Our Location

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

Free Consultation

(602) 307-0808
Call Now, Open 24/7
January 4, 2019
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 2400 School Discipline Hearings - Title 9, 29A Sexual Assault Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, Case Victories

ASU v Mr. M (DMC No. 13778)

Student Not Expelled – Title 9/School Disciplinary Hearing (Sexual Assault and Endangerment) ASU v Mr. M (DMC No. 13778) (Arizona State University Student Rights and Responsibilities Office Investigated):  Mr. M has not been feeling well and was in his student dorm room when he heard a party going on across the court yard.  He looked out of his window, and saw somebody wave him over to the residence across the way.  He changed his clothes, and walked over about 10 minutes later.  The door was open, and as he walked into the dorm room and walked around, he heard voices inside the room, but nobody was there. He then heard people enter the room, and he got scared and hid in a closet.

Ultimately, a female student entered the room and turned out the lights in order to go to sleep.  He walked out of closet and immediately exited the dorm room.   He was followed by another student, and eventually the police were called to Mr. M’s apartment.  He was then arrested.

He was subsequently accused of violating the Student Code of Conduct regarding ABOR Code 5-308 (F-2) entitled Endangerment; Code 5-308 (F-9) entitled Trespass and Code 5-308, (F-23), Entitled Non-Consensual Sexual Conduct.  We were able to show at the Hearing that Mr. M had been ill, plus he had been experiencing other mental issues which now required medication.  He had no intent of harming anyone, but generally thought he had been invited over to a party.  ASU ruled that he was not in violation of the Trespass or Sexual Conduct Codes of Conduct, but that he was only in violation of the Endangering Code of Conduct.  He was not expelled, and was allowed to finish out his classes and graduate from ASU.

December 27, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 2400 School Discipline Hearings - Title 9, 29A Sexual Assault Pre-Charge Victories, Case Victories

Scottsdale Community College v Mr. T (DMC No. 14070)

Unsubstantiated Finding Regarding Allegation of Sexual Assault – Title 9/School Discipline Hearing – Scottsdale Community College v Mr. T (DMC No. 14070) (Scottsdale Community College Dean of Students Investigated): Mr. T was a student at Scottsdale Community College along with his ex girlfriend whose now accusing him of Sexual Assault.  Her allegations were that they had dated for a long time, but the first time they ever had sex, she was coerced into it.  She stated that all other times after that were consensual.

We went into the hearing at Scottsdale Community College and we were present with Mr. T, the dean and general counsel for SCC. Mr. T described all the times that he and his girlfriend had had consensual sex, including the very first time.  He also described how upset she was when they broke up.  Evidence was presented that this was retaliation against Mr. T for him breaking up with his ex girlfriend.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the charge of Sexual Assault was “unsubstantiated”.  Mr. T finished out at SCC and then transferred to a major university to finish out his college degree.

December 27, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 2400 School Discipline Hearings - Title 9, 29A Sexual Assault Pre-Charge Victories, Case Victories

State v Mr. C (DMC No. 13800)

Not Responsible for Sexual Misconduct – Title 9/School Disciplinary Hearing – State v Mr. C (DMC No. 13800) (ASU Student Rights and Responsibilities Office Investigated):  Mr. C had a on again off again relationship for over 2 years with another college student at ASU.  They had lived together at one point, and had consensual sex on numerous occasions. She was diagnosed bi-polar and began acting erratically.  She began cutting herself and was seeing a psychologist.  They had been separated for almost half a year, when they reconnected. When he informed her that he did not want to enter into a long term relationship again, she became upset.  He was 24 and she was 22 and about to graduate from college.

She then filed a report at ASU that she was unconscious two times in the previous week and that Mr. C had sex with her.  We went into the hearing and brought multiple witnesses who testified that this accuser was basically bi-polar, dramatic and untruthful.  They testified as to their ongoing relationship, and that in no way have they ever seen Mr. C take advantage of the alleged victim.  ASU took in all the evidence and found him “not responsible” for Sexual Misconduct.  He was not expelled from school, he faced no discipline and his transcripts are clean. He graduated and went on to gainful employment with a large company.

