State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 14507) – (10 Counts) Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor – Not Charged – Casa Grande Police Department Investigated.

Mr. C was 22-years old and began dating a 17-year old girl. The girl lived at home with her parents and they were unaware that their daughter was dating an adult. The dad found her phone and alleged that he saw there were photos, texts and videos of Mr. C and his daughter having sex. These were indicative of potentially 10 separate sexual incidents. The father then turned the phone over to the police and forbid Mr. C from ever contacting his daughter again.

We became involved in the case and we immediately had Mr. C sign an Invocation of Rights form forbidding the Detective from interrogating Mr. C without us being present. We forwarded that form to the Detective who had been attempting to contact Mr. C. The Detective who was assigned was with the Casa Grande Police Department. We also let the Detective know that Mr. C would not be granting any interviews. Also, based on the information received from Mr. C., we were confident that none of the videos had identifying characteristics of Mr. C himself. Ultimately, the Casa Grande Police Department closed their investigation. If Mr. C had been charged and convicted of all 10 Counts, he could have been sent to prison. Instead, he has no criminal charges on his record.

State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 14225) – Felony Sexual Assault – Not Charged – Chandler Police Department Investigated (DR No. CH20XX-XXXXXXX0).

Mr. P was going through an extremely difficult divorce with his soon to be ex-wife. She was irate because he had filed for divorce and was now dating a new woman. She had tried to get her daughter to claim that Mr. P tried to molest her when he attempted to give her a kiss on the cheek good night. The daughter was taken down to the police station for a forensic interview, and she made the following statements: “she said she did not independently remember the incident until she was with her mom over summer break. She recalls some details of the incident after her mom asked her about the incident and showed her websites related to domestic violence.” She then went on to tell Detectives this had been discussed numerous times with her mother, and her mother kept showing her websites related to psychopaths and other evidence to indicate that her father was an abuser. Ultimately, the ex-wife was charged with Custodial Interference, and was issued an Order of Protection.

After all this occurred, Mr. P’s ex-wife then claimed she had been raped by her husband two years prior. She then told the Detectives that she had suffered from depression and had suicidal thoughts in the past, and now she had PTSD due to the alleged “rape.”

We became involved in the investigation, and we turned over the Comprehensive Family Evaluation which was conducted in their divorce case. Of note was the final exam of the Psychiatrist when he puts in his report: “she went on to state that she is a witch she has ‘tools.’ She said her daughter is also a witch. She angrily left the office and stood in the hallway and shouted ‘please don’t hurt any more women and children.’ She then slams shut the examiner’s office door.”

Once the Detectives reviewed everything, they quickly decided to close the case and did not even route it to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to be reviewed for charging. If Mr. P were to have been charged and convicted, he could have spent well over a decade in prison. In addition, he would have lost custody of his children.

State v. Mr. H (DMC No. 14357) – (2 Counts) Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor (2 Victims/DCAC) – Not Charged – Flagstaff Police Department Initially Investigated then Coconino County Sheriff’s Office Investigated (DR No. SXXX-XXXXXX9); Coconino County Attorney’s Office Declined to File Charges.

Mr. H was a Flagstaff Police Officer who had a stepbrother who was in the Coconino County Jail. His other stepbrother had recently committed suicide. The stepbrother who was in jail began making accusations that when he and his deceased brother were 8 or 9 years old, that Mr. H would babysit them when their parents were out, and that he would make them go into the shower and perform oral sex on each other. He also claimed that he had told his parents about these incidents. When the parents were interviewed, they denied any knowledge of what he was saying.

The incarcerated brother also turned over his cell phone and said he had texts in which Mr. H allegedly admitted to everything. During these texts, the incarcerated brother kept making accusations that they were bullied, and it was Mr. H’s fault that the other brother killed himself. Mr. H kept apologizing profusely and would say things such as “I’m so sorry to what I did to you guys when you were younger.” When the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office came to question him, Mr. H denied all sexual conduct accusations and asked to speak to a lawyer. We became involved in the case and we immediately contacted the Sheriff’s office. We indicated that our client would be making no statements, and that any admissions he made had been in relation to bullying his brothers when they were younger. Due to the ramifications which could follow from any misconstrued admissions in regards to Mr. H keeping his job, it was best that we did the talking for him from this point forward.

Ultimately, the case was routed to the Coconino County Attorney’s Office. It was thoroughly reviewed and written up (in order to put into Mr. H’s personnel file.) It was determined that his admissions could easily be relating to bullying, and not to any sexual conduct with his brothers. Therefore, charges were being declined as there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction. Initially, Mr. H could have spent the rest of his life in prison if he was convicted of these charges. Ultimately, no charges were ever brought and he still maintains his job as a police officer.

