Hi, How Can We Help You?

Blog

September 8, 2020

State v. Ms. N (DMC No. 16283) – Felony Embezzlement ($240,000 Misappropriated from Landscape Company), Felony Fraudulent Schemes & Felony Theft – Not Charged – Glendale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX–XXXXX3) & Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Declined Charges”.

 

Ms. N had been employed by a local company for over 24 years when she was terminated and accused of using her position as the Chief Financial Officer to Embezzle money from the company. Ms. N retained us after having been interviewed by the company regarding the accusations and by local law enforcement with the Glendale Police Department.

 

Immediately after being retained, the Pre-Charge, met and took action. We immediately sent a Trebus letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office notifying them of our representation. We also ordered a copy of the Police report through a Public Records Request. After having a detailed meeting with the client regarding the accusations, we prepared and sent a scanned and notarized Invocation of Constitutional Rights to the Detective assigned to the matter. We reached out to the Detective to speak about the charges. During this call we learned from the Detective that the company was most interested in getting their money back.

 

After the call with the Detective, we reached out to the business (the alleged victim), and spoke with them as to whether a Civil Resolution could be ascertained. After being put in contact with the company’s Attorney, negotiation began immediately regarding whether a civil resolution was possible. During the discussion with the company’s counsel, it was discovered the alleged loss amount was approximately $240,000. After multiple months of negotiation with counsel for the company, we learned that the case had been submitted by the Detective to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for review. Upon learning this, we immediately reached out to the assigned Attorney and advised of our continued and ongoing negotiation with the company to try to clear up this misunderstanding.

 

After a tremendous amount of time in negotiation with the company, we ultimately settled for a return of a small percentage of the money alleged to be lost. As a result of the Civil Settlement, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “declined to file charges” against Ms. N. Ultimately, had Ms. N been charged with theft of over $100,000, pursuant to ARS 13-1802(H) Ms. N would have faced a mandatory Sentence in the Department of Corrections of anywhere between 3 and 12 1/2 years.

September 8, 2020

State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 16284) – Felony Sexual Abuse & Felony Kidnapping – Not Charged – Scottsdale Police Department investigated (DR No. 20XX–XXXX9).

 

At the time his allegations were made, Mr. C was a 27-year-old manager for a local bank. Mr. C had been accused of Sexually Abusing an employee at the bank and holding her against her will while at his house. These allegations came after Mr. C and this employee had gone to dinner together one evening after work. After dinner they went to his apartment to hang out and the employee confessed her frustration with the bank as she was being passed over for promotions. While there, the two were flirtatious with each other, and were play wrestling in the living room and the bedroom. At the end of the evening, Mr. C had walked his co-worker to her car. Unbeknownst to him, this employee then made allegations that he Sexually Abused her by grabbing her breasts and vagina, and held her in his apartment against her will. Mr. C found out about these allegations when Police arrested him at his place of business.

 

Upon being retained, our Pre-Charge Team met and immediately took action. First, we sent a Trebus Letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office advising them that if the case was presented to a Grand Jury, Mr. C would like to be present and testify if the Grand Jury wished to hear from him. We also emailed the assigned Detective a signed and notarized copy of Mr. C’s Invocation of Constitutional Rights, and reached out to the Detective to discuss the allegations. We moved very quickly and got Mr. C in for a Polygraph examination immediately. Mr. C’s Polygraph showed that no deception was indicated and he denied ever holding his employee against her will, ever intentionally touching her breasts, or ever intentionally touching her vagina. We prepared a detailed Trebus/Bashir Letter and submitted it to the Detective for review in his determination of whether he would submit charges to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. This letter delineated Mr. C’s denial of the accusations, his passed Polygraph examination, and an explanation of what had occurred while at his home.

 

The investigating Detective completed his investigation and ultimately submitted the case along with our Trebus/Bashir Letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to make a determination of charging. After reviewing the detailed information in the Trebus/Bashir Letter and other factors surrounding the case, the County Attorney’s Office declined to file felony charges and routed the case to the City Prosecutor for review. The City Prosecutor’s Office never filed charges against Mr. C.

 

September 8, 2020

State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 16282) – Felony Sexual Assault – Not Charged – Gila County Sheriff’s office investigated (DR No.20XX–XXXXXX5) & Gila County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down Charges”.

 

Mr. R was a 64-year-old male at the time allegations were made against him. Mr. R had been accused of sexually assaulting a friend while at his home when his wife was also present. Mr. R and his wife had been spending the day with a common friend. They began drinking fairly early in the day and ultimately went out on the town for dinner and drinks. Upon returning to the home, Mr. R’s wife chose to go to bed and Mr. R and the friend continued talking about the friend’s new boyfriend. The friend had complained that her back was hurting her and that her boyfriend never touched her, asking Mr. R for a back rub. Mr. R began rubbing her back, at which time he asked if she wanted to move to a formal massage table. The friend agreed and Mr. R pulled the massage table out of the back room and placed it in the living room, just outside of the bedroom door where his wife was. Mr. R conducted the massage while seated and rubbed her shoulders back and legs for a period of about 15 minutes.

