State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 16279) – Felony Child Molestation (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) – Not Charged – Phoenix Police Department investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXXXXX8).

 

Mr. R was accused of inappropriately touching his biological six-year-old daughter for a sexual purpose. Mr. R and his wife had been married for approximately nine years and had four children together. The alleged victim in this case was his oldest daughter. Prior to these allegations being made, the relationship between Mr. R and his wife had been strained. His wife had brought up the possibility of divorce on several occasions, specifically after Mr. R had found flirtatious text messages between his wife and a Doctor at the hospital where she worked. Mr. R had reason to believe that prior to the allegations being made, his wife had reached out to a Divorce Attorney in an effort to find out how much money she would receive in Spousal Maintenance and Child Support if they divorced. In fact, within days of his wife making the accusations against Mr. R regarding their biological daughter, she filed for Divorce.

 

The specific allegations of the Child Molestation came after Mr. R, who had been the primary caregiver of the children since their births, had notified his wife that their oldest daughter was inappropriately touching herself while lying in bed or watching television. Mr. R asked his wife to discuss the inappropriate behavior with the daughter, as she was the mother. After Mr. R discovered that his wife did not speak with their daughter about this, and their daughters continued inappropriate behavior around the other children continued, he had a stronger discussion with his wife regarding her need to speak with their daughter. It was after this that his wife claimed that Mr. R had been molesting their daughter.

 

Upon being retained, the Pre-Charge Team, met and discussed the allegations and the necessary steps moving forward. We immediately reached out to the Detective to advise him of our client’s denial of the allegations and notify him that we would be preparing detailed information for his review. We also drafted a Trebus Letter and sent it to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office notifying them of our representation. We immediately arranged for a Polygraph examination of our client and drafted the proposed Polygraph questions. These questions surrounded whether Mr. R ever had sexual contact with his oldest daughter or whether he had ever had his oldest daughter touch him for a sexual purpose. The results of this Polygraph showed that Mr. R was being truthful and there is no deception indicated. We also included in the Trebus/Bashir Letter a time-line describing the incident that occurred at the home, the financial motive for Mr. R’s wife to lie in order to place her in a better procedural posture for the Divorce, Mr. R’s passed Polygraph examination, and his outright denials of the allegations. This letter also specifically asked that if the case was submitted to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for review, that the prosecutor be a made aware of the letter, and that the exculpatory information should be read to the Grand Jury, if a presentation to the Grand Jury occurred.

 

Ultimately, none of Mr. R’s DNA was found in the vaginal area of his biological daughter, and based on the information presented in the Trebus/Bashir letter discrediting his wife, the case was “closed” by the Detective and never submitted to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for review and charging.

State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 16285) – Felony Public Sexual Indecency – Not Charged – Apache Junction Police Department investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX3) & Pinal County Attorney’s Office “Declined Charges”.

 

At the time these allegations were made, Mr. P was a 67-year-old retiree. Mr. P was accused of publicly masturbating outside of his home in the view of a 13-year-old girl. Police had contacted Mr. P to schedule an interview, to find out his side of the story. Without seeking legal advice first, Mr. P met with the Detective and provided information regarding the day of the alleged incident. Although Mr. P denied the accusations to police, the Detective indicated that there were videos of him committing the crime. At this point, Mr. P asked if he “needed a lawyer” and the Detective told him that he could do what he want, with respect to a lawyer, however, the case was being submitted to the Pinal County Attorney’s office for charging decisions.

 

Upon being retained, our Pre-Charge Team staffed the case immediately and began taking action. We first met with the client and obtained a detailed timeline of the incident, along with gathering significant mitigation pertaining to his life. We also sent a Trebus Letter to the Pinal County Attorney’s office, notifying them of our representation, and informing them that Mr. P wanted to inform the Grand Jury, that he would be available to testify to the Pinal County Grand Jury, if they desired to hear from him. We also arranged for a Polygraph examination of our client and drafted proposed questions for that Polygraph examination. This Polygraph focused on whether Mr. P ever exposed himself to a minor for sexual gratification or whether Mr. P ever masturbated in front of the minor. Mr. P’s Polygraph showed that no deception was indicated and he denied ever masturbating or exposing himself to a minor.

 

After moving very quickly to gather this exculpatory information for Mr. P, knowing that the case had already been submitted to the Pinal County Attorney’s Office, we reached out and contacted the attorney reviewing the case for charging. We also submitted a detailed Trebus/Bashir Letter to the assigned County Attorney, specifically listing Mr. P’s denial of the allegations, a copy of the passed Polygraph report, and a detailed description of what actually occurred that day.

 

As a result of the information presented in the Trebus/Bashir letter, the Pinal County Attorney’s Office “declined to file charges” against Mr. P.

State v. Mr. J (DMC No. 16276) – Felony Sexual Abuse – Not Charged – Florence Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXX6) & Pinal County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down Charges”.