State v. Mr. Y. (DMC No. 14759) – (3 Counts) Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor (3 Victims/DCAC) and (3 Counts) Felony Child Molestation – Not Charged – Glendale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXX4); Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down.”

Mr. Y had worked for years in a trailer park as a manager and a maintenance man. One of the mom’s claimed to have overheard her kids talking about Mr. Y being “nasty.” When she pressed them, about what they meant by “nasty”, they talked about playing cops & robbers and “being handcuffed,” and playing the “tasting game” where something was put in their mouth. They also claimed they had been touched or licked in their privates.

The Police became involved and interviewed all 3 of the alleged victims (who were under 12 years of age). Their stories continually changed, yet they all maintained they were touched by Mr. Y. When Mr. Y was contacted, he admitted they played cops & robbers before, and that he had given the kids candy in which they were to guess what flavors the jelly beans were. He adamantly denied he had ever touched any of the children. He did agree to give a DNA sample, and then when he was pressed about doing a “voice stress analysis test,” he stated he wanted to speak to a lawyer.

We became involved, and we contacted the Detectives. We asked them to have no further contact with Mr. Y, and to deal with us directly. Because all of the allegations were so old (some up to 6 years), it was highly unlikely there was going to be no DNA. Ultimately, the case was sent to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office where it was reviewed and “turned down.” Mr. Y was potentially facing at least 3 life sentences in prison if he were to be convicted on the Sexual Conduct with a Minor charges alone, due to the fact that the children were under 12 years of age. He was never charged with anything, and he has a clean record.

FELONY CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. V (DMC No. 14930) (Coconino County Sheriff’s Office DR No. S15-00835): At the time of these allegations Mr. V was a 40-year old male who was married with 5 children. Mr. V and his wife and children lived in Coconino County, Arizona. Mr. V’s in-laws lived in a guest house on their property. They were all part of a somewhat large extended family that included the parents of Mr. V’s wife, as well as, her brother and his family. The families would visit frequently, primarily at the Mr. V’s House in Coconino County. One such occasion was February 8, 2015 when the families were together at Mr. V’s residence. This get-together included Mr. V and his family, Mr. V’s brother, his wife and their two children, and Mrs. V’s parents: Judy and James F. One of Mrs. V’s brother’s children included a three year old son.

 

At one point, shortly before the F’s were loading up their car to return to Phoenix, it became apparent that Mr. V’s 3-year-old nephew needed to use the restroom. Mr. V mentioned this to the boys’ mother, who indicated to him that he should take the child to the bathroom. The child was Mr. V’s 3-year-old nephew and had come to stay with them on various occasions in the past, so he did not think anything of it. Mr. V took the child to a restroom that was immediately off the area where all the families were meeting and had the child use the restroom. Mr. V walked in the restroom with the child watched the child as he prepared to the restroom and then stood outside of the restroom with the door open. While Mr. V was standing outside he was conversing with others, including his wife.  The child finished using the restroom and went to his father.

 

At some point in his conversation with his father, the little boy indicated that Mr. V had poked him and that the poke had happened below his waist. Mr. F pulled Mr. V aside and asked him if he had ever poked the boy. Mr. V denied the allegation. Not being satisfied with that answer, Mr. F then went to his mother and asked if she had observed anything. The mother indicated to Mr. F that she did not see anything that evening but in the past had been uncomfortable with Mr. V being around the 3-year-old boy. She did not have any specific facts but just indicated that she had felt uncomfortable with Mr. V being around the three year old boy. The F family then left to return to Phoenix.

 

While enroute, Mr. F discussed the issue with his wife who told him that she wanted to return to the V house immediately to discuss the issue further. They returned to the Mr. V’s House and had a large family meeting. During that family meeting, Mr. V adamantly denied any inappropriate behavior with regards to the nephew. This large family meeting brought out a number of issues that had been lying beneath the surface. This included the Mr. and Mrs. V’s unhappiness with the F’s behavior around them, particularly the unruly behavior of the child. The conversation rapidly devolved until the F family left. The F family returned to the Phoenix area where they stewed on the issue for a number of days prior to contacting a friend who was a police officer. A friend indicated they would need to make a report to the Coconino County Sheriff’s Department regarding allegations of Child Molestation, a Dangerous Crime Against Children, per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1410.