December 27, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 100E Custodial Interference Victories, 118 Miscellaneous Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 800 Miscellaneous Crime Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 13542)

Felony Custodial Interference Not Charged – State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 13542) (Phoenix Police Department DR2014-00120362): Mr. M was friends with a couple who had a minor child.  The couple ended up getting divorced, and Mr. M was friends with the mother of the child and not the father or the paternal grandparents.  Ultimately, the father died in a car accident, and the paternal grandparents were seeking visitation rights.  The mother then fled to Canada with the child to begin a new life.

Once the mother was located with the child, an investigation began against the mother for Custodial Interference. Because Mr. M had been friends with the mother and had given her financial assistance in the past, he then became a target of the police Detectives to also be charged with Custodial Interference. We were able to show the Detectives that in no way had he provided financial aid or counseling for the purposes of fleeing the country.  We put together a packet of information which was forwarded to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, and the case was turned down for charges against Mr. M.

December 27, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 100A Computer Crime Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 47Q Trafficking in Stolen Goods Victories, 800 Miscellaneous Crime Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 13909)

(2 Counts) Felony Computer Tampering & (2 Counts) Felony Trafficking in Stolen Property ($20,400) Reduced to Probation with 30 Days in Jail – State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 13909) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2015-158379):  Mr. M worked for the Life Lock company and was accused of taking approximately 10 laptop computers and selling them online on Craigslist.  The ads on Craigslist claimed that these computers were “recycled”.  An undercover Tempe police officer made an arrangement to meet with Mr. M and purchase a computer for $1,000.  After that purchase was complete, officers then showed up to Mr. M’s house with a search warrant and confiscated other computers.  He was ultimately charged with 2 counts of Computer Tampering and 2 counts of Trafficking in Stolen Property.

The reason for the charge of Computer Tampering was for the deletion of items that were on those laptops originally. Ultimately, we were able to show some mitigating factors on behalf of Mr. M.  The state agreed to a plea which included Probation and 30 days of initial jail. Other jail was left hanging over his head, but that could be deferred upon successful completion of Probation. Mr. M successfully completed Probation, paid restitution and avoided a potential aggravated sentence of over 10 years in prison.

December 27, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 117 Property Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 1900 Federal Court Victories, 700 Property Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, 93 Arson Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 12949)

Federal Felony Arson Not Charged – State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 12949) (U.S. Forest Service Investigated):  On May 27, 2012 the Bagley wildfire had started and burned a large area of the U.S. forest land.  An investigation was begun and it was claimed that a lighter was found near a campfire site where Mr. W had been.  The forest service had claimed that area was accessed from Saguaro Lake by way of a boat. There was a grill that was used, and food was cooked.  It was claimed that the fire had accidently gotten out of control and burned one and a half acres.  It caused the evacuation of 40 campers in the area.

We were able to contact the investigator for the U.S. Forest Service and present evidence that showed he was only in the area of the fire, along with the other 40 campers, and that there was no evidence that Mr. W was involved in the fire itself.  Ultimately, the Assistant United States Attorney declined the charge of felony arson due to a lack of criminal intent.

December 27, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 1900 Federal Court Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 47O Identity Theft Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 13853)

Federal Conspiracy to Commit Identify Theft Not Charged – State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 13853) (FBI Investigated): Mr. D was employed by Danny’s Family Car Wash as a General Manager of the auto glass division.  In a high profile case commenced by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona a 32 co-defendant indictment was issued.  Mr. D was not one of those listed on the indictment, however, there were rumblings that he might be implicated.  The case involved the employment of hundreds of illegal immigrants who were willingly being hired using fake ID’s in order to gain employment and pass the e-verify test.

