Our Location

40 N. Central Ave, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Free Consultation

(602) 307-0808
Call Now, Open 24/7
January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 29A Sexual Assault Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 8047)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL ASSAULT– State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 8047) (Mesa Police Department Investigated): Mr. B. had done some remodeling work for a woman approximately 6 years earlier. The woman had recently gone through counseling and had “suppressed memories” of Mr. B. sexually assaulting her with another man. The Detectives questioned Mr. B. and he denied every having any type of sexual relationship with the woman. We had him submit to a private polygraph examination, which showed that he was being truthful and had never been sexually involved with the woman. We were able to present the evidence to the Mesa Police Department, and they agreed to not file Sexual Assault charges per ARS 13-1406 against Mr. B. If he were charged and convicted, mandatory prison would have been involved.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 29A Sexual Assault Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 8248)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL ASSAULT – State v. Mr. R. (DMC No. 8248) (Scottsdale Police Department Investigated): Mr. R. had been a former police officer for 8 years who now worked as a manager at a local fitness club. While working there, one of the female clients asked him out on a date. Several nights later they went to dinner at a nice restaurant and then went to a nightclub for dancing and drinks. They engaged in consensual sexual activity, and the next day the woman called and accused him of having “slipped a drug” into her drink so that she would have sex with him. He vehemently denied the allegation. We became involved and pressed the Scottsdale Police Department Detectives for any information as to whether there was actually any drugs in this woman’s system. In addition, we requested that she give a polygraph test and we wanted to know if there was any blood alcohol content results for any chemical analysis conducted. The Scottsdale Police Department ultimately declined to file any charges for Sexual Assault per ARS 13-1406. If Mr. R. had been charged, he would not have been eligible for any type of bond until the case resolved. This means Mr. R. would had to have sat in custody during the pendency of the case. If he were to have been convicted, he would have spent at least 10 years in prison.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 29A Sexual Assault Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 9701)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL ASSAULT – State v. Mr. G. (DMC No. 9701) (Pinal County Sherriff’s Office Investigated): Mr. G. and his wife had recently had a baby (4 months prior). He found various texts from his wife which were of a sexual nature to her best friend’s husband. He later discovered she was having an affair, and he filed for divorce. They then got into an argument over her taking the baby to her mother’s house and police were called to the scene. She then told the police that 2 days prior Mr. G. had forced her to have sex with him. She then declined to assist in the investigation. After another 6 days went by, she then showed up to the police station and indicated she would like to “cooperate” in bringing charges. Although a Sexual Assault Nurse Examination (SANE) kit was conducted, it was of little value 7 days after the incident. We were able to give Mr. G. a polygraph (which he passed). We also retrieved results of a paternity test which showed that the baby was not his. Based on all of the information, the Pinal County Attorney’s Office declined to bring charges for Sexual Assault under ARS 13-1406 on these allegations. Mr. G. was originally facing over 10 years in prison should he have been convicted of these charges.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 2100 Superior Court Victories, 29 Sexual Assault Reduced, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38B Sexual Abuse Victories, 500 Assault / Violent Crime Victories, 71-72A Kidnapping Victories, 72 Kidnapping Reduced, Case Victories, Coconino County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. R. (DMC No. 8086)

REDUCED | 3 COUNTS of SEXUAL ASSAULT; 3 COUNTS of KIDNAPPING; 7 COUNTS of SEXUAL ABUSE; 2 COUNTS of ATTEMPTED SEX ABUSE and 1 COUNT of ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING REDUCED to PROBATION with ZERO DAYS in JAIL – State v. Mr. R. (DMC No. 8086) (Coconino County Superior Court CR2007-0480): Mr. R. was a high level fire fighter in Flagstaff, Arizona who was accused of sexually assaulting his sister in law. His sister in law had been going through psychological counseling and had a “breakthrough” regarding “finding the strength to come forward”. She reported to Detectives that she had been groped, held and sexually assaulted multiple times since 1986 by her brother in law (a period spanning some 20 plus years). When Mr. R. was questioned by Detectives he admitted that he had a relationship of a sexual nature with her for some time, but stated it was fleeting in nature.

