Case Results

Case History: Our client shared a child in common with another person. For years, they were able to amicably share custody of their child and work out a schedule regarding shared parenting time. The two agreed to be flexible with each other’s schedules, until our client’s ex abruptly insisted on keeping the child longer than the previously agreed upon schedule. Our client objected to the additional days, and the ex’s new spouse interfered. This ultimately resulted in our client being physically assaulted. Our client called the police to report the assault, only to discover the ex went directly to the police department at the same time to file for a protective order. The ex and the new spouse manipulated the facts and alleged our client was the aggressor.

Our Defense: After the initial meeting with our client, it was clear the allegations were completely false and our client did not do the things that were alleged. We were able to obtain police reports, 911 calls, and locate a witness to the assault. Using that information, along with the information we gathered from our own independent investigation into the accusers, we were able to fully prepare for the hearing in order to advocate on our client’s behalf. The evidence we were able to obtain clearly showed our client was the victim of not only an assault, but also to the filing of a false police report in an attempt by the ex to obtain custody of their child. At the hearing, we were able to argue our position, without even having to put our client on the witness stand. The Judge agreed with our position and dismissed the case against our client.

Case History: One of our client’s teenage children made an allegation of an inappropriate sexual encounter. The accuser made the allegations after being caught by the police for violating curfew and trespassing. The teen had a history of lying to get out of trouble and had been exhibiting troubling behavior for quite some time prior to the allegations. In fact, the accuser even made similar allegations in the past against others that were found to be false. Our client completely denied any wrongdoing and contacted us immediately upon learning of the allegations.

Our Defense: We immediately contacted the detective investigating the matter in order to sever all police interaction with our client. Our client was a hard-working member of the community with a flawless reputation. We knew such false allegations would destroy the life our client worked so hard to attain, so we immediately began taking steps to clear our client’s name. We investigated the background of the accuser and discovered a troubled past along with a history of making false allegations. Further, the teen was taking actions inconsistent with the allegations. Upon learning the details surrounding the allegations, we found numerous discrepancies in the accuser’s story. Once we had a full understanding of the situation, we made a statement on our client’s behalf to the detective. In addition, we engaged in numerous discussions with the detective advocating on our client’s behalf and pointing out the flaws in the accuser’s story. After several months of fighting to clear our client’s name, the detective finally agreed the accuser lacked credibility. The investigation was closed without the filing of any criminal charges and our client’s name was cleared.

Case History: Our client was in a non-exclusive romantic relationship for several years. In early 2016, the significant other’s best friend initiated sexual conversations with our client. This escalated into sending nude pictures and increased sexually charged conversations. Shortly thereafter, our client along with the significant other, the significant other’s best friend, and a friend of our client were hanging out and drinking at the friend’s residence. While the significant other was asleep in another room, our client and the significant other’s best friend began having sex in the bedroom, while our client’s friend began recording the sexual act on a cell phone. The significant other heard the sexual encounter, barged into the bedroom, became visibly upset at the situation and punched both parties in the face. Once this occurred, the significant other’s best friend accused our client of rape in order to salvage the relationship with the best friend.

Our Defense: The State of Ohio charged our client with two counts of rape; one by force and one alleging the accuser was too intoxicated to consent to the sex act. We knew if our client was convicted of either count, it would completely destroy our client’s life and our client would likely spend decades in prison, so we immediately began investigating the background of the accuser as well as all parties present during the interaction. In addition, we filed numerous motions on our client’s behalf in order to eliminate all irrelevant and prejudicial evidence. The case progressed to trial in early 2018 where we exhibited evidence the accuser had sex with our client’s friend a few minutes prior to engaging in sexual intercourse with our client. Further, the accuser stated the sexual act with the friend was consensual, thereby negating the charge of being too intoxicated to consent. We also pointed to the video, which clearly showed a non-forcible sex act, where the accuser is heard moaning. During our cross examination of the accuser, we elicited numerous inconsistencies in the accuser’s story and we were able to attack the accuser’s credibility. After a five-day trial, the jury deliberated for approximately ten hours and could not reach a verdict. The Judge declared a mistrial.

The State of Ohio elected to bring the case again. We basically started the case over from the beginning and had to re-wind everything. Therefore, we again filed numerous motions on our client’s behalf as well as advocated on our client’s behalf at every step of the process. In addition, we investigated the backgrounds of all witnesses and performed our own independent research with the use of experts for each evidentiary item anticipated to be utilized at trial. The second rape trial was set to commence at the end of the summer 2018. Our firm tenaciously defended our client during the re-trial and focused on the video, which we were able to enhance with the use of an expert for better sound quality. Also, we again vigorously cross examined all witness, including the accuser to point out the accuser’s inconsistencies and lack of credibility. After a four-day trial and several hours of deliberating, the jury found our client not guilty.

