Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 300 Sex Crime Victories

State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 14909) – Felony Custodial Interference, Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor, Felony Luring a Minor for Sexual Exploitation, and Felony Sending Obscene Internet Materials to a Minor – Reduced to Probation With 90 Days of Jail – Yuma County Superior Court (Case No. CR2017-00299): Mr. R was a school teacher at the local high school and he was 32 years of age. He befriended a 17-year-old student at the high school while he was the sponsor of the chess team. She was constantly with Mr. R, and eventually she went on a three-day vacation with him to an out-of-state location. The student eventually told her friend that there had been some fondling, digital penetration and exchange of some lewd photographs via the Internet. The girl’s friend told the other girl’s boyfriend, and teachers were notified.
Mr. R was ultimately charged with Felony Custodial Interference for taking the minor out of state. He was also charged with Felony Luring a Minor for Sex Exploitation when he requested photographs from her on the Internet. Lastly, he was charged with Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor and also charged for sending obscene Internet materials to her. If he were to be convicted of all charges and sentenced to the maximum, he could have spent well over a decade in prison. Ultimately, the case was handled by a local Yuma attorney along with our Firm, and was reduced to Probation with 90 days in Jail and Sex Offender Registration.

State v. Mr. F (DMC No. 15669) – Felony Failure to Register as Sex Offender – Reduced to Probation With Zero Days in Jail – Yavapai County Superior Court (Case No. CR2018-01528): Mr. F was convicted in Wisconsin of Sexual Assault on a child in 1993 and was placed on probation for five years with lifetime sex offender registration. As part of sex offender registration, there is a requirement that within 72 hours of moving, the individual must notify the local Sheriff’s Office and register. Mr. F had worked both in Wisconsin and Alaska for approximately 15 years, but had moved to the Valley a year before the incident in question. He registered when he got into Arizona with the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office. He would travel back and forth to Alaska for work, and he would notify the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office.
At some point, a Detective for the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office claimed that Mr. F had not properly registered within 72 hours when he left for Alaska. He was ultimately charged with felony Failure to Register as a Sex Offender per ARS 13-3821(A). We retrieved all of Mr. F’s records and we were able to show that he had, in fact, notified Wisconsin of his travel plans to Alaska. We also pulled all of his phone records in order to show that he had been trying to leave messages and speak with the Detective in Yavapai County. Initially, the Prosecutor offered a plea to 2.5 years in prison. Ultimately, Mr. F was given an “no agreements” plea which could have resulted in Probation with no jail, all the way up to 3.75 years in Prison. At sentencing we were able to show the judge that he was attempting to properly comply, and the judge gave him the lowest possible sentence under the law – Probation with No Jail.

State v. Mr. Z (DMC No. 13839) – (5 Counts) Felony Sexual Misconduct with Patient & (2 Counts) Attempted Sexual Misconduct with Patient – Reduced to Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor with Probation and Zero Days in Jail – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2015-005788).

Mr. Z. was employed by Terros as an Independent Licensed Counselor. He was treating a young lady who was a convicted felon. Her treatment was for alcoholism, addiction to pills, meth, and heroin. She also suffered from depression. Somewhere during the course of their counseling sessions, a sexual relationship developed. She eventually became married and then sought out a civil attorney and attempted to secretly tape Mr. Z in order to get admissions. She reported the conduct to the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners, and their Investigator interviewed Mr. Z.

Mr. Z. stated that he had colon cancer and could not achieve an erection. However, he did admit to developing a relationship which included oral sex and digital penetration. He was unaware that this was a violation of the law, as he thought it was only an ethical violation. He was subsequently charged with Sexual Misconduct with a Patient per ARS 13-1418(B).

We became involved in the case and we began defending the criminal allegations. We also entered into a Consent Decree with the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners which included a revocation of Mr. Z’s license. We presented Mitigation to the prosecutor regarding the fact that his patient was an adult and they had a consensual relationship. It now appeared that she was trying to make it sound as if their relationship was nonconsensual in order to file a civil lawsuit. The Prosecutor agreed that the only violations were under ARS 13-1418(B), and an offer to a Class 6 Open/Misdemeanor plea was made. At Sentencing the judge imposed Probation with Zero Days in Jail. The judge also set a hearing for a year later to determine whether there would be Sex Offender Terms and whether the case could be designated as a Misdemeanor at that time. Originally, Mr. Z. was facing more than 11 years in prison if he were to be convicted on all charges and sentenced to the maximum.

State v. Ms. S (DMC No. 14220) – Felony Maintaining a House of Prostitution (per A.R.S. 13-3208 (b)) – Not Charged – Phoenix Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXX5).

