Our Location

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

Free Consultation

(602) 307-0808
Call Now, Open 24/7
January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 9381)

NOT CHARGED | CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. S. (DMC No. 9381) (Phoenix Police Department/CPS Investigated): Mr. S. was a 17 year old who was accused of having sexual contact with his then 13 year old sister. Approximately a year and a half after the alleged incident, the sister began having counseling for depression. She told the counselor about the alleged sexual incidents and the Phoenix Police Department and CPS were immediately contacted. An investigation for Child Molestation as a Dangerous Crimes Against Children (DCAC) under Arizona Revised Statute 13-1410 was then started.

We became involved and we had Mr. S. take a Psychosexual Risk Evaluation, and enter counseling. We also invoked his rights to remain silent, and no statements were provided by Mr. S. Because there was no physical evidence, along with a lack of confession and the fact that Mr. S. was seeking treatment no charges were brought against him. This was the family and the alleged victim’s wishes.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. Z (DMC No. 9652)

NOT CHARGED | CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) – State v. Mr. Z. (DMC No. 9652) (Pinal County Sherriff’s Office Investigated): Mr. Z. had been married and had two young children who he is raising as a widower. Both children were under the age of 12, and his deceased wife’s parents were trying to gain legal custody of the two children. They began making accusations that Mr. Z. (a Doctor who was an African National) had been molesting the children. Mr. Z. took and passed a polygraph (under our direction), and this was forwarded to the Pinal County Sheriff’s Officer who was in charge.

She still forwarded her report to the Pinal County Attorney’s Office, and we met with them and provided evidence which prevented charges from being filed for Child Molestation as a Dangerous Crime Against Children (DCAC) under ARS 13-1410. If Mr. Z. would have been charged he would have been incarcerated without bond and would have immediately been suspended from practicing medicine. In addition, if he were convicted he would have spent a minimum of 10 years in prison per allegation (i.e. 20 years plus) and his life would have been ruined.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 9680)

NOT CHARGED | CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) | State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 9680) (Surprise Police Department and CPS Investigated): Mr. B. had gone through a very nasty divorce with his wife, and he had primary custody of their 5 year old daughter. Mr. S. had filed a Petition for Review regarding child support, arrearages and also wanted to modify sole custody. The wife then retaliated by claiming that Mr. B. was molesting the daughter. We had Mr. B. take a polygraph test in which passed with flying colors, and then we then contacted the Surprise Police Department Detective to inform her that these allegations appeared manufactured. As to the CPS investigator, that proved to be a little more difficult. The children were interviewed separately and Mr. B. was also interviewed without the presence of an Attorney (at their request). Due to the fact that these were false allegations, he spoke with CPS and then we followed up with our information thereby stopping all charges from being filed. Mr. B. was also allowed to keep his children. Because his ex wife wanted him charged for Child Molestation, a Dangerous Crimes Against Children (DCAC) per Arizona Revised Statute 13-1410, he could have been facing a minimum of 10 years in prison if he was charged and convicted.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 9684)

NOT CHARGED | 6 COUNTS of SEXUAL CONDUCT with a MINOR – State v. Mr. W. (DMC No. 9684) (Phoenix Police Department Investigated): Mr. W. was a 21 year old man who was dating his 17 year old girlfriend for several months. After he broke up with his girlfriend, she became upset and went to her mother and told her that the two of them had been sleeping together. She then called the Police in order to have Mr. W. charged with 6 counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor, under ARS 13-1405. Because there was no physical evidence and we invoked Mr. W.’s rights to remain to silent to the Police, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office declined to file charges against Mr. W. If he would have been charged and convicted it is possible that he would have to have done prison time and his future employment chances would have been greatly diminished.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 24-25A Child Pornography Victories, 25A Child Pornography Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 9706)

NOT CHARGED | 2 COUNTS of SEXUAL CONDUCT with a MINOR and 1 COUNT SEXUAL EXPLOITATION of a MINOR/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY | State v. Mr. A. (DMC No. 9706) (Buckeye Police Department Investigated): Mr. A. was a 20 year old male who was accused of having sex with a 15 year old high school student. The girl’s mom had found naked photos of her on her cell phone, and the girl stated that she had sent them to Mr. A. She also told her mom that she had sex with him on two different occasions. When Mr. A. was contacted by the Police, he invoked his right to remain silent and involved our office. Detectives originally wanted to charge Mr. A. with Sexual Conduct with a Minor per ARS 13-1405 and Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (Child Pornography) per ARS 13-3553. Due to the fact that we severely limited the State’s ability to gather evidence, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office declined to press charges.

