) – Cochise County Attorney’s Office turned down; Sierra Vista Police Department Investigated (DR #20XX-XXXX5):

Mr. C was 23-years old and had family members visiting from Texas.  They claimed that while they were in Sierra Vista, that Mr. C molested his 11-year old cousin.  The alleged victim’s mom stated that his sibling claimed that something had occurred between Mr. C and the boy.  The mother had him write down everything that occurred, and the 11-year old used a word that he was touched on his “posterior.”

When Mr. C was questioned, he denied all allegations.  We were able to show the Detectives that what had occurred was, the young boy was caught masturbating and was making up the story because he was embarrassed.  The mother claimed that this was impossible, because she had parental controls on all of her internet home devices, and the child is not allowed to sleep over at other houses where he could ever see any child pornography.  However, then she admitted that she had once caught her son masturbating while he was watching cartoons on TV.  We subsequently had Mr. C take a polygraph examination, which he passed.  All of this information was relayed to the Cochise County Attorney’s Office, and the determination was made that it had appeared the so-called letter written by the child was actually drafted by his mother.  All charges were declined due to “no reasonable likelihood of conviction.”  Originally, Mr. C was facing life in prison if he had been convicted on all charges.

State v. Mr. E (DMC 14944) – (7 Counts) Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor (28-year old adult/17-year old minor) – Reduced to Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor Probation with 7 Days in Jail – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2017-114049).

Mr. E worked at an automotive shop and had a co-worker who was a friend.  Mr. E’s coworker had a 17-year old daughter who would also be by the shop constantly and would hit on Mr. E (who was only 28 years old).  One night, Mr. E was alleged to have gone to a party with the 17-year old daughter, and they engaged in various sex acts.  After this occurred, the 17-year old talked to friends about the incident, and they then notified her dad.

When Mr. E was confronted, he left the area and Police were called in because he had been threatening to kill himself.  He was taken into custody without incident, and admitting to the various sexual acts to Detectives.  We became involved in the case after he was charged with seven Felony counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor.  He was facing well over a decade in prison when we became involved.  We were ultimately able to negotiate a plea deal which included Probation and zero days in jail.  Upon successful completion of Probation, this case was designated as a Misdemeanor.

State v. Mr. R (DMC 15495 and 15496) – (3 Counts) (Felony Sexual Conduct With A Minor (DCAC: 47-year old adult/14-year old minor), (2 Counts) Felony Public Sexual Indecency to a Minor, (1 Count) Felony Aggravated Assault on a Minor, and (10 Counts) Felony Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (DCAC – Child Pornography) – Reduced to Attempt with 7.5 years in DOC and Probation – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case Nos. CR2017-108486 and CR2018-122109):

A Special Agent with Homeland Security signed into a KIK Account and observed a user posting sexually explicit materials. It was determined that these materials contained Child Pornography. The Special Agent then received Search Warrants and came back to the original site. It was then discovered that this same user had posted even more images of Child Pornography. After that, more warrants were procured in order to obtain an IP address from Cox.

After obtaining information from Cox, the Special Agent was able to locate the IP address of Mr. R, and a Search Warrant was issued on his house. During the search, numerous digital items were seized, and during the search of those items the downloaded Child Pornography was discovered. Mr. R was then detained at Sky Harbor airport as he exited a plane from Colorado.

During questioning, the Special Agent alleged Mr. R had made various incriminating statements. In addition, Mr. R’s live-in girlfriend confirmed that the computers that were seized were used by Mr. R exclusively. Mr. R retained a different law firm to handle his case, and he had an existing offer of 12 to 20 years in prison when he was subsequently hit with additional charges.

These additional charges included allegations of Sexual Conduct with a Minor, Public Sexual Indecency to a Minor, and Aggravated Assault on a Minor – all Felonies. These were dangerous crimes against children because the alleged minor was supposedly 14 years of age or younger at the time the crimes occurred. He was now facing the possibility of multiple life sentences in prison, and he then made the decision to terminate his prior counsel and hire our Firm.

We discovered that new allegations stemmed from an ex-girlfriend that Detectives had contacted, and as a result of interviews of her children. Various chats discovered on her computer looked very incriminating for Mr. R. We were able to show the possibility of some manipulation of the witnesses in the second case. In addition, we were attacking the voluntariness of Mr. R’s statements to the Police while he was in custody. We also had a Forensic Expert analyze all of the data, and various defenses were arising. Ultimately, the Prosecutors on both cases got together and agreed to offer a plea which included an Attempt charge with 7.5 years in DOC, in which Mr. R would only have to serve approximately 6 years with good behavior and an early kick-out provision. That was also followed by Lifetime Probation. Mr. R was originally facing at least 25 years to life in prison as an offer if we would not have discovered his defenses.