Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 38B Sexual Abuse Victories

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. 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.

Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor, (3 Counts) Felony Sexual Assault & (2 Counts) Felony Sex Abuse DismissedState v. Mr. B (DMC No. 11308) (Casa Grande Justice Court/Pinal County Superior Court IA-2011-133): Mr. B had been living with his girlfriend for some time and they had been having relationship issues. Also in the household was his girlfriend’s 12 year old niece.  Both had been drinking one night and engaged a loud argument about breaking up. Thereafter, his girlfriend claimed that the 12 year old niece had stated that Mr. B had come into her bedroom and committed sexual conduct with her.  She said that this first occurred when she was 11 years old and had been going on for the past year.

Police arrived and arrested Mr. B and he was charged with Sexual Conduct with a Minor, along with 3 counts of Sexual Assault and 2 counts of Sexual Abuse.  We were quickly engaged and were able to get him released from custody at start of the case. We then immediately contacted the Detective and the Prosecutor began providing them with information about Mr. B’s ex girlfriend. In addition, we provided them with a polygraph that showed Mr. B was being truthful when he stated he never engaged in any sexual contact with the minor.  As the Detectives’ investigation went further into the case, both the Detective and the Prosecutor agreed to Dismiss the charges and not bring them back up for re-filing.  If Mr. B had been convicted of all of the charges, he would have spent the rest of his life in prison, due to the fact that these crimes were Dangerous Crimes Against Children (DCAC).

FELONY SEXUAL ABUSE NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 11566) (Scottsdale Police Department DR No. 15-04050): Allegations were made against Mr. B stating that he had Sexually Abused a young (over 18 years old) female clerk at a dry cleaner’s store by forcing his hands into her clothing and touching her on her vagina and breasts. At the time of these allegations of Sexual Abuse per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1404, Mr. B was a 50-year-old, married businessman in Scottsdale, Arizona. The complaining party was a clerk at a dry cleaners in Scottsdale frequented by Mr. B. The young woman stated that Mr. B had talked with her in times past and had told her that he worked in the modeling industry and wanted her to model for his agency. The complaining party indicated that she was interested in the opportunity and communicated with Mr. B through text messaging. She stated that Mr. B requested that she take photos of herself and send the photos to him through text messaging. She then claimed that Mr. B offered her $100 in exchange for a photo of her breasts.

The complaining party stated that Mr. B came to pick up his dry cleaning and she was alone at the shop with Mr. B when said he wanted to see her breasts in the context of evaluating her for modeling purposes. She claimed that she lifted her shirt and her bra to expose her breasts for him to see. She then claimed that he offered her $600 in exchange for sex. She claimed that she rejected that offer and that Mr. B then grabbed her hand and pulled it toward his groin.  She  then  claimed  that  he unbuttoned  her pants  and  reached  his  hand  into  her pants  and  beneath  her underwear. She claimed that he touched her vagina without any penetration occurring and that he also reached under her shirt and bra and touched her breasts. She claimed that she repeatedly told him to stop doing that.

She said that as he left, he threw a $100 bill on the counter and called her a slut. She claimed that she texted him later that evening stating “that was really wrong.” She said that he responded saying that he knew it was wrong but couldn’t help himself saying, “I’m sorry I made you feel uncomfortable, I just wanted you.” She then stated that she told a friend who worked at the shop who then immediately contacted Mr. B to come to the dry cleaning shop to pick up his clothing. There was a heated exchange between Mr. B and the friend. Mr. B then came to the dry cleaning shop to pick up his clothes where there was another heated exchange between Mr. B and the friend. Mr. B purportedly told the friend that he was a police officer and showed her a badge.

The complaining party stated that she was worried that Mr.  B would deny everything and, somewhat contradictorily, that she had deleted the text messages between the two of them. Detectives then attempted a couple of “confrontation calls” to Mr. B without success. Eventually they were able to contact Mr. B directly and conducted an interview with him. In his interview, Mr. B denied touching the complaining victim on her breasts or vagina, however he did admit to asking her how much he could get for $100. He also admitted that at one point in time, the young lady had disrobed partially for him, at his request, so that he could determine whether she was suitable for modeling. Mr. B also admitted to sending and receiving texts with the young lady in which she sent to him numerous photographs of herself in revealing clothing.

After retaining our office, our Pre-Charge team began to take immediate steps to head the case off. We immediately sent a letter of our representation to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, along with the request that should the case be presented to a grand jury, our client wished to be present and to testify. We also immediately reached out to the Scottsdale Police Department and advised

them that we represented Mr. B. Upon contacting the Detective, we advised that Mr. B was represented will not make further statements. The Detective requested that we provide copies of any photographs, emails, or text messages that were exchanged between the two. We declined to provide such information. We advised the Detective of our belief that this allegation was being driven by the young woman’s girlfriend who had seen some of the text messages and photos between the complainant and Mr. B. We also advised the Detective that Mr. B was not the initiator of the conversations, the physical contact, or the request for nude photographs. It was clear that the young woman had deleted the messages and photos to prevent her girlfriend from seeing any more of them. Shortly after our contact, the case was closed and the status was changed to an “inactive status.”

(11 COUNTS) FELONY SEXUAL ABUSE REDUCED to PROBATION with ZERO DAYS in JAIL – State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 134643) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2014-140803):

Dr. A was practicing as a Nephrologist and Kidney expert at the medical office he founded. A client was examined by him and alleged that he fondled her vagina area and pressed his erect penis against her while conducting an exam. After this was reported to Police, they arrested Dr. A and publicized the case on the local news. As a result, 8 other women came forward claiming that they had also been sexually abused by Dr. A during medical examinations. Ultimately, he was indicted with 11 Counts of Sex Abuse per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1404, involving 8 different women. The 9th women’s allegation had previously been investigated by Police (in which I represented Dr. A several years prior), and he was not charged because the Statute of Limitations had since run regarding that particular victim’s case.

