Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 300 Sex Crime Victories

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.

State v. Mr. N (DMC 14216) – Felony Sexual Assault and Felony Surreptitious Recording – Not Charged – Pima County Sheriff’s Office Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX4); Tohono O’odham Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX4); Pima County Attorney’s Office Turned Down Prosecution.

Mr. N had known a lady for quite some time and he invited her over to his house because he was moving to Phoenix the next day. He had a large group of friends at his house, and everyone was drinking. This woman got to his house at approximately 2 AM and was doing shots of tequila with Mr. N. Eventually, they went upstairs and appeared to have engaged in consensual sex.

The next day, people were contacting the young lady stating that she had sent them various photos of her naked and engaged in sexual activity. In one of the photos, it appeared she was asleep. One of them was sent to her ex-husband, and another one was sent to a man that she had begun dating online a couple weeks prior. She denied to the police that she had ever sent any photos like this to anybody before, and she felt she had been sexually assaulted.

We became involved in the case, and we requested that the police interview the other gentleman that she had met online and sent photos to. He told them that she had, in fact, sent him pictures in the past of her engaged in various sexual activities. Because Mr. N was an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Officer, the case was reviewed by several investigating agencies. Ultimately, it was sent to the Pinal County Attorney’s Office, who declined to proceed with prosecution. Initially, Mr. N could have faced well over a decade in prison if convicted of these charges. However, he was never charged, and he was allowed to keep his career as a law enforcement Officer.

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.

State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 14774) – Felony Sexual Assault and Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor – Not Charged – Pinal County Sheriff’s Office Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX3); Pinal County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down.”

Mr. W was a 20-year old student who was at a party with friends. The alleged victim was a 16-year old girl who had sex with her boyfriend earlier in the day. She went to the party without her boyfriend because they were breaking up due to the fact he was moving out of state. She was drinking and then began kissing Mr. W on an off at the party. She agreed to go into another room with him alone, and they began kissing. Mr. W eventually gets out a condom and the two engage in consensual sex.

The alleged victim woke up a couple of hours later, and then called her boyfriend and claimed that she was held down and forcibly raped, all without a condom. When the Police arrived, she neglected to tell them about having sex with her boyfriend earlier in the day. Ultimately, DNA was collected and it only showed the DNA of her boyfriend, and not of Mr. W. Mr. W was taken into custody and questioned. While Mr. W was being questioned, he asked for an attorney, yet the Detectives persisted in violation of Mr. W’s Miranda rights. Ultimately, Mr. W told the police that the alleged victim said she was 18-years old, and that they had consensual sex and he wore a condom.

The case was ultimately routed to the Pinal County Attorney’s Office for review of charging. We became involved when we put together a Trebus/Bashir Letter which included a passed Polygraph Examination by Mr. W, plus a detail of everything that happened at the party. After speaking with the Deputy County Attorney on numerous occasions, he eventually “turned down” the case for prosecution. In addition, he was also willing to write a letter to the military on Mr. W’s behalf showing that the charges had been turned down, that way Mr. W could get into the Air Force and serve his country. Originally, Mr. W was facing a couple decades in prison. The case ended with absolutely no charges on his record.

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 14556) – Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor  (DCAC) and (3 Counts) Felony Child Molestation (DCAC) – Reduced to 2 Counts of Child Abuse with Probation and Zero Days Additional Jail – Pinal County Superior Court (Case No. CR2015-02132).

This case began with a 13-year old telling a counselor that she was touched by her uncle from age 8 to 11. She said that he touched her “near my vagina.” A witness had stated that he heard her say, “I was 3 and he was 10.” During the interview with the Detective she stated, “I was 5 and he was 14.” When Mr. G was interviewed by Detectives, he admitted he had touched her 40 to 50 times over a four-year span which ended when he was 16 or 17-years old. He was ultimately arrested and charged with Sexual Conduct with a Minor (DCAC) and 3 Counts of Child Molestation (DCAC).

We became involved in the case and we had a Psychosexual Risk Evaluation conducted by Dr. Toma which included a polygraph. It showed that Mr. G was a low risk to offend and that Mr. G had been a victim himself in the past. This occurred when he was 5 or 6 years old. We presented the Risk Assessment along with information that Mr. G was a low likelihood to reoffend. He also had an I.Q. of only 71. Ultimately, the Prosecutor agreed to extend an offer to 2 Counts of Child Abuse with Probation and no additional jail time. Originally, Mr. G was facing potentially the rest of his life in prison (due to the fact that the victim was under 12 years of age), and it was not clear whether Mr. G was over 18 when these events occurred.

Call Now Button