 

Given the family dynamic, Mr. and Mrs. V became aware that the allegations had morphed into a report to the police. They immediately came and retained our office. Our Pre-Charge team devoted substantial time to this case in a very quick fashion. We conducted in-depth interviews of both Mr. and Mrs. V to ascertain the specific facts of the case. We then immediately advised the County Attorney’s Office in both Maricopa and Coconino Counties, that our firm was representing Mr. V, and that if any charges were submitted to a grand jury, that Mr. V wanted to appear and testify.  We also began reaching out aggressively to law enforcement agencies in the Phoenix Valley and in Coconino County.

 

Next, we immediately drafted proposed polygraph questions for a polygraph examination for Mr. V. Mr. V immediately submitted to a voluntary polygraph on whether he had ever touched his 3-year-old nephew for a sexual purpose. Mr. V’s polygraph indicated that he was being truthful when he stated that he had never touched his nephew for sexual purpose. During the pendency of that polygraph, we were able to confirm that the lead agency was the Coconino County Sheriff’s Department. We then immediately provided the polygraph information in a letter to the Detective. In that letter to the Detective, we also provided specific exculpatory information that we wished to present to the grand jury should the case proceed to that point.

 

After that, we continued to conduct further investigation of the case. We obtained an extensive timeline of the contacts between the V family and the F family over the prior few years. We also assisted in drafting and obtaining executed Affidavits from, the grandparents of the 3-year-old alleged victim. These Affidavits established that the they had never witnessed any inappropriate behavior between Mr. V and his 3-year-old nephew. We subsequently, provided all of that information to the Detective and we followed that up with a letter to the Coconino County Attorney’s Office in which we detailed the exculpatory information that should be provided to the grand jury should they wish to proceed to one. All of this was done over the course of just over 2 weeks. It required significant, and immediate work by our Pre-Charge team. As a result of that work, less than one month after being retained on the case, the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office closed the case “due to lack of probable cause for charging.” The case disposition was listed as case closed, leads exhausted.

FELONY CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 14157) (Gilbert Police Department DR No. 2014-XXXXXXXX): At the time these allegations were made, Mr. D was a 37-year old male. Mr. D was accused of molesting the 11-year old daughter of his girlfriend. Mr. D had met and become romantically involved with a woman who had two young children: one age 11, the other age 7. Mr. D began living with the woman and helping provide care for her young children when he was not working. Unfortunately, the family dynamic was somewhat dysfunctional. The mother had a severe alcohol addiction and was frequently impaired to the point of being passed out. The mother was divorced from the children’s father and there had been multiple prior issues within the family including allegations of the mother being unfit to care for the children due to her substance abuse issues. Two DCS caseworkers were conducting a welfare check related to a prior allegation against the mother. During that welfare check they spoke with both of the children. At that time the 11-year old daughter stated that Mr. D had been lying in bed with her and had made her touch his penis with her hand. She further stated that when she withdrew her hand, he grabbed her hand and made her put it back on his genitals. The DCS caseworkers immediately stopped the interview and contacted the Gilbert Police Department regarding Child Molestation, a Dangerous Crime Against Children per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1410. The children were also immediately removed from the home and placed with their biological father. Mr. D learned of the allegations and immediately contacted us.

Upon being retained, our Pre-Charge team staffed the case immediately and began taking action. We first reached out to the assigned Detective and advised her that we were representing Mr. D. We followed up that contact with a written Invocation of Rights for our client. We also immediately advised the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office that we represented Mr. D and that, should a grand jury be impaneled, Mr. D wanted to inform the grand jury that he would be available and testify to the 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. Our polygraph examination focused on whether or not Mr. D had ever touched the child or had the child touch him in any sexual manner. We moved very quickly and got Mr. D in for a polygraph immediately. Mr. D’s polygraph showed that no deception was indicated and he denied having any sexual contact with the child whatsoever. We also personally met with the child’s mother, who advised us that, unfortunately the child had a prior history of false sexual allegations against another one of her boyfriends. It was sadly apparent that this little 11-year old girl was resorting to false sexual allegations to try to escape a highly dysfunctional home life with an alcoholic mother.

The investigating Detective conducted a forensic interview of little girl. The investigating Detective was very forthcoming with us in our contact regarding the investigation. The Detective advised us that the little girl had confirmed that there was sexual contact between herself and Mr. D and the Detective believed the statement to be credible. Due to the immediate invocation of Mr. D’s rights, the Detective knew that she was not able to have contact with Mr. D. The Detective also was aware that with the prior false allegation, as well as the very dysfunctional home life, that there was not sufficient information to move forward with charges at that time, even though she clearly wanted to move forward with charges.

The case was subsequently cleared as “DNR inactive, pending further information.”