NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR (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.

NOT CHARGED | CHILD MOLESTATION (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.

NOT CHARGED | CHILD MOLESTATION (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.

NOT CHARGED | CHILD MOLESTATION (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.

NOT CHARGED | CHILD MOLESTATION | (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.

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH  A MINOR – (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.

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR (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 of sexual conduct of a minor were without merit and did not file them against Mr. C (even though he would have been facing life in prison).

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR – (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.