Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 29 Sexual Assault Reduced

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.

Mr. S was a high school student who got involved with two older high school students who sold drugs and had violent dispositions. Mr. S. had received a call from one of the Co-Defendants stating that he had been ripped off by two other kids in a drug deal and wanted Mr. S to go with them in order to “have their back.” At some point prior, Mr. S. provided them with some bullets for a gun he thought they would be shooting in the desert (completely unrelated to the drug robbery). Mr. S. was instructed to convince the two victims to go into the desert to “smoke some weed.”

When all 3 arrived at a predetermined location, the two Co-Defendants jumped out of the bushes and held the two victims at gunpoint and knifepoint. One of the victims was instructed to “suck his dick,” referring to the other victim. Both of them were males. The victims were pleading with the Co-Defendants not to shoot them and not make them participate in that activity, which they were still forced to do.

Mr. S. only stood-by as a lookout, and was not aware that any of that activity was going to be taking place. The two Co-Defendants had a gun and knife, and Mr. S. did not have any weapon on him. The victims were told to urinate on all of their clothing and throw it around the general area. The Defendants then left, and the victims contacted the police. Mr. S. was the only Defendant to cooperate with the authorities. He showed him where the gun was stored and the location of where other items were deposited. This was done with our help. Ultimately, we secured an offer that included no agreements as to sentencing.

One of the Co-Defendants was sentenced to 9 years in prison, and the other was sentenced to 5 years in prison. We presented extensive mitigation to the Court, and we were also able to secure a request for leniency from one of the victims’ mothers. Although the Judge was initially inclined to sentence Mr. S. to prison, or at least 1 year in jail, we were able to convince the Judge to defer all jail time. Mr. S. successfully completed probation, did not do any time in jail, and is currently enrolled in college. Originally, he was facing a potential of life in prison.

FELONY FIRST DEGREE MURDER and FELONY SEXUAL ASSAULT REDUCED to 13 YEARS in PRISON – State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 12994) (Maricopa City Court CR2013-002605): This “cold case” involved a Rape / Murder per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1105 and ARS 13-1406, which occurred on January 20, 1980. In 1988, Mr. B plead to 2 Counts of Sexual Assault which occurred in Chandler, AZ in the mid 1980’s. In both of those cases, he tied up the victims with shoe laces prior to raping them. He had been sentenced to Prison and was not scheduled to be released until the summer of 2015. When the 1980 murder had first occurred, Mr. B was a suspect and he was questioned by Police (even though he was only 14 years old). After his 1988 convictions, the Police revisited Mr. B because the 1980 Rape/Murder had the same modus operandi as the 1988 cases.

They eventually tested his DNA in 2005 while he was in Prison. However, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office held off indicting Mr. B until June of 2013. We were then contacted and hired by Mr. B’s family.

Immediately after being retained, a three person defense team from our firm was assembled to defend this particular case. Board Certified Criminal Law Specialists David Cantor, Joey Hamby and an Associate Attorney met to discuss strategy. The 3 major defenses we focused on were pre-indictment delay due to the fact the DNA matched a single pubic hair taken from the victim’s vagina in 1980, which was not tested until 2005, and matched thirteen loci on our client. Our goal was to look for “actual prejudice” due to the delay between 2005 and 2013. Our second defense had to do with chain of custody because that single hair was tested in Mesa, then Los Angeles, then the FBI, then retested a fourth time by Mesa in 2005. The possibility of contamination was high. The third defense we looked for was whether there was an actual root on the hair. According to our DNA expert, you cannot do an analysis on a dead hair that does not have a root. Our theory was that when they executed a search warrant on our client in 2005 and plucked one of his pubic hair, that they then claimed that was the actual hair from the crime scene.

As the case developed, we also found evidence of a potential serial rapist/serial killer who had been in Mesa in 1980. We used private investigators to attempt to track him down, along with one of his surviving victims. This individual had a habit of keeping photographs of his victims. One of the surviving victims was actually interviewed by Police early into the investigation and had indicated that she thought she saw a photograph of the 1980 victim in this other person’s house.

Ultimately, the case was set to a settlement conference and a plea was received which resulted in 13 additional years of Jail from the time of the sentencing. Mr. B was in his late 40’s at the time of the sentencing and is now going to be a free man at approximately 60 years of age.

REDUCED | 2 COUNTS SEXUAL ASSAULT/2 COUNTS AGGRAVATED ASSAULT (with gun) REDUCED to ATTEMPT with PROBATION and ZERO DAYS in JAIL – State v. Mr. G. (DMC No. 5516) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2005-007472): Mr. G. had found out that his soon to be ex-wife had been cheating on him.  He also found out that she had been lying for years about the true paternity of their child (it was not his).  He was accused of threatening her with a gun, and then sexually assaulting her on two different occasions.  Through our investigation, we found out that Ms. G. had witnesses mislead the police about Mr. G. pointing a gun at her.  In addition, it appeared that their sexual relations were consensual.  We convinced the Prosecutor to reduce the case down to 1 count of “attempted aggravated assault” with probation and zero days in jail.  Originally, Mr. G. was facing a potential of over 4 decades in prison.



REDUCED | 3 COUNTS of SEXUAL ASSAULT; 3 COUNTS of KIDNAPPING; 7 COUNTS of SEXUAL ABUSE; 2 COUNTS of ATTEMPTED SEX ABUSE and 1 COUNT of ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING REDUCED to PROBATION with ZERO DAYS in JAIL – State v. Mr. R. (DMC No. 8086) (Coconino County Superior Court CR2007-0480): Mr. R. was a high level fire fighter in Flagstaff, Arizona who was accused of sexually assaulting his sister in law. His sister in law had been going through psychological counseling and had a “breakthrough” regarding “finding the strength to come forward”. She reported to Detectives that she had been groped, held and sexually assaulted multiple times since 1986 by her brother in law (a period spanning some 20 plus years). When Mr. R. was questioned by Detectives he admitted that he had a relationship of a sexual nature with her for some time, but stated it was fleeting in nature.