We were able to speak with the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who were working the case and determine that Mr. D was not a target. We were able to demonstrate that he had no knowledge of the hiring practices of Danny’s Family Car Wash.  He merely ran the auto glass division, which employed almost exclusively English speaking U.S. residents.  Ultimately, he was not charged with Conspiracy to commit ID Theft and he has no charges on his record.

December 27, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 114 Theft and Fraud Pre-Charge Victories, 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 47J Forgery Victories, 47K Issuing Bad Checks Victories, 47O Identity Theft Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories, Pinal County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 14202)

Felony Issuing Bad Checks ($5,000) Felony Identify Theft & Felony Forgery Not Charged – State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 14202) (Pinal County Sheriff’s Office DR14-0130179): Mr. T worked for a well known national bank as a teller.  After his last day on the job, he was contacted by the fraud department claiming he had written multiple checks from different businesses totaling $5,000.  He immediately retained our services and we contacted the banks fraud department.  We also contacted the lead detective of the Pinal County Sherriff’s Office.

We then prepared a Trebus letter, which we sent to the Pinal County Attorney’s Office should they proceed by way of Grand Jury.  We requested that our client would like to make a statement, and the Grand Jury be told this, in fact, was going to happen.  After presenting our objections to the bank and to the Detective, the Detective requested more information from the bank.  The bank’s Investigator could not provide further information or handwriting samples which would support their claim.  No charges were brought against Mr. T.

December 27, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 400 Theft / Fraud Crime Victories, 47G Extortion Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Ms. M (DMC No. 13613)

(2 Counts) Felony Extortion Dismissed – State v. Ms. M (DMC No. 13613) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2012-010200):  Ms. M was engaged in a dispute with a doctor’s office, in which she had alleged she had been traumatized and assaulted by the doctor.  In order to resolve the case civilly, she made several demands herself, which included a threat of going to the police, the medical board and the media if the case was not settled quickly.  The doctor’s office contacted the police and filed charges of Theft by Extortion pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute 13-1804 (6).  In that Statute it makes it a crime to “expose a secret or an assertive fact, whether true or false, tending to subject anyone to hatred, contempt or ridicule or to impair the person’s credit or business.” The case went to a Grand Jury and they indicted and arrested Ms. M.

We became involved in the case and provided a court case decision from 1995 to the Prosecutor which declared that portion of the Statute to be unconstitutional.  Under State v Weinstein, 182 Ariz. 364 (Div 1 1995).  Once the Deputy County Attorney realized they had began prosecution on an invalid statute, all charges were immediately Dismissed.

December 27, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 100R Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor Victories, 23 Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct With Minor Reduced, 24-25A Child Pornography Victories, 25 Child Pornography Reduced, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 33-35 Public Sexual Indecency Victories, 34 Public Sexual Indecency Reduced, 37B Child Prostitution Victories, 800 Miscellaneous Crime Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 13606)

Felony Child Prostitution (4 Counts) Felony Sexual Exploitation of Minor/Child Pornography and (4 Counts) Sexual Conduct with a Minor, Public Sexual Indecency & Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor Reduced to 5 Years in Prison – State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 13606) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2015-114258): Mr. A had been living with a roommate for many years.  Also with the roommate had two young daughters who lived with them. Mr. A thought that one of the daughters was now 18 years of age, when in reality she was 15 years old.  He and another woman engaged in sex acts with the 15 year old, all while on videotape.  He also offered money for this activity along with alcohol.  He was ultimately charged with Child Prostitution per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3212, and 4 counts of Child Pornography (because some of the acts were filmed), 4 counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor, along with Public Sexual Indecency and Contributing to the Delinquency of Minor.

He was facing the rest of his life in prison, and his only defense was that he thought she was 18 years of age.  This defense was problematic, due to the fact that he also admitted that he knew her since she was 8 years old when he first met her, yet that was only 7 years prior.  This would put her age at 15.  Ultimately the state made several offers which eventually got down to a low offer of a stipulated 5 years in prison.  Mr. A accepted that offer, which was far below the standard offer for these types of charges.

1 … 16 17 18 19 20 … 156
Call Now Button