FELONY SEXUAL ASSAULT NOT CHARGED – State v. Ms. L (DMC No. 13915) (Phoenix Police Department DR No. 2013-XXXXXXXX): Ms. L was friends with another woman by the name of Martha, the alleged victim in this case. A few weeks after hanging out with each other Ms. L received a telephone call from a Phoenix Police Detective requesting a call back regarding an alleged Sexual Assault per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1406. She did not speak with the Detective and let her phone go to voicemail. After receiving this message, she contacted and ultimately retained our firm.

Once our services were retained, I met with the Pre-Charge team and we decided to (1) immediately contact the Detective who had left his phone number, (2) obtain the DR number for the case, (3) submit a Trebus letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office regarding the potential charges, and (4) have our client submit to polygraph examination. The day we were retained, we reached out to the Detective and obtained the DR number. The Detective refused to give us any information regarding what the allegations were but asked to speak with our client regarding them. Given the limited information the Detective was willing to provide at the time, we advised that she would not be conducting an interview with him. A few days after the call with the Detective, the alleged victim contacted our client. After receiving her information, we contacted Martha who now claimed that although she believed the sexual contact that occurred was not consensual, she did not want Ms. L to go to prison. After this call, we contacted the Detective again this time,  indicating  the  alleged  victim  had  expressed  her  desire  not  to  move  forward  with prosecution. Ultimately, the Detective closed the case without charges.

FELONY SEXUAL CONDUCT with A MINOR (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 14012) (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office DR No. 13-XXXXXX): Mr. T was accused of having sexual intercourse with his 12 year old adoptive sister, a felony Sexual Conduct with a minor (Dangerous Crime Against Children) per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1405. At the time of the allegations Mr. T was 15 years old. Allegations came to light when the victim disclosed to a school friend that her brother “put his private parts in her private parts.” The school counselor was informed and a report was immediately made to Child Protective Services. Child Protective Services then informed the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department. There was never an interview of our client, however there was a very problematic recorded conversation in which our client’s mother was crying and she claimed that our client admitted to molesting the 12-year-old victim. She said that was why our client moved out of state.

We were retained on the case and immediately advised the investigating Detective of our representation. Our Pre-Charge team began working on the case to develop a strategy to prevent prosecution. Among other things, we explored the possibility of a Psychosexual Risk Evaluation and a polygraph. Those tools are not appropriate in every case and in this case we determined that those would not be appropriate due to our clients age and mental state. Our investigation showed that the complaining alleged victim had been adopted into this family because of substantial abuse she had received from her biological family. This abuse included sexual abuse and exposure to sexual behavior. One of the tragic consequences of that exposure was the hyper-sexual behavior of this little girl. Unfortunately, the victim had been so sexualized that she continually acted out in very sexual ways. This included openly masturbating herself while in public. Our client’s parents had attempted to stop this behavior unsuccessfully. Our quick involvement and investigation in this matter produced information showing that prosecution was unlikely to be successful. Among other factors that had to be considered, was the tragic reality that this previously abused, hyper- sexualized 12-year-old, attempted to initiate sexual contact with our client who was also a juvenile. The slightly older juvenile, our client, was not involved at all.

We pointed out some of these factors in a letter provided to the investigating Detective. This letter was provided specifically to request the information be provided to the grand jury should one be impaneled. The case was “turned down” and the final report from the investigating Detective stated “the Maricopa County Attorney Juvenile Crimes Division declined filing charges in this case stating there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction because of practical and/or legal impediments. The mother retained an attorney in this case.”

FELONY CHILD MOLESTATION and FELONY SEXUAL CONDUCT with a MINOR (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 14029) (Chandler Police Department DR No. 2013-XXXXXX): Mr. D had a 14-year-old stepdaughter who had been causing issues based on behavioral indiscretions. After a specific behavioral issue, Mr. D scolded his stepdaughter. During the scolding he had indicated that she needed to clean her bedroom and clean up her act. He proceeded to discard all of her makeup and other beauty products. Additionally, he removed all clothing out of her closet that he deemed to be inappropriate. During this entire time she was upset and mouthing off to him. At this time her mother, came into the bedroom to assist Mr. D. The mom began scolding her, as well, and she continued to mouth off. After discarding the makeup and clothing and taking away her stereo, Mr. D told her that she was not going to be walking around looking like a “whore” while she is living in their house. At this point she said to Mr. D “well why don’t you talk to mom about you touching me in the middle of the night”. Mr. D told her that she was a sick young girl and needs help because he had never inappropriately touched her. After this encounter, Mr. D’s wife called her mother who picked up the step daughter up from the home.

The next day, Mr. D’s wife reported the allegation to police and told police she did not believe what her daughter was saying. Two days after the report was made, CPS showed up at Mr. D’s home and contacted the girl. The following day, CPS provided a safety plan to the mom with respect to the children and Mr. D. The following day the Detective contacted the mom and conducted an interview of her and scheduled a forensic interview for the girl. A day later police contacted Mr. D regarding Child Molestation per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1410, and Sexual Conduct with a minor per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1405, both Dangerous Crimes Against Children, and interviewed him during which time he made no admissions and denied everything being said by the girl. After this, Mr. D contacted our firm for representation.

