Hi, How Can We Help You?


State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 13250)

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION of a MINOR/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (DCAC) and CHILD MOLESTATION NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 13250) (Phoenix Police Department DR No. 2012-XXXXXXXX): Mr. R was a 36-year-old male who had recently been involved in a contentious divorce and was still involved in a bitter dispute battle. Our client had moved on and had become involved with another woman. He and his new partner had just had a child together. His ex-wife had  remarried  and  her  new  husband  wanted  to  relocate.  Client  was  exercising  his  regular visitation  with  their  3-year-old  daughter.  According  to  our  clients  ex-wife  and  her  family members, the 3-year-old child came home from her visitation with dad and began to make spontaneous statements that her father had touched her inappropriately in her vaginal area.

The child’s mother subsequently questioned her about the event a couple of times, including a taking one or two statements using her phone to record the conversations. At one point, the child even alleged that client touched her while his new partner took a picture of the event. The matter was reported to police and Child Protective Services. The Police became quickly involved and contacted father regarding alleged violations for Child Molestation per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1410, a Dangerous Crime Against Children and Sexual Exploitation of a Minor per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3553, and advised him that he could not pick up the child for his regularly scheduled visit. Client immediately contacted us and retained our services.

Upon being retained our Pre-Charge team immediately took actions to protect our client. First, we reached out to the assigned Detective and advised that we were representing Mr. R and that he would not be making any further statements at that time. We immediately arranged for a polygraph for our client to address the specific issue of any sexual contact with his daughter. We then drafted a statement to provide to the polygraph examiner along with some proposed polygraph questions. Our client submitted to the polygraph and the results of the polygraph indicated that when he denied any sexual contact with his daughter that he was being truthful. We then immediately provided that information to the Detective working the case. Afterward, in consultation with our client, the Pre-Charge team decided that this was one of the very rare cases where we would agree to allow our client to undergo a polygraph examination by the Police Department.

We accompanied our client to the police station where he was Mirandized and then submitted to the Police polygraph examination. Our client passed that polygraph examination  and,  as  a  result  of  our  involvement,  the  investigating  Detective  agreed  to immediately close the case. The Police also agree to no longer interfere with client’s visitation with his three-year old daughter. The final police report indicated that the case was closed “based on no evidence to support the allegation.” Further referenced was the fact that our client successfully completed a polygraph examination with the Police Department. All of this was done over a very short period of time in a very accelerated manner. From the time of our involvement, to the time the Police agreed to close the case, was just over three weeks. This despite the fact that the 3- year-old victim was forensically interviewed and continued to make disclosures claiming that her father had touched her vagina while her father’s partner took the photograph of the act.

Call Now Button