 

After completing the massage, he asked his friend if she enjoyed it, to which she responded “yeah”. Mr. R then proceeded to go outside into the hot tub and the friend remained in the home. Mr. R had assumed that the friend had fallen asleep, however, when he went back inside, he found the friend was gone, the front door open, and the friend’s vehicle was nowhere to be seen. Mr. R began texting her as he was concerned about his friend receiving a DUI. Mr. R then went into the bedroom to join his wife. The following day, Mr. R learned through his wife that the friend was accusing him of Sexually Assaulting her during the massage. A Detective then reached out to Mr. R, regarding the allegations being made by their friend.

 

Upon being retained, our Pre-Charge Team met and immediately began taking action. We first reached out to the Detective to find out what the specific allegations against Mr. R were. We also emailed the Detective a notarized Invocation of Constitutional Rights that had been signed by Mr. R. We met with both Mr. R and his wife separately regarding everything that transpired that evening. In the interview with his wife, it was discovered that although she had left the living room to go to bed, she was awake until just prior to her husband joining her in the bedroom. She indicated she heard the interaction between Mr. R and their friend, including the friend’s response to enjoying the massage. Also, during this interview, we found out that there had been text communication between Mr. R’s wife and the friend the day after the alleged Sexual Assault. Despite Mr. R’s denial of any nonconsensual sexual contact with the friend, a few of the text messages from the wife posed problematic for Mr. R.

 

After speaking with the Detective further regarding the allegations, it was discovered the allegation from the friend was that during the massage, Mr. R got on top of her and put either his penis or his hand inside of her vagina. In a detailed Trebus/Bashir Letter sent to the Detective, Mr. R denied ever touching her vaginal area, pointing out that no DNA was present in her vagina. Additionally, this letter pointed out that Mr. R was 345 pounds and his weight alone would make the alleged victim’s story unbelievable. This letter also listed Mr. R’s denial of the allegations, along with a detailed account of what occurred that night. It also listed specific rebuttal to information presented in the Police report which we obtained through a Public Records Request.

 

This detailed letter was also sent to the Prosecutor’s office after learning that the Detective had submitted the case to the Gila County Attorney’s Office for review. After receiving and reviewing the Trebus/Bashir letter, the Gila County Attorney’s Office “declined to file charges” against Mr. R and the case was “turned down”.

September 8, 2020

State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 16279) – Felony Child Molestation (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) – Not Charged – Phoenix Police Department investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXXXXX8).

 

Mr. R was accused of inappropriately touching his biological six-year-old daughter for a sexual purpose. Mr. R and his wife had been married for approximately nine years and had four children together. The alleged victim in this case was his oldest daughter. Prior to these allegations being made, the relationship between Mr. R and his wife had been strained. His wife had brought up the possibility of divorce on several occasions, specifically after Mr. R had found flirtatious text messages between his wife and a Doctor at the hospital where she worked. Mr. R had reason to believe that prior to the allegations being made, his wife had reached out to a Divorce Attorney in an effort to find out how much money she would receive in Spousal Maintenance and Child Support if they divorced. In fact, within days of his wife making the accusations against Mr. R regarding their biological daughter, she filed for Divorce.

 

The specific allegations of the Child Molestation came after Mr. R, who had been the primary caregiver of the children since their births, had notified his wife that their oldest daughter was inappropriately touching herself while lying in bed or watching television. Mr. R asked his wife to discuss the inappropriate behavior with the daughter, as she was the mother. After Mr. R discovered that his wife did not speak with their daughter about this, and their daughters continued inappropriate behavior around the other children continued, he had a stronger discussion with his wife regarding her need to speak with their daughter. It was after this that his wife claimed that Mr. R had been molesting their daughter.

 

Upon being retained, the Pre-Charge Team, met and discussed the allegations and the necessary steps moving forward. We immediately reached out to the Detective to advise him of our client’s denial of the allegations and notify him that we would be preparing detailed information for his review. We also drafted a Trebus Letter and sent it to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office notifying them of our representation. We immediately arranged for a Polygraph examination of our client and drafted the proposed Polygraph questions. These questions surrounded whether Mr. R ever had sexual contact with his oldest daughter or whether he had ever had his oldest daughter touch him for a sexual purpose. The results of this Polygraph showed that Mr. R was being truthful and there is no deception indicated. We also included in the Trebus/Bashir Letter a time-line describing the incident that occurred at the home, the financial motive for Mr. R’s wife to lie in order to place her in a better procedural posture for the Divorce, Mr. R’s passed Polygraph examination, and his outright denials of the allegations. This letter also specifically asked that if the case was submitted to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for review, that the prosecutor be a made aware of the letter, and that the exculpatory information should be read to the Grand Jury, if a presentation to the Grand Jury occurred.