Ms. S. worked for an escort agency by the name of Phoenix Girls. Their website was set up with a V.I.P. only access. You needed a TER (The Exotic Review) handle and references from other agencies in order to reference the site. The whole agency was run out of an apartment.

Police began running an undercover surveillance operation on the apartment. They observed 6 women go in and out of the business, along with numerous men, over a short period of time. Two Detectives approached Ms. S and attempted to interrogate her about Maintaining a House of Prostitution. She invoked her rights and immediately retained us to represent her.

Once we were involved, we contacted the Detectives to let them know that Ms. S was represented and they were to have no further contact with her. In the meantime, the lease was terminated by the apartment and all residents of that apartment were evicted. Also, the website was shut down and there was no further activity for The Phoenix Girls escort service/agency. Detectives tried to get some individual males to identify Ms. S as one of the escorts, but there were issues about whether they could positively identify her in a photo lineup. Ultimately, the Maricopa Attorney’s Office “turned down” the prosecution, and Ms. S was never charged with any crimes. Her record is clean.

State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 14072) – Felony Sexual Abuse on a Minor – Not Charged –  Scottsdale Police Department Investigated.

Mr. W was friends with another family who had children. While he was in Prescott, their 13-year old daughter kept flirting with Mr. W and attempted to kiss him. He told her to stop and to go to bed. After that time, she kept continually flirting with Mr. W and sending him various text messages. This disturbed Mr. W because he was 37 years of age.

He eventually told the girl’s father about what she was doing and the girl’s father told him to “not worry about it.” Shortly, thereafter Mr. W received a call from the Scottsdale Police Department to discuss the issue. He then contacted our office and we became involved. First thing of note was that Scottsdale Police Department was investigating an allegation that supposedly took place in Prescott. That would make his case a Yavapai County case, and not a Maricopa County case, for purposes of jurisdiction. We let the Detective know that we were representing Mr. W, and that we would be following up with him in the near future.

We then had contact with the girl’s family, and she admitted that she had made everything up because she was “mad.” She wrote a letter basically stating that she lied, and this was sent to the Detective. The Detective received this letter and no charges were ever brought forward against Mr. W. If they had been brought forth, Mr. W very well could have done jail time, been forced to Register as a Sex Offender and lost his job. However, no charges were brought against Mr. W and he has no criminal record.

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. B (DMC No. 15105) – (5 Counts) Felony Child Molestation (DCAC) – Not Charged – Phoenix Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXX3).

Mr. B and his family were planning on relocating from Arizona to California. His 13-year old stepdaughter was not happy about this because she liked being in school in Arizona and had many friends. She made an allegation to a friend of hers that she was being touched inappropriately by Mr. B, and then her friend had her report it to the School Resource Officer, who was with the Phoenix Department.

She told the School Resource Officer that this had happened 5 times over the last couple of years. She said the first time was in a hotel room in Texas while she was laying in bed with her cousin while other relatives were in the room. She claimed Mr. B snuck in at night and touched her. The other 4 incidents all occurred in her bedroom in Arizona. She also went on to state that the first two times she “thought she was dreaming.” They then did a medical exam which found no trauma, and they gathered DNA swabs from her ears and her vagina.

The Police then did a Confrontation Call where they had his stepdaughter get on the phone and accuse Mr. B. of touching her. He did not know the police were on the phone and he stated “oh my God,” “get your mother and tell her, “and “why are you making all of this up.” He continued to deny all allegations. Eventually the mother was contacted and she immediately believed her daughter. However, about a week later, she called the officers and told them that she was concerned that her daughter may be making this story up and she may be lying.

Mr. B’s ex-wife who is the biological mother of his other daughter who also lived with him, was contacted by Detectives. She immediately filed to sever custody from Mr. B. We were involved in the case and we attended the Custody Hearings in order to hear all of the evidence. We utilized the statements that we gathered to present to the Detectives to show that Mr. B did not commit any crimes.

A DNA swab was then taken from Mr. B’s mouth. It was compared to the swab of his stepdaughter’s ears and vagina. No DNA was found on her vagina whatsoever. On her ears, there was YSTR DNA showing that there were two male contributors. Officially, they could not rule Mr. B in or out as one of the contributors. In addition, because it was simply on her ears, it could have been “touch-transfer” from her own hands after simply touching any of boys that she came into contact with at school. Ultimately, we were able to package up all the information and present it to the Detective. They reviewed all of the evidence involved and presented it to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. The Maricopa County Attorney never charged Mr. B with crimes related to his stepdaughter’s allegation. If he would have been charged and convicted on all 5 Counts, he would have spent the rest of his life in prison.

