Our Location

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

Free Consultation

(602) 307-0808
Call Now, Open 24/7
January 10, 2014
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 21 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 10434)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR – State v. Mr. W. (DMC No. 10434) (Chandler Police Department Investigated): Mr. W. was married at the time he began having a relationship with a woman who held herself out to be 18 years of age.  In reality, she was only 17.  When the girl’s mother, along with Mr. W.’s wife found out about the relationship, they reported him to police.  We were able to show that Mr. W. truly believed that the alleged victim was 18 years old.  By statute, there was a defense to the charge if a person is 15, 16, or 17 years of age, had sex and held themselves out to be 18 years or older.  Mr. W. was originally facing up to 2 years in prison per sexual conduct incident if he would have been charged and convicted.

January 10, 2014
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 21 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38B Sexual Abuse Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 10230)

NOT CHARGED | 4 COUNTS OF CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC)/4 COUNTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE  | State v. Mr. R.  (DMC No. 10230) (Chandler PD Investigated): Mr. R. was married to his wife for 6 years when the 14 year old step-daughter accused him of ongoing sexual conduct.  A “confrontation call” was conducted between the alleged victim and Mr. R. (which was tape-recorded by police) in which he denied everything.  He was subsequently arrested and brought into the station where he invoked his right to counsel.  We then brought Mr. R. back to the station where we allowed him to be interviewed by Detectives with us present.  We also submitted copies of the ongoing divorce paperwork which had since been filed, which contained inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s story.  Although the Detectives routed the case to the County Attorney’s Office, we were able to convince the prosecutor not to file charges.  Mr. R. was originally facing a minimum of 40 years in prison if he was to be convicted.

 

January 10, 2014
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 21 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. N (DMC No. 4738)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH MINOR (DCAC)  State v. Mr. N. (DMC No. 4738) (Phoenix PD Investigated): Mr. N. was a local high school teacher and a cross country coach who was friendly with his students and athletes.  He would give the alleged victim (who was 16 years old) rides home and would counsel her.  The alleged victim eventually got pregnant, and her family began accusing Mr. N. (even though the victim denied this).  We later presented evidence to the Detective that the baby was in fact the alleged victim’s boyfriend.  Because there was no actual evidence of a crime, Mr. N. was not charged and was allowed to keep his job as a teacher.

January 10, 2014
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 21 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 10209)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH MINOR (DCAC) – State v. Mr. S. (DMC No. 10209) (Phoenix PD Investigated):  Mr. S. was over 18 and began a relationship with a girl who claimed to be 18 years old on Craig’s List.  They met multiple times, and she sent multiple text to him stating she was 18.  In actuality, the girl was 16, and her mother found out about the relationship.  Police investigated and we provided information that this girl had been holding herself out as 18 to Mr. S.  Because of a defense that exists by statute for alleged victims who are 15, 16, or 17 who hold themselves out as 18 or above, we were able to convince the Detective not to file charges.

January 10, 2014
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 21 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. & Mrs. W (DMC No. 10211 & 10212)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. & Mrs. W.  (DMC No. 10211 & 10212) (Phoenix Police Investigated): Mr. & Mrs. W. were Jehovah’s Witnesses who raised 5 kids in a very strict environment.  The older children had become adults and moved away and harbored ill feelings towards Mr. & Mrs. W.  One child was in high school and was still living in the household.  After meeting with the older siblings, they created a “repressed memory” scenario with counselors in which they alleged they had been all ritualistically molested since childhood.  CPS removed the daughter and she moved in with the sisters and enjoyed new freedom.  Mr. & Mrs. W. consensually went in and spoke with Detectives, and we had them take a polygraph (in which they passed).  We then submitted everything to the Detectives and Prosecutors.  No charges were ever filed.

January 10, 2014
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 6735)

 NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR (DCAC) | State v. Mr. A. (DMC No. 6735) (Glendale PD Investigated): Mr. A.’s step-daughter had a history of mental illness and drug abuse.  She had previously accused her grandfather of molesting her, and he was tried and convicted.  She now accused Mr. A. of doing the same thing, and Mr. A.’s wife threw him out of the house and began divorce proceedings.  We became involved and were able to shut down the investigation by showing this was a ploy to gain leverage in the child custody proceedings.   Mr. A. also had an 8 year old and a 2 year old child with his wife that they were now fighting over.  Because the allegations involved sexual conduct over the course of a 6 year period while the alleged victim was a minor, Mr. A. had originally been facing a potential of life in prison.

January 10, 2014
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 2100 Superior Court Victories, 23 Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct With Minor Reduced, 300 Sex Crime Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Ms. G. (DMC No. 10536)

REDUCED | 4 COUNTS OF SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR REDUCED to “child abuse” with zero days jail – State v. Ms. G. (DMC No. 10536) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2011-123037): Ms. G. was a 19 year old who began having a lesbian relationship with a 16 year old.  The 16 year old’s father “caught them in the act”, and police were called.  Admissions were made, and Ms. G. was arrested and charged.  We were able to show the prosecution that there was no force involved, and this was a completely consensual relationship. Originally they wanted her to remain a convicted felon, but eventually we talked them into offering a reduced “child abuse” charge class 6 “open”, which became a misdemeanor after Ms. G. completed 2 years of probation.  Ms. G. has no felony on her record.

January 10, 2014
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 2100 Superior Court Victories, 23 Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct With Minor Reduced, 30-32 Indecent Exposure Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 31 Indecent Exposure Reduced, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. D. (DMC No. 10552)

REDUCED | 5 COUNTS OF SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR (DCAC)/CHILD MOLEST/INDECENT EXPOSURE REDUCED to “attempt” with probation and 90 days jail – State v. Mr. D. (DMC No. 10552) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2011-122501): Mr. D. was accused of having sexual conduct with his step-sister since she was as young as 8 years old.  The police conducted a “confrontation call”, in which he made many admissions while speaking with his sister as the call was recorded by police.  He was subsequently questioned and made some admissions, at which point he was arrested and held “non-bondable”.  We were able to present evidence of the victim’s prior mental illness history, along with various discrepancies in her timeline, and we secured an offer to “attempted molestation”, probation with 90 days of jail.  Originally Mr. D. was facing a minimum of 75 years in prison.

January 10, 2014
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 16J Driving on a Suspended License Victories, 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, Case Victories, Justice Court Victories, University Lakes Justice Court Victories

State v. Ms. D (DMC No. 4597)

REDUCED | DRIVING ON SUSPENDED LICENSE REDUCED to “weaving” ticket – State v. Ms. D. (DMC No. 4597) (University Lakes Justice Court TR04-03382CR): Ms. D. was stopped by DPS Officer, and was ultimately cited for driving while her license was suspended for a prior DUI.  In fact, her license was suspended for prior underage drinking and driving, and not DUI.  Due to a technicality in the statute, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the “driving while license suspended” in exchange for a simple “weaving” ticket and a small fine.

January 10, 2014
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 16J Driving on a Suspended License Victories, 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, Arizona MVD Victories, Case Victories

State v. Ms. P (DMC No. 4825)

DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION OVERTURNED AT MVD HEARING – State v. Ms. P. (DMC No. 4825) (Arizona MVD Hearing Office): Ms. P. was involved in an accident that was not her fault.  Officer’s requested blood from her, although there were no witnesses to her actually driving.  When she refused, they suspended her license for 1 year. We requested a Hearing with the MVD Office, and had the suspension overturned lack of “actual physical control” (APC), which meant they couldn’t actually prove Ms. P. drove.

1 … 97 98 99 100 101 … 177
Call Now Button