He was subsequently charged with 3 Counts of Sexual Assault (ARS 13-1406), 3 Counts of Kidnapping (ARS 13-1304), 7 Counts of Sexual Abuse (ARS 13-1404), 2 Counts of Attempted Sexual Abuse (ARS 13-1001 and 13-1404), and 1 Count of Attempted Kidnapping (ARS 13-1001 and 13-1304). Through extensive interviews with various family and community members, we were able to show that this had appeared to be a somewhat flirtatious and consensual relationship. However, due to the alleged “victims” statements, Mr. R. agreed to accept a plea that involved Probation and zero days in jail. If he were to have gone to trial and lost he could have easily spent his life in prison. Because he did admit that his advances may have been unwanted he agreed to accept the plea.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 24-25A Child Pornography Victories, 25A Child Pornography Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. H (DMC No. 8011)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL EXPLOITATION of a MINOR/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (DCAC) – State v. Mr. H. (DMC No. 8011) (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Investigated): Mr. H. was a 26 year old who was going through the application process for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in order to become a Deputy. They administered a polygraph test in which they asked the standard question at whether he had ever looked at any child pornography “inadvertently”. He answered “yes” and explained that it happened while searching for a legitimate adult porn. Based on that statement, a search warrant was obtained and his computers were seized. They indicated that they were going to charge him with Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (Child Pornography) a Dangerous Crimes Against Children (DCAC) pursuant to ARS Section 13-3553. This means that he would be facing a minimum of 10 years in prison for each image found on the computer.

We became involved and had Mr. H. take an independent polygraph examination. In our test Mr. H. was asked if he ever intentionally viewed child pornography and he answered “no” truthfully. We also demonstrated to the Sheriff’s Office that there were multiple people who had access to his computer and then it was not password protected. Therefore, if there were evidence of any specific searches for child pornography, they would not be able to conclusively state that Mr. H. had conducted them. No charges were brought against Mr. H.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 24-25A Child Pornography Victories, 25A Child Pornography Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 8657)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL EXPOLITATION of a MINOR/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (DCAC) – State v. Mr. R. (DMC No. 8657) (The Arizona State Board of Education Investigated): Mr. R. was an elementary teacher at Balsz Elementary School. He taught various computer classes to the students. Therefore, he was responsible to make sure that all improper sites were blocked and filtered. One of the students alleged that he had shown her both child pornography and adult pornography.

He was subsequently contacted by the Director and Superintendant and the Principal about these allegations. He was immediately suspended, pending termination. We became involved and we were able to show them that there were no items on the computer which would qualify as Child Pornography/Sexual Exploitation of a Minor a Dangerous Crimes Against Children (DCAC) per ARS Section 13-3553. We then presented our evidence to the investigation unit at the Arizona State Board of Education and they agreed that there was no criminal images on the computer. However, they were still concerned with the allegation by the female student that she was shown adult pornographic images. They agreed to allow Mr. R. to submit his letter of resignation instead of firing him. In addition, no criminal charges were ever filed. He was originally facing a minimum of 10 years in prison if he were to have been charged and convicted.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 2000 Juvenile Court Victories, 24-25A Child Pornography Victories, 25 Child Pornography Reduced, 300 Sex Crime Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. K (DMC No. 9758)

REDUCED | 5 COUNTS of SEXUAL EXPLOITATION of a MINOR/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (DCAC) REDUCED to ATTEMPT with PROBATION and 30 DAYS of DEFERRED JAIL – State v. Mr. K. (DMC No. 9758) (Maricopa County Juvenile Court JV181379): Mr. K. was a 16 year old high school student who had opened a “Lime Wire” account in order to download music and videos. City of Phoenix Police Department Detective’s ran a search and found that somebody at Mr. K.’s address had downloaded child pornography on 4 to 5 different occasions. After securing a search warrant, the SWAT team entered Mr. K.’s house with guns drawn and handcuffed and arrested everybody in the household. Originally, the Detectives had focused on Mr. K.’s father, but then they turned their attention on Mr. K.’s computer which was in his bedroom. Eventually a search was conducted on the computer which revealed numerous items of child pornography.

Mr. K. was subsequently charged with 5 counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Minor a Dangerous Crimes Against Children (DCAC) pursuant to ARS Section 13-3553. This is also known as “Child Pornography”. He was facing a mandatory minimum of 50 years in jail should he have been transferred to Adult Court. We became involved and we were able to convince the Deputy Maricopa County Attorney to keep the case in Juvenile Court. Ultimately we secured a plea to “Attempt” which included Probation and 30 days of deferred jail. Because he successfully completed his court ordered treatment, he did not have to serve that jail time. In addition, he did not have to register as a Sex Offender and he was released from probation and his case was finalized when he turned 18. He now has a clean adult record. Originally he was facing a minimum of 50 years in prison and a maximum of 115 years in prison.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 23 Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct With Minor Reduced, 300 Sex Crime Victories, Case Victories, Yavapai County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 8215)

