State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 14057) – Felony Sexual Assault – Not Charged – Mesa Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX1).

Mr. M was at a party at a friend’s house who he had known for 14 years. Everybody had been drinking heavily, and the girl (his friend) had been flirting with him. Even though she had a boyfriend, she had cheated on this boyfriend many times before. At some point the young lady went upstairs to sleep. Later on in the night, her brother found that she had urinated herself and was still in her clothes and was snoring. The brother and Mr. M went upstairs to videotape her in order to make fun of her. Next, everyone had left the room and about an hour later, the boyfriend came upstairs and found Mr. M having sex with the young lady. He jumped on Mr. M and began punching him to the side of the head. At that point, the young lady began screaming at her boyfriend to stop hitting Mr. M. Mr. M then left the room as the boyfriend was screaming at his girlfriend for “being a whore”.

The girl told her boyfriend that she was unconscious and woke up when the fight started. They then had a conversation about what had occurred. Two days later, she went to the Hospital and was going to file a Police Report. She left before receiving any treatment. When the Police finally did talk to her, she told them her story and had stated she was unconscious and did not consent to having sex. A “Confrontation Call” was setup where she called Mr. M in order to get him making admissions on tape. He told her he did not remember anything that night because he was drunk, right up until he was being beat up by her boyfriend. He assumed everything they were doing was consensual.

The Police then contacted Mr. M and he asked for his Right to Speak with Counsel. We then became involved in the case, and began working with the Detectives to fully investigate the case. Our contention was that since neither one of them remembered the incident, that they could either both be charged, or neither be charged. It was completely possible they were engaged in consensual sex, and just did not remember anything until the fight broke out. We also pointed out that there was no physical evidence, since she waited two days to go to the Hospital. The Officer then closed the case as “Inactive” and did not forward the case for charging to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. If Mr. M had been charged and convicted, he could have spent well over a decade in prison.

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 13197) – Felony Sexual Assault – Not Charged – Phoenix Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXX1).

Mr. M was a gay male who had another friend who was straight and platonic. The two had gone to a Bowling Alley and had been drinking all night. When the other gentleman rolled a strike, he had performed a grinding dance on Mr. M. When both got back to the other gentleman’s apartment, he had made a comment that he had not had oral sex in a long time. While they were both laying on the couch, the other man closed his eyes and leaned back. Mr. M then pulled his shorts down and began to perform oral sex on him. About 10 seconds in, the other man jumped up and said “I did not know this was happening”. Mr. M apologized, and the two hugged and Mr. M left.

The next day, Mr. M received a text from the other gentleman stating that he was going to go to the Police and press charges. The other gentleman contacted Mr. M’s partner, and also told him about this incident. Mr. M then got us onboard for the case. We contacted the Detective involved and told them that Mr. M would not be making an statements or undergoing any Polygraph Examinations. We also pointed out to the Detective that there were no witnesses, no physical and biological evidence, nor any admissions which could support the charge of Sexual Assault. Although the Detective had attempted to obtain physical evidence, there was none that was sufficient enough to press charges. Ultimately, the case was not sent to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and it was “closed”. Originally, Mr. M could’ve been facing multiple years in prison if he would have been convicted.

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 11447) – Felony Sexual Assault – Not Charged – Peoria Police Department Investigated (DR No. 0X-0X-XXXXX0) & Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down Prosecution”.

Mr. M had met a girl in a bar in Peoria while he had been drinking. The two of them engaged in consensual sex in the men’s bathroom. Afterwards, Mr. M was accused of taking the young lady’s purse and utilizing her credit cards. Because of this, the young lady made an allegation that the sex was not consensual and that she had been Sexually Assaulted.

Approximately six years later, Mr. M had a conviction for a minor drug charge in which he provided a DNA sample. A “hit” came up on the DNA database, and the Police contacted him in order to talk about the alleged Sexual Assault. He then secured our services. We then conducted an investigation in which we secured an independent Witness who was with Mr. M on the night in question. We presented his testimony to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office showing that this was a consensual event, and that the alleged victim was merely upset because her purse had been stolen by somebody. Her assumption was that it was Mr. M. Ultimately, the County Attorney agreed to reject charges based upon “no reasonable likelihood of conviction”. If Mr.  M had been charged and convicted (especially given he had a minor prior felony conviction), he could’ve spent over two decades in prison.

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 15317) – Felony Sexual Exploitation of a Minor/Child Pornography (20 year old adult/15 year old minor) – Not Charged – Phoenix Police Department Investigated.

A Pastor at the Renovation Church discovered that a 15 year old female had been exchanging nude photographs with a 20 year old church member. The report was made to the Phoenix Police Department at the Pecos Police Station, and the girl’s parents were contacted. The Officers wanted the girl’s cellphone in order to move forward with the investigation. At that time, the Youth Pastor contacted Mr. G. He then secured our services to defend him.

We became involved and the alleged victim’s parents contacted us to discuss the case. They indicated that they felt their daughter was behaving inappropriately, and they knew Mr. G personally. We spoke to them about moving forward with charges, and they indicated they would rather deal with the whole matter “in-house”. We then contacted the Phoenix Police Department and informed them of these updates. We also told them that Mr. G would not be making any statements, and they he would not be turning over his cellular device without a Search Warrant. Ultimately, the Police decided not to move forward and investigate the case. If Mr. G were to have been charged and convicted of Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, or potentially Luring a Minor for a Sexual Purpose, he could’ve spent years in prison. Ultimately, he has no criminal history on his record.

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 12542) – Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor (63 year old adult/17 year old minor) – Not Charged – Craigslist and Wickenburg Police Department Contacted.

