January 10, 2014

January 10, 2014 By dmcantor 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 21 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 37A Prostitution / Solicitation Pre-Charge Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 10432)

NOT CHARGED | SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION – State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 10432) (Chandler PD Investigated): Mr. B. went to Massage Envy, and was waiting to get a massage when a masseuse came in. He made a joke about being touched in his “intimate areas” and the masseuse became offended. He was asked to leave, and he asked for a refund and told them he was just kidding. We became involved and convinced Chandler PD that it wasn’t even worthy of taking a report. In addition, we helped Mr. B. cancel his contract with Massage Envy and he received a full refund for all prepaid massages. Mr. B. was never charged, nor does he have any type of record.

January 10, 2014

January 10, 2014 By dmcantor 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 21 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 33-35 Public Sexual Indecency Victories, 35 Public Sexual Indecency Pre-Charge Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 4954)

NOT CHARGED | PUBLIC SEXUAL INDECENCY – State v. Mr. G. (DMC No. 4954 ) (Phoenix PD Investigated): Mr. G. was accused of pulling up alongside another vehicle at night with his pants down while masturbating. The alleged victim stated that he then swerved towards her and they almost collided. She got his license plate number and called police. Her passenger at the time was her grade school son. When police contacted Mr. G., he invoked his right to an attorney. A photographic lineup was held and neither of the alleged victims picked Mr. G. Due to our contact with the Detective, we would not allow them to take a current photograph of Mr. G., nor would we allow them to interrogate him any further. No charges were brought against Mr. G.

January 10, 2014

January 10, 2014 By dmcantor 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 21 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 30-32 Indecent Exposure Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 32 Indecent Exposure Pre-Charge Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 6728)

NOT CHARGED | INDECENT EXPOSURE – State v. Mr. T. (DMC No. 6728) (Glendale PD & Orange County Sherriff’s Department Investigated): Two girls called police and claimed that Mr. T. pulled up in his truck and that he wasn’t wearing any pants that he had exposed himself. One of the girls later said she did not actually see anything, but the other girl said she had. When Mr. T. was questioned, he invoked his right to counsel and was worried he was being “set up for cutting these girls off in traffic”. Upon contact with the Detectives, we declined to have Mr. T.’s photograph taken and asked that they use his DMV photo for any photo lineups. A photo lineup was conducted with the alleged victim (who was now back in Orange County), and she picked somebody other than Mr. T. At that point we were successful in stopping all charges from being filed.

January 10, 2014

January 10, 2014 By dmcantor 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 21 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38B Sexual Abuse Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 10210)

NOT CHARGED | SEX ABUSE– State v. Mr. A. (DMC No. 10210) (Mesa PD Investigated): Mr. A. was a Doctor who was conducting a standard exam, when a 50 year old patient with mental issues accused him of fondling her breasts while using a stethoscope. Because Mr. A. had been previously accused of similar conduct in another State, and had a prior civil case filed against him almost 30 years earlier, Detectives began to investigate. We became involved with Detectives and the Medical Board, and showed that we hired a Private Investigator who had performed research on the alleged victim. She had made similar allegations regarding others in the past, and had mental issues. When she was confronted with this by Detectives, she no longer wished to seek prosecution. No charges were ever brought against Mr. A. and his medical license was not affected.

January 10, 2014

January 10, 2014 By dmcantor 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 115 Assault/Violent Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 21 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 29A Sexual Assault Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 500 Assault / Violent Crime Victories, 66-68 Child/Vulnerable Adult Abuse Victories, 68 Child/Vulnerable Adult Pre-Charge Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 6764)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL ASSAULT/VULNERABLE ADULT ABUSE – State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 6764) (Glendale PD Investigated): Mr. B. had been married for over 30 years when his step-daughter moved into the same trailer park complex that he lived in. She was currently under the treatment of “Value Options” for having a mental disability. They began having a sexual relationship that was consensual, and then she became enraged when he would not loan her money. She then reported the sexual conduct to Value Options and stated that she was not only sexual assaulted since she had moved into the trailer park, but also 30 years earlier when she was only 14. Glendale Police investigated and we presented evidence of her attempted extortion. When they went back to speak with the alleged victim, she no longer wished to aid in prosecution, and no charges were ever brought. Mr. B. would have been facing decades in prison if he were charged and convicted.