REDUCED | SEXUAL CONDUCT with a MINOR State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 8215) (Yavapai County Superior Court CR82007-0915) REDUCED to MISDEMEANOR CONTRIBUTING to The DELINQUENCY of a MINOR and VULNERABLE ADULT ABUSE with PROBATION and 6 MONTHS in JAIL – State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 8215) (Yavapai County Superior Court CR82007-0915): Mr. B. was accused by his step daughter of having sexual conduct with her both before the age of 18 and after the age of 18. Mr. B. had been divorced from his wife for some time, and his step daughter was now a much older adult. Because there actually had been sexual contact with him after she had turned 18, and he provided pornography to her before the age of 18, he had violated the law. Because his step daughter had a low IQ and was considered a “vulnerable adult”, the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office chose to present the Grand Jury with evidence that he had sexual intercourse with his step daughter prior to her turning 18. He was subsequently indicted with Sexual Conduct with a Minor pursuant to ARS 13-1405.

We were able to show that there was discrepancy in her testimony regarding her age when she began having sex with Mr. B. This allowed us to secure a plea to a lowest level class 6 Vulnerable Adult Abuse per ARS 13-3623, and a Misdemeanor Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor per ARS (blank). The plea included Probation with 6 months of jail. Originally, Mr. B. was facing years in prison.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 2000 Juvenile Court Victories, 23 Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct With Minor Reduced, 300 Sex Crime Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. R. (DMC No. 9156)

REDUCED | CHILD MOLESTATION REDUCED to INDECENT EXPOSURE Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor with PROBATION and 45 DAYS of DEFERRED JAIL – State v. Mr. R. (DMC No. 9156) (Maricopa County Juvenile Court JV549236): Mr. R. was an 11 year old juvenile who was accused of having his 4 year old cousin touch is private parts. When he was confronted by his Aunt, he said he only did this because somebody had been touching him at school. After an investigation at the school, they recontacted Mr. R. and he admitted that he made up the story about the school because he was embarrassed about having his cousin touch him. He ultimately was charged in juvenile court with Child Molestation, pursuant to ARS 13-1410. We were able to have him tested by a Psychologist for both competency and for whether he was a risk to reoffend. This was done through a Psychosexual Risk Evaluation. We ultimately secured an offer to a juvenile charge of Indecent Exposure, which became a Misdemeanor upon successful completion of Probation. Also, no conviction appeared on his record once Mr. R. turned 18 years of age. He could have potentially been charged into Adult Court, or forced to register as a sex offender up until the age of 25 by the Juvenile Court. Mr. R. is now leading a productive life as an adult.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 2100 Superior Court Victories, 23 Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct With Minor Reduced, 300 Sex Crime Victories, Case Victories, Coconino County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. M. (DMC No. 8013)

REDUCED | 2 COUNTS of CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) REDUCED to ATTEMPT with PROBATION and ZERO DAYS in JAIL – State v. Mr. M. (DMC No. 8013) (Coconino County Superior Court CR2007-0791): Mr. M. had been divorced and had an 11 year old adopted daughter (who was adopted when she was 1 ½) and a 9 year old biological daughter with his ex wife. During his 2 weeks of visitation each summer he would take his daughters to Flagstaff to the Slide Rock Lodge. After returning home from one of the trips, his 11 year old adopted daughter claimed to their mother that Mr. M. had fondled her and removed his exposed penis and “rubbed it on her”. When Police had the alleged victim initiate a “confrontation call”, which was recorded, Mr. M. denied everything. At the end of the call, the alleged victim stated “maybe I was dreaming it”. When Police contacted Mr. M. directly he agreed to do a polygraph test and to answer all questions. After answering questions, a polygraph test was scheduled for a later date, which was cancelled under advice of his attorneys. His ultimately was indicted for Child Molestation, ARS 13-1410, a Dangerous Crimes Against Children (DCAC).

We became involved in the case and were able to secure Mr. M.’s release pending trial. Otherwise, he would have to remain incarcerated until the case resolved. We also had him take a polygraph test in which he passed. During the defense of the case we were able to show that his adopted daughter had a history of exaggerating and making up stories. We also discovered that there were eight empty beer cans found in the waste basket, and Mr. M. had been drinking heavily the night of the alleged incident. He remembered nothing after he fell asleep in front of the TV until he woke up the next morning. The Deputy Coconino County Attorney in charge of the case ultimately offered a plea to “Attempt” based upon Mr. M.’s intoxicated state, which would include probation. At sentencing, we convinced the judge to issue zero days in jail and Mr. M. was required to take alcohol abuse classes. Mr. M. was originally facing 10 to 23 years in prison (day for day) if he were to have been convicted.

1 … 52 53 54 55 56 … 177
Call Now Button