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 14255) – (2 Counts) Felony Kidnapping, (10 Counts) Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor (DCAC), (5 Counts) Felony Child Molestation, (2 Counts) Sex Abuse of a Minor and (10 Counts) Felony Aggravated Assault of a Minor – Not Charged – Phoenix Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXX9); Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down.”

Mr. G was the uncle and godfather of the alleged victim. He had not seen her in 3 years, when she reported multiple instances of Sexual Conduct and Abuse by Mr. G. She stated it started when she was 5 and ended when she was 7. She claimed that he would come into her room multiple times, hold his hand over her mouth and threaten to kill her or kill her whole family if she told anyone. He would then engage in sexual intercourse and other sexual activities with her.

Mr. G was told of these allegations by his family and he immediately contacted us. He denied all allegations and indicated that there were various issues going on between he and the rest of the family that had nothing to do with the alleged victim. He immediately stated he would be willing to do a Polygraph, which he passed regarding questions about touching the victim in any way in a sexual nature. We then prepared a letter and sent it over to the Detective handling the case. Even though he received all of these items, he still sent it to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for charges. We then spoke with the charging attorney in the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Charging Bureau, and the case was ultimately “Turned Down.” If Mr. G were charged and convicted of all of these crimes, it could have carried a mandatory minimum of 10 consecutive life sentences, plus numerous additional years in prison. He was never charged with anything and has a clean record.

State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 14313) – (7 Counts) Surreptitious Videotaping and (7 Counts) Felony Voyeurism – Not Charged – Scottsdale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX4).

Mr. T was married but had been going through a potential divorce situation with his wife when she discovered that he allegedly had been videotaping their sexual encounters on and off for over 4 months. She confronted Mr. T about this and allegedly recorded him making admissions to filming them without her knowledge. She also secured a thumb-drive with 7 different videos of them engaged in sexual intercourse. She then called the Scottsdale Police Department and filed an initial report. She then informed them that she did not want to move forward at that time, and she held off any further cooperation.

Approximately 4 years later after the divorce was finalized, they were going through a custody issue regarding where their son should go to school. She then reactivated her prosecution with Scottsdale PD. As the investigation began moving forward again, she called the Scottsdale Police Detective back. She stated that she and Mr. T were “having a disagreement over which school their son should attend and that she did not want it to appear to the court that she was only reporting in hopes for the decision to be in her favor.” She wanted to wait until after the Judge made his custody decision before proceeding forward with charges.

The Police then contacted Mr. T and he told them that he was “in the middle of a custody battle” and that he did not think he should talk to them. He told the Officer to contact his lawyer. We then became involved and informed the Officer that this was all being generated for custody battle purposes. We also pointed out that it was not definitive in the videos that this was not a consensual taping between this married couple. Even though Mr. T’s ex-wife claimed that she had him making admissions on tape, it wasn’t clear that it was admissions of him filming her unknowingly. Ultimately, no charges were ever brought against Mr. T.

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 13089) – (20 Counts) Felony Sexual Exploitation of a Minor/Child Pornography – Not Charged – Mesa Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX2)

Mr. S lived in Mesa when his 16-year old daughter was visiting from Wisconsin. Mr. S had previously gone through a tumultuous divorce with his ex-wife and she had been alienating his daughter against him. Although the daughter had to come out to Arizona pursuant to the custody/visitation orders, she preferred to stay in Wisconsin with her new boyfriend.

At some point during the visit, the daughter called her mother and stated that she had found 20 photos of a 10-year old girl on Mr. S’s computer. She claimed that they were provocative poses and that the girl’s pants were unzipped. The mother immediately called the police and had Mr. S investigated. The daughter flew home to Wisconsin immediately.

We became involved, and we were able to show that none of the pictures actually showed the genital region of the 10-year old girl.  In addition, we were able to show Mesa PD that his daughter had the police called on him twice by the mother while in Wisconsin. In addition, the daughter had called her father 3 to 4 months ago claiming that she was worried that the police would take her and put her in foster care because of “problems” with her mother. The daughter also had one other incident of making a false allegation when she was in grade school, where she claimed she was “touched inappropriately” in order to avoid having to be at that school. She admitted to this lie.

We explained to the Police that it appeared that the daughter merely wanted to go home early to see her boyfriend and that she was creating drama. The Police asked for our client’s computer, and we indicated they would need a Search Warrant. We also informed them that it would be nearly impossible to show probable cause without a statement that there was actual genitalia involved and photos of a sexually graphic nature, none of which the daughter had initially reported. Ultimately, no charges were brought against Mr. S. Initially he was facing potentially a minimum of 200 years in prison if he were to be convicted on all charges.

Call Now Button