 

Mr. J. retained our services after being accused of Sexual Abuse by inappropriately touching the breasts of a coworker. Mr. J. and the accuser both worked for the Fire Department, and the accuser was claiming that the inappropriate action happened while at work in the Battalion Chief’s office. Mr. J believe the allegation was being made due to the alleged victim becoming upset with him because of some constructive criticism and feedback provided by him regarding the alleged victim’s treatment of a patient while on the job. Mr. J. denied any non-consensual touching of the breasts.

 

Upon being retained, our Pre-Charge Team, staffed the case to determine what actions were necessary. We reached out to the Florence Police Department to contact the assigned Detective. After doing so, we emailed a copy of our client’s Invocation of Constitutional Rights. When speaking with the Detective assigned we informed him that we would have a significant amount of information to present to him that should help him in determining that submitting these charges to the Pinal County Attorney’s should not occur. However, he told us that his report was almost complete and that he would be submitting the case to the County Attorney.

 

After receiving this information and the report regarding the internal Fire Department review, we were able to prepare a detailed Trebus Bashir Letter to send to the prosecutor reviewing the case. This letter included 37 bullet points, and many sub-bullet points, pertaining to exculpatory information regarding the allegations, Mr. J’s denial of any non-consensual sexual contact, and an analysis of the believed motive for the allegations.

 

The team worked very quickly to prepare this information and submit it to the County Attorney’s Office for their review which was successful in getting the Prosecutor’s Office to “decline to file charges against” Mr. J.

State.v. Mr. A. (DMC No. 16277) – Felony Sexual Assault – Not Charged –

Flagstaff Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXX3).

 

When Mr. A retained the services of our Firm, he was a young man in college as well as a member of a fraternity. He retained our services after learning from his fraternity chapter president, that a woman he had sex with was now claiming the sex was not consensual. Due to these allegations, the fraternity was taking action against him.

 

After being retained, the Pre-Charge Team immediately met and put together a plan of action for both the fraternity trial along with the pre-charge criminal conduct. The Pre-Charge Team, met and immediately contacted the fraternity president asking him to delay the fraternity trial, as there were only accusations made at this point, and Mr. A was presumed innocent until proven guilty. We were successful at getting the fraternity trial continued until the conclusion of the criminal matter. We then immediately reached out to the Flagstaff Police Department to find out what Detective was assigned to this investigation and the status of the same. After determining the Detective’s name, we emailed a copy of our client’s Invocation of Constitutional Rights. We immediately traveled to Flagstaff and conducted interviews of relevant witnesses that were present during the evening of the alleged Sexual Assault. These interviews included a number of fraternity and sorority members who were at the house and in close contact with Mr. A. and the alleged victim after the alleged “rape”.

 

After completing these interviews, we drafted a detailed Trebus Bashir Letter which listed 43 bullet points, with a multitude of sub-bullet points, regarding what transpired that evening, Mr. A’s denial of the claims of non-consensual sex, along with additional information we believed the Detective would find useful in making a charging decision. We also immediately got our client in for a Polygraph examination which was included as part of the Trebus Bashir Letter. The Polygraph questions focused on whether Mr. A had any sexual contact with the alleged victim without her consent and whether Mr. A ever forced the alleged victim to have sex with him. No deception was indicated as part of Mr. A’s Polygraph results.

 

After submitting all of this information to the Detective, it was determined that the information provided from the witnesses of that evening discredited the alleged victim’s statements of what occurred. As a result, the investigation was “closed exceptionally.”

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 16273) – Felony Child Molestation (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) – Not Charged – Mesa Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX0).

 

Mr. S. retained our services after learning of accusations being made by his girlfriend’s daughter. The specific allegation being made was that our client had rubbed the 9-year old girl’s vaginal area over the clothes and forced her to rub his penis.

 

Our Pre-Charge Team, met and immediately reached out to the Detective assigned to the case. After providing the Detective with information regarding Mr. S’ denials and other information regarding the young girl and her history of lying, we prepared a Trebus Bashir Letter for the Detective to review in making the determination of moving forward with the charges.

 

Ultimately, we were successful in getting the criminal case closed and inactivated in the police system. Originally, Mr. S was facing potentially 46 years in prison.

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 16271) – Felony Sexual Abuse – Not Charged – Buckeye Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX9) & Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down Prosecution”.

Mr. M retained our services after learning of Sexual Abuse allegations during a Family Law dispute. The specific allegation being made was that he had inappropriately touched his stepdaughter who was 13 years old. Unfortunately, Mr. M’s stepdaughter had a number of emotional issues and had, soon after making the allegations, been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. This disorder is described by the Child Mind Institute as children who display extreme resistance to authority, conflict with parents, outbursts of temper, and spitefulness with peers.