 

Ultimately, none of Mr. R’s DNA was found in the vaginal area of his biological daughter, and based on the information presented in the Trebus/Bashir letter discrediting his wife, the case was “closed” by the Detective and never submitted to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for review and charging.

September 8, 2020

State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 16285) – Felony Public Sexual Indecency – Not Charged – Apache Junction Police Department investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX3) & Pinal County Attorney’s Office “Declined Charges”.

 

At the time these allegations were made, Mr. P was a 67-year-old retiree. Mr. P was accused of publicly masturbating outside of his home in the view of a 13-year-old girl. Police had contacted Mr. P to schedule an interview, to find out his side of the story. Without seeking legal advice first, Mr. P met with the Detective and provided information regarding the day of the alleged incident. Although Mr. P denied the accusations to police, the Detective indicated that there were videos of him committing the crime. At this point, Mr. P asked if he “needed a lawyer” and the Detective told him that he could do what he want, with respect to a lawyer, however, the case was being submitted to the Pinal County Attorney’s office for charging decisions.

 

Upon being retained, our Pre-Charge Team staffed the case immediately and began taking action. We first met with the client and obtained a detailed timeline of the incident, along with gathering significant mitigation pertaining to his life. We also sent a Trebus Letter to the Pinal County Attorney’s office, notifying them of our representation, and informing them that Mr. P wanted to inform the Grand Jury, that he would be available to testify to the Pinal County Grand Jury, if they desired to hear from him. We also arranged for a Polygraph examination of our client and drafted proposed questions for that Polygraph examination. This Polygraph focused on whether Mr. P ever exposed himself to a minor for sexual gratification or whether Mr. P ever masturbated in front of the minor. Mr. P’s Polygraph showed that no deception was indicated and he denied ever masturbating or exposing himself to a minor.

 

After moving very quickly to gather this exculpatory information for Mr. P, knowing that the case had already been submitted to the Pinal County Attorney’s Office, we reached out and contacted the attorney reviewing the case for charging. We also submitted a detailed Trebus/Bashir Letter to the assigned County Attorney, specifically listing Mr. P’s denial of the allegations, a copy of the passed Polygraph report, and a detailed description of what actually occurred that day.

 

As a result of the information presented in the Trebus/Bashir letter, the Pinal County Attorney’s Office “declined to file charges” against Mr. P.

September 8, 2020

State v. Mr. J (DMC No. 16276) – Felony Sexual Abuse – Not Charged – Florence Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXX6) & Pinal County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down Charges”.

 

Mr. J. retained our services after being accused of Sexual Abuse by inappropriately touching the breasts of a coworker. Mr. J. and the accuser both worked for the Fire Department, and the accuser was claiming that the inappropriate action happened while at work in the Battalion Chief’s office. Mr. J believe the allegation was being made due to the alleged victim becoming upset with him because of some constructive criticism and feedback provided by him regarding the alleged victim’s treatment of a patient while on the job. Mr. J. denied any non-consensual touching of the breasts.

 

Upon being retained, our Pre-Charge Team, staffed the case to determine what actions were necessary. We reached out to the Florence Police Department to contact the assigned Detective. After doing so, we emailed a copy of our client’s Invocation of Constitutional Rights. When speaking with the Detective assigned we informed him that we would have a significant amount of information to present to him that should help him in determining that submitting these charges to the Pinal County Attorney’s should not occur. However, he told us that his report was almost complete and that he would be submitting the case to the County Attorney.

 

After receiving this information and the report regarding the internal Fire Department review, we were able to prepare a detailed Trebus Bashir Letter to send to the prosecutor reviewing the case. This letter included 37 bullet points, and many sub-bullet points, pertaining to exculpatory information regarding the allegations, Mr. J’s denial of any non-consensual sexual contact, and an analysis of the believed motive for the allegations.

 

The team worked very quickly to prepare this information and submit it to the County Attorney’s Office for their review which was successful in getting the Prosecutor’s Office to “decline to file charges against” Mr. J.

September 8, 2020

State.v. Mr. A. (DMC No. 16277) – Felony Sexual Assault – Not Charged –

Flagstaff Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXX3).

 

When Mr. A retained the services of our Firm, he was a young man in college as well as a member of a fraternity. He retained our services after learning from his fraternity chapter president, that a woman he had sex with was now claiming the sex was not consensual. Due to these allegations, the fraternity was taking action against him.