Once our services were retained, I met with the Pre-Charge team and we decided to (1) obtain a copy of the Chandler police report, (2) submit a Trebus letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, (3) have Mr. D  participate  in  a  polygraph  examination,  (4)  submit a Trebus Bashir letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, and (5) make contact with the Detective regarding the status of the investigation and forward any positive polygraphs to him.

Seven days after we were retained, Mr. D completed and passed a polygraph examination. The Detective was notified of the results. Eight days after the passed polygraph test occurred, we submitted a detailed Trebus/Bashir letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and the Detective regarding the factual and legal issues the State would have in moving forward with this case.

Eventually, the Detective advised us that he was not moving forward with the case and the case would be “closed.” The final report received from the Detective indicated “[suspect] willingly provided a DNA sample and underwent a polygraph exam, which by all accounts was accurate and indicated his innocence. Finally, a shirt the girl said was used to wipe [suspect] semen off her stomach was tested, but no semen was found. The girl is not wavering in her stance that what she reported is the truth, but with the nonexistence of corroborative evidence, this case is to be closed as ‘suspended’.”

FELONY CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 13467) (Gilbert Police Department DR No. 2013-XXXXXXXXX): Mr. P was going through a particularly nasty divorce with his soon to be ex wife, and he was granted full custody of his 6 year old daughter under Temporary Orders. His daughter suffered from ADHD and was on the Autism spectrum. The mother had also been alienating the child from the father by talking badly about him.

Mother had contacted CPS and they had come and interviewed the child at school. Since that time, the child had been wetting her pants, touching her vagina and stating “it hurts”. After one of these incidents, the school nurse contacted CPS. The very next day, the child told her lunch teacher that her vagina hurt, and when asked why, she stated “my dad pushed inside too hard with a hammer”. Police were immediately called.

After the Police Officer received the initial information, he contacted a Detective to take over the investigation regarding potential Child Molestation a Dangerous Crime Against Children, charges per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1410, and to work with CPS. It was then learned that the prior CPS contact was regarding allegations that Mr. P and his girlfriend would walk around in front of the child naked and have her sleep in their bed naked with them. These allegations were brought forth by the mother.

The child was then interviewed at Child Help by a forensic interviewer. The child indicated that her dad had touched her crotch with a hammer inside of her panties. A physical examination was then conducted by the Doctor which did not reveal evidence of acute or healing injury. She also put in her report that “this does not preclude the possibility of sexual abuse, as most sexual abuse cases are not associated with physical abuse”. As the Detective was heading to the Police station to meet with and interview Mr. P, he called in and stated that he was going to consult an Attorney first.

The next day Mr. P retained our services. After that, our Pre Charge team met and we put together our strategy to (1) contact the Detective in order to buy some time to gather all the facts and leave the door open for a “free talk”, (2) conduct a polygraph on Mr. P, (3) gather and review his divorce records and information showing that his wife was coaching the child and, (4) obtain an Affidavit from the paternal grandmother regarding information that the child had made up the allegation.

We then called the Detective and indicated we would be in contact later with a potential interview of Mr. P. We did obtain an Affidavit from the grandmother in which she stated that the child told her “while at her mother’s house, a 5 year old friend hit her on the vagina with a hammer”, and that she had “made a mistake but nobody would listen to her”. In addition, we had Mr. P submit to a polygraph test which showed that he had not committed any crime against his daughter. We then forwarded all of this evidence to the Detective. She prepared a supplement in which she detailed the polygraph results and the Affidavit that we sent her. She finalized her report by stating “this case is being inactivated, due to the lack of evidence or independent witnesses to substantiate the allegation of molestation of a child”.

CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) NOT CHARGED– State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 8009) (Phoenix Police Department Investigated): Mr. C had gone through a divorce with his ex wife and had shared custody of his 6 year old son between North Carolina and Phoenix, Arizona. Mr. C’s ex wife had made numerous allegations against Mr. C in order to gain sole custody. She had made one allegation a year prior to us becoming involved stating that Mr. C had molested their 6 year old son.  He met with Detectives and passed the police polygraph and no charges were brought forward. When she made allegations again against Mr. C, we became involved. We presented evidence that Mr. C’s ex wife was not being truthful. We also allowed the detectives to polygraph Mr. C, in which he passed. We also gave them copies of an independent polygraph we had conducted, and the prior polygraph he had taken a year earlier (all showing that he had passed). We also asked the Detective to go more in depth with interviewing Mr. C’s son. Because it was obvious that the charges were being manufactured, the Detective did not have Mr. C arrested and charged under the Dangerous Crimes Against Children statute for molestation. If he were to have been convicted, he would have spent the rest of his life in prison.