He was subsequently charged with 3 Counts of Sexual Assault (ARS 13-1406), 3 Counts of Kidnapping (ARS 13-1304), 7 Counts of Sexual Abuse (ARS 13-1404), 2 Counts of Attempted Sexual Abuse (ARS 13-1001 and 13-1404), and 1 Count of Attempted Kidnapping (ARS 13-1001 and 13-1304). Through extensive interviews with various family and community members, we were able to show that this had appeared to be a somewhat flirtatious and consensual relationship. However, due to the alleged “victims” statements, Mr. R. agreed to accept a plea that involved Probation and zero days in jail. If he were to have gone to trial and lost he could have easily spent his life in prison. Because he did admit that his advances may have been unwanted he agreed to accept the plea.

REDUCED | 2 COUNTS SEX ASSAULT/KIDNAPPING REDUCED to ATTEMPT with 3.75 YEARS in PRISON – State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 9995) (Maricopa County Superior Court 2010-139697): Mr. B. was drinking at a party when he went into another room with a young lady.  There was a second young lady who was passed out on the bed next to them.  He was accused of digitally penetrating the first girl with his finger, before she left the room.  It was then alleged that he went over and had sex with the other girl who was unconscious on the bed.  Because he was accused of not originally letting the first girl leave immediately, he was also charged with Kidnapping along with Sex Assault regarding both women.  He was originally facing 20 to 48 years in prison (day for day), and we were able to present mitigation regarding Mr. B.’s addiction to alcohol.  We eventually secured a sentence to 3.75 years “soft” in prison, in which Mr. B. was released after 2 years and 11 months.

REDUCED | SEXUAL ASSAULT REDUCED to ATTEMPT with PROBATION and 1 YEAR JAIL – State v. Mr. D. (DMC No. 5627) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2005-008833): Mr. D. was accused at being at a party in Tempe, when he drank heavily with a girl he had been friends with.  The girl had stated that she had passed out, and when she woke up, they were engaged in sexual intercourse.  Detectives conducted a “confrontation call” in which Mr. D. was confronted by the alleged victim, and he made numerous admissions.  He was subsequently charged with sexual assault and held as “non bondable” in jail.  We were able to present evidence to the Prosecutor regarding a “consent defense”, and we were able to secure an “attempt” offer which included a range of probation with 1 year in jail, up to 8.75 years in prison.  At sentencing, we presented mitigation, and the Judge granted probation with 1 year in jail (which included the 6 months credit for time he had served during dependency of the case).  He was released 6 months later.

REDUCED | SEXUAL ASSAuLT REDUCED to “attempt” with probation and 1 year jail – State v. Mr. H. (DMC No. 4572) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2004-037896): Mr. H. was accused of sneaking into his step-daughters room at night and touching her vagina.  His step-daughter was 18 at the time, and she reported the incident to the police and her mother the very next day.  A “confrontation call” was done where she contacted him by phone, and that call was recorded by police.  He made admissions at that time, as well as after he was arrested and questioned by police.  We were able to present substantial mitigating evidence in order to secure an offer to probation along with 1 year of jail, in which he was released during the day to go to work.  He was originally facing up to 12.5 years in prison.

REDUCED (All) | 7 COUNTS OF SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR (DCAC)/3 COUNTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT/3 COUNTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE ALL REDUCED to “attempted sexual conduct/child abuse” with probation and zero days in jail – State v. Mr. A. (DMC No. 10474) (Apache County Superior Court CR2011-076): Mr. A. was accused of having sex with two different girls that were 14 years old when he was 17 years old. Even though Mr. A. was a minor, the fact that this case was a dangerous crimes against children (DCAC) because the victims were 14 or younger, caused him to be charged as an adult.  He was facing a minimum of 65 years in prison on the sexual conduct with minor charges alone.  We were able to present mitigating evidence, which included a Psychosexual Evaluation showing Mr. R. not to be a risk, and we secured an offer to probation with no further jail.  Although he had been in jail pending the disposition of the case, we were able to resolve the case in a fairly timely manner and he is currently doing very well on probation as a free man.

REDUCED | Sexual Assault and Sexual Conduct with a Minor, State v. Mr. Y. (DMC No. 9806) (Maricopa County Superior Court No.: CR2010-139405): Mr. Y. was a 25 year old living in an apartment who was partying with some people, including a 16 year old girl. During the course of the night, the girl and Mr. Y were drinking and ended up having sex. Although he knew she was under 18, he was under the belief that she was going to have her birthday within a couple of weeks. After Mr. Y had left the apartment, the girl spoke with her friends and then claimed that she “must have been sexually assaulted”, although she did not remember anything. After the police were called, Mr. Y was arrested. We were able to show that the sexual assault claim lacked any merit (although it carried a potential of over a decade in prison), but Mr. Y did knowingly engage in sex with a girl under 18. The original offers from the Prosecutor’s involved designated felonies and convictions with prison time. We were able to convince the Prosecutor to offer an Undesignated Felony to a Child Abuse Charge with 6 months of jail time and Work Furlough. Upon completion of Mr. Y’s probation, the charge will be reduced to a Misdemeanor.

Call Now Button