We subpoenaed and interviewed many of his medical staff and we were able to show that only 1 patient had ever complained of any type of misbehavior by Dr. A. We also used a private investigator to research the backgrounds of many of the alleged victims, and we were able to show that some of them had prior mental health issues. After the case had been ongoing for over a year, we were able to secure a settlement conference in front of a settlement Judge. During that settlement conference, I argued to the Judge that Prison was inappropriate, and any plea should not contain Jail as a condition of probation. We finally settled on a plea which would require some deferred Jail, thereby allowing Dr. A to remain free during his probation. The final plea was to 2 Counts of Sexual Abuse, (1 a Class 5 Felony, and 1 a Class 6 Felony), with a stipulation to Probation and Jail to be left up to the Judge.

At sentencing, I argued to the Judge numerous mitigating factors and requested deferred Jail. After the victims spoke, the Prosecutor requested 2 full years of Jail and a request that Dr. A be taken into custody in front of the victims. Ultimately, the Judge gave Dr. A supervised Probation and deferred Jail time. Dr. A is performing admirably on Probation, and it is our expectation he will not serve even 1 day in Jail.

Mr. C had 4 children by way of his wife. He and his wife had put a camera inside of his daughters’ room for safety monitoring, and had informed their daughter of this. Mr. C and his wife also lived the “swinger” lifestyle. As they were getting ready to go through a divorce, ms. C filed a police report claiming that mr. C had sexual conduct with his daughter, had videotaped her masturbating, and had expressed an interest in having an incestuous relationship with her. The police conducted a “confrontation call”, in which they attempted to have mr. C make admissions. He did not make any admissions. However, he was arrested and charged with 2 counts of child molestation/ a dangerous crimes against children (DCAC), 2 counts of sexual abuse (DCAC) and 1 count of voyeurism pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1424. He was then taken into custody and held “non bondable” while his case progressed.

We were retained to represent him on the criminal charges and began our investigation. The daughters’ story did not match up regarding some of her facts, plus she was biased in favor or her mother due to the pending divorce. Because she knew off the existence of the camera in her room, the prosecutor was going to have a difficult time proving some of the elements of voyeurism. The major hurdle in the case was a video recording of his daughter masturbating which was found on mr. C’s personal computer. We were ultimately able to have the case reduced to probation with 6 months in jail (credit for the time he already served and no sex offender registration). Mr. C was released from custody immediately after sentencing. He originally was facing the rest of his life in prison if he would have been convicted of these charges.

SEXUAL ABUSE, ASSAULT and TRESPASSING NOT CHARGED– State v. Mr. L (DMC No. 8342) (Chandler Police Department DR 08-07-1156): Mr. L was a 67 year old maintenance man for 179 room apartment complex. He was asked by a supervisor to check the fire extinguishers in each of the rooms. He had knocked on one of the apartments, received no answer and then entered the apartment to check the fire extinguisher. A 79 year old female resident became startled and he informed her of what he was doing. She became more upset, and he placed his hand on her shoulder and told her it was okay and he left. She then made a complaint that Mr. L had fondled her buttocks while he was in the apartment. When we became involved, we were able to show the Detectives that the 79 year old woman had a history of Dementia. We also showed corroboration that he was instructed to go into these apartments to check all fire extinguishers. No charges were brought against Mr. L.

2 COUNTS SEX ABUSE NOT CHARGED– State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 8689) (ASU Police Department DR No. 08-0607, DR No. 08-0584): Mr. M was an ASU student who was accused of groping females at several of the buildings at ASU. When police questioned him, he briefly answered questions and then invoked his right to remain silent. We were able to speak with Detectives and pointed out that they had bearing flaws with the photo line ups shown to 4 different ASU students. In addition, we also presented some evidence of alibi indicating that Mr. M was not present at one of the building when this so called sex abuse took place. Ultimately, the Detectives agreed that they did not have enough evidence to move forward with charges.

 

SEX ABUSE OF A MINOR INMATE NOT CHARGED– State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 6881) (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office DR No. 06-196157): Mr. M was a Detention Officer working at the Durango Street Juvenile Jail when he was assigned to a suicide watch of a young male inmate. The inmate made allegations to the Doctors at the hospital that Mr. M had touched his buttocks several times, said that he ”loved him” and  tried to kiss him. After the Officer was put on paid leave, we became involved. We brought in Mr. M to be interview by Detectives, and we also agreed to submit to a lie detector test. We also presented them with a copy of a past polygraph test which we had independently administered. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office ultimately declined to press charges and Mr. M later went and honorably served in the United States Army.

 

CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) and SEXUAL ABUSE NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. O (DMC No. 8683) (Phoenix Police Department Investigated): Mr. O’s son was in the process of getting a divorce when Mr. O was babysitting his granddaughter. His 12 year old granddaughter later told her mother that Mr. O had touched her and another one of her friends in her vaginal area. Police questioned Mr. O and then we were retained in order to defend him. We had a polygraph administered on Mr. O, which he passed, and we interviewed the 12 year old’s Doctor. The Doctor found that there was never any indication that Mr. O had molested her, and there was some questionability as to whether she was attempting to live with her mom after the divorce. We turned over all of our evidence to Detectives and they agreed that the girl’s allegations were suspect, and it appeared that they were simply trying to live with the girl’s mother, rather than with her father and/or grandfather. If Mr. O would have been charged and convicted of molesting two separate victims under the age of 14, he would have been facing a Dangerous Crime Against Children aggravator which could have resulted in a minimum of 40 years in prison.

Call Now Button