Upon being retained our Pre-Charge Team, met to discuss the plan of action. We immediately reached out to the Detective and prepared a Trebus Bashir Letter delineating Mr. M’s denial of the accusations along with background information pertaining to his 13-year old stepdaughter and her overall behavioral issues. Included in this letter was a list of false allegations made by Mr. M’s stepdaughter in the past regarding him and her biological mother, specifically detailing times when his stepdaughter had falsely accused the two of them of physical abuse. We assisted Mr. M. in participating in a global interview with DCS regarding the false allegations now being made. This ultimately allowed Mr. M. to return home; however, he was ordered not have contact with the alleged victim who was no longer in the home.

Ultimately, the DCS matter was closed, and based on the information provided in the Trebus Bashir Letter, along with Mr. M’s denials, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “turned down” the case for charging.

State v. Mr. L (DMC No. 12876) – (4 Counts) Felony Sexual Abuse – Not Charged – Avondale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXX0) & Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down Charges”.

Mr. L had two prior allegations for Sexual Abuse and Child Molestation over the years. His 16 year old step-daughter had alleged that Mr. L had come into her bedroom on 4 different occasions (when he had been drinking) and fondled her breast. Detectives contacted Mr. L, and then he contacted our office. We became involved in the case and immediately contacted the Avondale Police Department.

The mother of Mr. L’s step-daughter informed Police that 8 years prior, her 12 year old indicated there was a similar incident with Mr. L. She stated that Mr. L then attended counseling. She also stated there was another investigation and other allegations against Mr. L. We informed the Detectives that Mr. L was Invoking his Right to Remain Silent, and he would not be participating in any Polygraph Tests. We also interviewed other family members, who had indicated that the step-daughter did not like Mr. L and wanted him out of the house. His rules were too strict, and she was not allowed to see her boyfriend. Although the Detective had interviewed Mr. L prior to us being involved, he had denied all of the allegations. Ultimately, the Detective routed the case to Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. They did not proceed with charges due to the “lack of evidence”. If Mr. L would’ve been charged and convicted, he could’ve faced many years in prison.

State v. Mr. Y (DMC No. 12848) – Felony Sexual Assault – Not Charged – Scottsdale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXX6).

Mr. Y had worked at Grand Canyon University with a young lady for approximately a year and a half. He was now 28 and she was 24, and he met up with her and a group of friends at a bar to go drinking and have food. Ultimately, a group of them came back to Mr. Y’s house and the young lady became sick. She threw up and she was placed into Mr. Y’s bed. Mr. Y then took a shower and came out of the bathroom.

He laid down next to the young lady and about an hour later she woke up and told him she was cold. They then began to snuggle, kiss and began to have consensual sex. After about 5 minutes, she stated that she wanted to go home. She got out of the bed and got dressed, and Mr. Y called her a cab. Approximately 10 minutes later, Police showed up at his door claiming that she had made allegations of Sexual Assault.

We then became involved in the case, and we interviewed all of the roommates who were present. We also had video footage pulled from the bar when she left, and interviewed the bartenders. Lastly, we had Mr. Y take a Polygraph Test, which he passed as to whether they were engaged in consensual sexual activity or not.

The Detectives fought us on the case for several years. The wanted Mr. Y to take another Polygraph Test with a different Polygrapher, in which he passed. Also, they had her blood work re-run to see if there were any drugs in her system. Instead, it only showed that she had a Blood Alcohol Concentration of .090. Her story and behavior did not match. Ultimately, the Scottsdale Detectives “declined to file any charges” and Mr. Y has no criminal conviction on his record.

State v. Mr. Z (DMC No. 12960) – Felony Sexual Assault – Not Charged – Gilbert Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXXX6).

Mr. Z had adopted his daughter when she was 9 years old. She had multiple problems when he adopted her which included her being diagnosed as Bi-Polar, Depressed and suffering from PTSD and ADHD since being sexually abused at the age of 8. She was very physically aggressive and had problems with almost all of the family. In fact, one time the grandparents sought treatment for her physically aggressive behavior.

She was now 20 years old, and had stolen Mr. Z’s car and asked for money. She claimed that he had been sexually assaulting her from age 18-20. She told her brother this and other family members, none of whom believed her. She then went to the Police to file a report. Mr. Z secured our services at that point.

We contacted the Gilbert Police Department and set up a meeting with the Detective at our office. We provided him with a Polygraph Test showing that Mr. Z passed regarding any issues and questions of touching his adopted daughter for a sexual purpose. In addition, we provided all of his daughter’s medical records and past medical diagnoses, and Facebook messages she had sent to various family members. The Detective ultimately reviewed all evidence and attempted to get back in touch with the adopted daughter, who was missing with Mr. Z’s car. Ultimately, the Officer “deactivated the case” and no charges were ever brought against Mr. Z. Mr. Z has a clean criminal history.

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.