 

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 23A Child Molestation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Pre-Charge Victories, 30-32 Indecent Exposure Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 31 Indecent Exposure Reduced, 32 Indecent Exposure Pre-Charge Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 9573)

NOT CHARGED/REDUCED | SEXUAL CONDUCT with a MINOR (DCAC) NOT CHARGED/2 COUNTS FELONY INDECENT EXPOSURE REDUCED to MISDEMEANOR INDECENT EXPOSURE with PROBATION and ZERO DAYS in JAIL – State v. Mr. S. (DMC No. 9573) (Pinal County Attorney’s Office CR2009-01500): Mr. S. was a widower who worked at Home Depot with a friend whose daughter and grandkids needed a place to stay. He brought them in and let them stay for free and helped out with her children out of the kindness of his heart. The mother was a drug abuser who began to steal from Mr. S. When she was confronted, she then had her two children (ages 7 and 8) make various allegations against Mr. S. We became involved with Detectives and provided them with a copy of a polygraph in which Mr. S. passed with flying colors. Because of this, no charges were brought against Mr. S. for Sexual Misconduct with a Minor, Dangerous Crimes Against Children (DCAC) per Arizona Revised Statue 13-1405. However, charges were brought against him for Indecent Exposure under ARS 13-1402 to the two children because he had admitted to Detectives that while changing the kids would come into his room and had seen him naked.

During the pendency of Mr. S.’s case, we presented evidence that this was incidental and not done on purpose or for a sexual purpose. However, Mr. S. had admitted to Detectives that he could have been more careful, and he could have covered up quicker than he had. Therefore, we secured an offer to a simple Misdemeanor with Probation, no jail and Mr. S. did not have to register as a Sex Offender. The original allegations exposed Mr. S. to potentially the rest of his life in prison.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 29A Sexual Assault Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 8047)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL ASSAULT– State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 8047) (Mesa Police Department Investigated): Mr. B. had done some remodeling work for a woman approximately 6 years earlier. The woman had recently gone through counseling and had “suppressed memories” of Mr. B. sexually assaulting her with another man. The Detectives questioned Mr. B. and he denied every having any type of sexual relationship with the woman. We had him submit to a private polygraph examination, which showed that he was being truthful and had never been sexually involved with the woman. We were able to present the evidence to the Mesa Police Department, and they agreed to not file Sexual Assault charges per ARS 13-1406 against Mr. B. If he were charged and convicted, mandatory prison would have been involved.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 29A Sexual Assault Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 8248)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL ASSAULT – State v. Mr. R. (DMC No. 8248) (Scottsdale Police Department Investigated): Mr. R. had been a former police officer for 8 years who now worked as a manager at a local fitness club. While working there, one of the female clients asked him out on a date. Several nights later they went to dinner at a nice restaurant and then went to a nightclub for dancing and drinks. They engaged in consensual sexual activity, and the next day the woman called and accused him of having “slipped a drug” into her drink so that she would have sex with him. He vehemently denied the allegation. We became involved and pressed the Scottsdale Police Department Detectives for any information as to whether there was actually any drugs in this woman’s system. In addition, we requested that she give a polygraph test and we wanted to know if there was any blood alcohol content results for any chemical analysis conducted. The Scottsdale Police Department ultimately declined to file any charges for Sexual Assault per ARS 13-1406. If Mr. R. had been charged, he would not have been eligible for any type of bond until the case resolved. This means Mr. R. would had to have sat in custody during the pendency of the case. If he were to have been convicted, he would have spent at least 10 years in prison.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 29A Sexual Assault Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 9701)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL ASSAULT – State v. Mr. G. (DMC No. 9701) (Pinal County Sherriff’s Office Investigated): Mr. G. and his wife had recently had a baby (4 months prior). He found various texts from his wife which were of a sexual nature to her best friend’s husband. He later discovered she was having an affair, and he filed for divorce. They then got into an argument over her taking the baby to her mother’s house and police were called to the scene. She then told the police that 2 days prior Mr. G. had forced her to have sex with him. She then declined to assist in the investigation. After another 6 days went by, she then showed up to the police station and indicated she would like to “cooperate” in bringing charges. Although a Sexual Assault Nurse Examination (SANE) kit was conducted, it was of little value 7 days after the incident. We were able to give Mr. G. a polygraph (which he passed). We also retrieved results of a paternity test which showed that the baby was not his. Based on all of the information, the Pinal County Attorney’s Office declined to bring charges for Sexual Assault under ARS 13-1406 on these allegations. Mr. G. was originally facing over 10 years in prison should he have been convicted of these charges.

January 26, 2015
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 24-25A Child Pornography Victories, 25A Child Pornography Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. H (DMC No. 8011)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL EXPLOITATION of a MINOR/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (DCAC) – State v. Mr. H. (DMC No. 8011) (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Investigated): Mr. H. was a 26 year old who was going through the application process for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in order to become a Deputy. They administered a polygraph test in which they asked the standard question at whether he had ever looked at any child pornography “inadvertently”. He answered “yes” and explained that it happened while searching for a legitimate adult porn. Based on that statement, a search warrant was obtained and his computers were seized. They indicated that they were going to charge him with Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (Child Pornography) a Dangerous Crimes Against Children (DCAC) pursuant to ARS Section 13-3553. This means that he would be facing a minimum of 10 years in prison for each image found on the computer.

We became involved and had Mr. H. take an independent polygraph examination. In our test Mr. H. was asked if he ever intentionally viewed child pornography and he answered “no” truthfully. We also demonstrated to the Sheriff’s Office that there were multiple people who had access to his computer and then it was not password protected. Therefore, if there were evidence of any specific searches for child pornography, they would not be able to conclusively state that Mr. H. had conducted them. No charges were brought against Mr. H.

1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 39
Call Now Button