Mr. M had contacted another gentleman on Craigslist who stated he was over 18 years of age. They engaged in extensive texting, which then turned into talk of sexual conduct. The 18 year old claimed he was still a student at Wickenburg High School but maintained he was absolutely 18 years old. At some point the two began a sexual relationship. It was after that time, that Mr. M discovered that he had been videotaped by this person. The person then claimed he was under the age of 18, and began demanding money and gifts. We then became involved and realized this was a case of Blackmail/Extortion. However, if this individual was truly under 18, there could have been potential criminal liability. Under the Arizona Revised Statute, if a person is 15, 16, or 17 years of age and claims to be 18, there can be a Defense to the charges of Sexual Conduct with a Minor. This would be the Defense of “Unknowingness”.

We then reached out to Wickenburg Police Department and attempted to contact Craigslist to locate this individual’s contact information. Ultimately, it was decided that no criminal charges would be forthcoming, and Mr. M cut-off all contact with the potential blackmailer.

State v. Mr. F (DMC No. 12064) – Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor (31 year old adult/12 year old minor) (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) & Felony Child Molestation (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) – Not Charged – Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXX5) & Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down Prosecution”.

Mr. F had married a woman who had a daughter who was at a young age. They were all living together in Utah when he began going through a Divorce with his then wife. In order to save the marriage, they all moved to Arizona. The marriage then fell apart because his wife claimed she had found information that Mr. F may have been having an extra marital affair.

Shortly after this time, the step-daughter claimed she was raped by a boy she knew in school. There was an actual Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office investigation which showed that she had lied, and that any relationship was consensual. Next, when she was 16-17 years of age, she was allowed to go on birth control because she was now dating a new boyfriend. Shortly after that time, as Mr. F’s Divorce was heating up, his step-daughter made accusations that he had Molested her from age 11-15. An Order of Protection was filed and Mr. F was contacted by Police. He then secured our services for the criminal case.

We gathered all of the alleged victim’s Facebook pages which showed that she was making up these allegations. The Facebook posts clearly showed a confrontation from her ex-boyfriend in which she admitted filing a false Police Report against him. We also secured video footage showing her going back into Mr. F’s house after she had moved out, and stealing all of Mr. F’s alcohol. Lastly, we prepared a Trebus/Bashir Letter, which included copies of a passed Polygraph Test, and asked them to present this to the County Attorney’s Office should they decide to be moving forward with seeking charges. Ultimately, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “turned down” the case due to “no reasonable likelihood of conviction”. If Mr. F were to have been charged and convicted, he could’ve spent the rest of his life in prison. Ultimately, there are no criminal charges on his record and his employment has not been affected.

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 11378) – Child Molestation (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) – Not Charged – Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXX0).

Mr. M, a juvenile, walked into a room and was tickling his 5 year old half-sister as she was screaming at him to stop. Mr. M’s father then walked in and both began tickling her as a joke. Later on, the 5 year old girl disclosed to her grandma that she was “molested by my brother”. She then told her mother (who is divorced from her father), and the police were contacted.

We were brought into the case, and we contacted the Detectives and informed them that there was never any sexual contact. We provided them with a detailed timeline of events that was produced by both Mr. M and his father. We also had contact with the Prescott Police Department, who also assigned a Detective to the case. We ultimately provided a Trebus/Bashir Letter, which we asked them to present to the Grand Jury should they actually route the case for charging to the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office. Ultimately, the case was sent over to the County Attorney’s Office and they indicated that they would not be filing charges. Even though Mr. M was a minor, he could’ve been incarcerated up until his 18^th birthday, and been forced to register as a Sex Offender until his 25^th birthday. Because No Charges were ever filed, Mr. M has no juvenile criminal history.

State v. Mr. K (DMC No. 11257) – Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor (29 year old adult/16 year old minor) – Not Charged – Glendale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXX5).

Mr. K was a 29 year old Cheerleading Coach who worked at various private gyms. He was contacted by the gym’s owner and terminated due to an allegation of engaging in sexual conduct with one of his students, who was 16 and a minor. Ultimately, the Glendale Police Department was contacted, and they began trying to get in touch with Mr. K. It was at this point that Mr. K secured our services.

We contacted the Detective and indicated that the only time that Mr. K touches his students is in the course of normal gymnastic/cheerleading and tumbling instruction. He has never touched any student with sexual intent. We also had Mr. K take and pass a Polygraph Test and a Voice Stress Analysis Test. Both of those tests showed that he was truthful when he stated he had never had any sexual conduct with his students. All of this was presented to the Detectives in the form of a Trebus/Bashir Letter, and the Detective was instructed to forward the information to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office should he be seeking to route the case for charging. Ultimately, No Charges were routed as to Mr. K, and he was never charged with a crime. He has a clean criminal history record.

State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 15191) – Felony Child Molestation (26 year old adult/14 year old minor) (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) – Not Charged – Glendale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXX8).

Mr. D’s 14 year old niece was in counseling when she disclosed that she had been molested as a child by her brother. Police began an investigation against her brother and a separate Police Report was filed. She then disclosed that she had also been molested by Mr. D when she was 14 years old while sitting on the couch. She claimed on one incident he had been his hand under her shirt and rubbed her breast. In another incident, she claimed he had put his hand down her pants and rubbed her vagina.

We were retained on the case and we began our investigation. We contacted the Glendale Police Department and indicated that our client was invoking his Right to Remain Silent, and he would not be taking an Polygraph Tests or Voice Stress Analysis Tests. We also had contact with the alleged victim’s mother, who claimed that she was doing well in counseling and she did not want to move forward with prosecution, because it would be damaging to her progress. Ultimately, the Detective inactivated the case due to our involvement and lack of defendant or victim cooperation. If Mr. D had been charged with these crimes and convicted, he could have spent decades in prison. He now has a clean record.