January 10, 2014

State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 6772)

NOT CHARGED | SEX ASSAULT/VULNERABLE ADULT ABUSE – State v. Mr. R. (DMC No. 6772) (Phoenix PD Investigated): Mr. R. had been married for 13 years, and he had a 36 year old step-daughter who was mentally handicapped and lived in a group home. His wife accused him of having a sexual relationship with the step-daughter, and Detectives were contacted. The step-daughter would not cooperate with police, and she also had changed her story that she had originally told to her mother. We were able to invoke Mr. R.’s 5^th Amendment rights, and the Detective had to deal directly with us. The Detective determined there was “insufficient evidence”, and the case was never sent to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for charging. If convicted, Mr. R. would have faced multiple years in prison.

January 10, 2014

January 10, 2014 By dmcantor 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 21 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. 10626)

NOT CHARGED (ALL) | CHILD PORNOGRAPHY– State v. Mr. H. (DMC No. 10626) (Century Link Investigated): Mr. H. received a letter from Century Link, along with lawsuit documents that he had illegally downloaded child pornography onto his computer. He immediately got us involved, and we discovered that multiple people (including his teenage sons) had accessed his computer. The site that was downloaded allegedly contained “teen porn”. We were able to keep him from being charged with criminal charges, and had the lawsuit from Century Link dismissed for a small settlement, (due to the fact that “someone” in his household had downloaded the videos). Mr. H. had originally been facing multiple decades in prison if he were to have been charged and convicted.

January 10, 2014

State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 6477)

NOT CHARGED | CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. T. (DMC No. 6477) (Gilbert PD Investigated): Mr. T. took in a roll of film to a Walgreens to have it processed for photographs. On the roll, were 2 pictures discovered of his daughter exposing herself and touching herself (she was 5 years old). When Detectives got involved, they executed a search warrant and took all of Mr. T.’s computers. We sat down with Mr. T. and the Detectives, and allowed them to interview Mr. T. In addition, we showed Detectives that the person taking these photos was about the same height as the 5 year old, and it was during the 5 year olds birthday party in which many children were present that day. In other words, another 5 year old child probably took the pictures. Mr. T. was eventually cleared, and no charges were ever brought.

January 10, 2014

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 6749)

NOT CHARGED | 4 COUNTS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. G. (DMC No. 6749) (Phoenix PD Investigated): Mr. G. is a gay male who ordered four adult pornography 8 millimeter tapes from EBay. When he received them, he took them to a local video store to be converted. While being converted, the employee of the store noticed images of child pornography and called police. When Mr. G. was contacted, we became involved and brought him into the station to sit down with police in order to be questioned. We also presented covers of the four boxes, which showed adult males (not children). Mr. G. had never viewed the tapes, nor did he have any way to view them, prior to taking them into the video store. After meeting with Detectives, they still routed the file for charges with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. We were able to convince the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office that there was “no intent” and they decided to not bring charges. Mr. G. was originally facing a minimum of 40 years in prison.

January 10, 2014

January 10, 2014 By dmcantor 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 21 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. 10434)

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR – State v. Mr. W. (DMC No. 10434) (Chandler Police Department Investigated): Mr. W. was married at the time he began having a relationship with a woman who held herself out to be 18 years of age. In reality, she was only 17. When the girl’s mother, along with Mr. W.’s wife found out about the relationship, they reported him to police. We were able to show that Mr. W. truly believed that the alleged victim was 18 years old. By statute, there was a defense to the charge if a person is 15, 16, or 17 years of age, had sex and held themselves out to be 18 years or older. Mr. W. was originally facing up to 2 years in prison per sexual conduct incident if he would have been charged and convicted.

1 2 3 4 Next page

Our Location

Free Consultation

State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 10432)

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 4954)

State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 6728)

State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 10210)

State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 6764)

State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 6772)

State v. Mr. H (DMC No. 10626)

State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 6477)

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 6749)

State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 10434)