 

After being retained, the Pre-Charge Team immediately met and put together a plan of action for both the fraternity trial along with the pre-charge criminal conduct. The Pre-Charge Team, met and immediately contacted the fraternity president asking him to delay the fraternity trial, as there were only accusations made at this point, and Mr. A was presumed innocent until proven guilty. We were successful at getting the fraternity trial continued until the conclusion of the criminal matter. We then immediately reached out to the Flagstaff Police Department to find out what Detective was assigned to this investigation and the status of the same. After determining the Detective’s name, we emailed a copy of our client’s Invocation of Constitutional Rights. We immediately traveled to Flagstaff and conducted interviews of relevant witnesses that were present during the evening of the alleged Sexual Assault. These interviews included a number of fraternity and sorority members who were at the house and in close contact with Mr. A. and the alleged victim after the alleged “rape”.

 

After completing these interviews, we drafted a detailed Trebus Bashir Letter which listed 43 bullet points, with a multitude of sub-bullet points, regarding what transpired that evening, Mr. A’s denial of the claims of non-consensual sex, along with additional information we believed the Detective would find useful in making a charging decision. We also immediately got our client in for a Polygraph examination which was included as part of the Trebus Bashir Letter. The Polygraph questions focused on whether Mr. A had any sexual contact with the alleged victim without her consent and whether Mr. A ever forced the alleged victim to have sex with him. No deception was indicated as part of Mr. A’s Polygraph results.

 

After submitting all of this information to the Detective, it was determined that the information provided from the witnesses of that evening discredited the alleged victim’s statements of what occurred. As a result, the investigation was “closed exceptionally.”

September 8, 2020

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 16273) – Felony Child Molestation (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) – Not Charged – Mesa Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX0).

 

Mr. S. retained our services after learning of accusations being made by his girlfriend’s daughter. The specific allegation being made was that our client had rubbed the 9-year old girl’s vaginal area over the clothes and forced her to rub his penis.

 

Our Pre-Charge Team, met and immediately reached out to the Detective assigned to the case. After providing the Detective with information regarding Mr. S’ denials and other information regarding the young girl and her history of lying, we prepared a Trebus Bashir Letter for the Detective to review in making the determination of moving forward with the charges.

 

Ultimately, we were successful in getting the criminal case closed and inactivated in the police system. Originally, Mr. S was facing potentially 46 years in prison.

September 8, 2020

State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 16271) – Felony Sexual Abuse – Not Charged – Buckeye Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX9) & Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down Prosecution”.

Mr. M retained our services after learning of Sexual Abuse allegations during a Family Law dispute. The specific allegation being made was that he had inappropriately touched his stepdaughter who was 13 years old. Unfortunately, Mr. M’s stepdaughter had a number of emotional issues and had, soon after making the allegations, been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. This disorder is described by the Child Mind Institute as children who display extreme resistance to authority, conflict with parents, outbursts of temper, and spitefulness with peers.

Upon being retained our Pre-Charge Team, met to discuss the plan of action. We immediately reached out to the Detective and prepared a Trebus Bashir Letter delineating Mr. M’s denial of the accusations along with background information pertaining to his 13-year old stepdaughter and her overall behavioral issues. Included in this letter was a list of false allegations made by Mr. M’s stepdaughter in the past regarding him and her biological mother, specifically detailing times when his stepdaughter had falsely accused the two of them of physical abuse. We assisted Mr. M. in participating in a global interview with DCS regarding the false allegations now being made. This ultimately allowed Mr. M. to return home; however, he was ordered not have contact with the alleged victim who was no longer in the home.

Ultimately, the DCS matter was closed, and based on the information provided in the Trebus Bashir Letter, along with Mr. M’s denials, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “turned down” the case for charging.

September 8, 2020

State v. Mr. L (DMC No. 12876) – (4 Counts) Felony Sexual Abuse – Not Charged – Avondale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXX0) & Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down Charges”.

Mr. L had two prior allegations for Sexual Abuse and Child Molestation over the years. His 16 year old step-daughter had alleged that Mr. L had come into her bedroom on 4 different occasions (when he had been drinking) and fondled her breast. Detectives contacted Mr. L, and then he contacted our office. We became involved in the case and immediately contacted the Avondale Police Department.

The mother of Mr. L’s step-daughter informed Police that 8 years prior, her 12 year old indicated there was a similar incident with Mr. L. She stated that Mr. L then attended counseling. She also stated there was another investigation and other allegations against Mr. L. We informed the Detectives that Mr. L was Invoking his Right to Remain Silent, and he would not be participating in any Polygraph Tests. We also interviewed other family members, who had indicated that the step-daughter did not like Mr. L and wanted him out of the house. His rules were too strict, and she was not allowed to see her boyfriend. Although the Detective had interviewed Mr. L prior to us being involved, he had denied all of the allegations. Ultimately, the Detective routed the case to Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. They did not proceed with charges due to the “lack of evidence”. If Mr. L would’ve been charged and convicted, he could’ve faced many years in prison.

Call Now Button