Case History: Our client had consensual sexual contact with an adult woman. The State alleged this woman did not have the mental capacity to consent and that our client new of this diminished capacity. Our client and the accuser attended the same school. Our client was in the process of applying for government jobs as a firefighter but was denied employment until the case was resolved.

Our Defense: It was our defense that this woman did in fact have the mental capacity to consent and even if she did not, our client did not know of this mental defect. We hired an expert to evaluate the case and determine the ability to consent to sexual contact. However, at trial, we did not need to call our expert to testify as we turned the State's own expert into an expert on our behalf. Essentially, the State's expert was forced to concede under our cross examination that the accuser did possess the mental capacity to consent to sex. We proved the woman did have the capacity to consent sex and our client did not know of any diminished capacity. Our client was found not guilty.

Case History: Our client's adopted daughter (young teen) was a discipline problem. One night she ran away. When the police were notified the child was located. The child told the police she did not want to go home because she was being molested by our client. Kentucky State Police and The Cabinet began an investigation.

Our Defense: Our client retained us immediately after hearing the allegation. We met with our client and his family after hours to start our involvement that same day. We contacted both the Kentucky State Police and The Cabinet and severed the communication between our client and these government agencies. Both agencies were requesting a statement from our client. We provided them a written statement, drafted by us and signed by our client, denying any improper conduct. We obtained copies of the child's statements, one from each agency or person whom the child spoke to, and evaluated each statement. We showed the government how the statements contained contradictions with details that should not have been inconsistent. We also provided the child's behavioral history to show how the child was escaping responsibility and punishment by making the allegations. No charges were filed but a stipulation of dependency was made with The Cabinet (DCBS) that the child was in need of counseling.

Case History: Our client's 15 year old step-daughter accused our client of inappropriately touching her. The minor informed a friend at her school of the touching who in turn told a school official. The Kentucky State Police and The Cabinet began an investigation.

Our Defense: The child was forensically interviewed by The Cabinet. A Kentucky State Police Officer was observing the interview. The child also was given a physical exam by a medical doctor and a SANE (sexual assault nurse examiner) nurse. The results of both examinations did not confirm or deny any allegations. Both agencies requested additional time and examinations of the child. After we became involved, we refused additional contact with the minor arguing that pressing for additional information would not only produce even more inconsistent results but that the examinations themselves were mentally destructive to the child. Basically, we argued that if the agencies were unable to get enough information the first time, how could a second round of examinations possibly clarify anything when so much time had elapsed. We also disclosed to the Kentucky State Police that the child was rebellious and was being disciplined by our client for leaving the house late at night to sneak out with her boyfriend. We told both the Kentucky State Police and The Cabinet that their interference was empowering this child to make more improper accusations to divert attention from her bad behavior. The Kentucky State Police did not file criminal charges. We entered into a stipulation with The Cabinet that the child was "Dependent" and was to receive counseling.

Case History: Our client sent text messages and telephone calls to his minor daughter's friend. These communications were of a sexual nature. The minor's parents found the text messages and contact the Kentucky State Police. Both the Kentucky State Police and The Cabinet began an investigation to charge our client with the use of an electronic device to induce a minor into sexual activity.

Our Defense: We immediately intervened on our client's behalf and severed all communication between the government and our client. Our client had multiple cell phones and we had them forensically examined so we could determine the content of the messages. We discovered that the cell phone owned by the minor had technical issues and was unable to store amounts of data (however some text messages were still able to be retrieved). We were requested by the Kentucky State Police to turn over his cell phone. We refused this request absent a warrant. We made it clear to the Kentucky State police that our client's family had numerous cell phones and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove who sent any of the text messages. The combination of issues we presented the Kentucky State Police and The Cabinet dissuaded both agencies to stop the investigation.

Case History: Our client was living with his girlfriend and his girlfriend's teenage daughter. The teenager made an allegation that she was molested by our client. Our client not only disputed the allegation but he did not take the allegation seriously. Child protective services demanded the mother bring the child to them immediately to be "forensically interviewed". Our client drove the mother and the teenager to the scheduled interview thinking this matter would be quickly terminated and he would be vindicated. He accompanied his girlfriend and the teenager to the office. Child protective services demanded he leave the premises. He complied, again thinking he would be vindicated. While waiting in his car he began surfing the internet about false allegations. He found our web site and contacted us, mainly out of curiosity as he did not take the allegations seriously. We explained the serious nature of the allegations even if completely untrue. We described for him in great detail all the things that were about to occur. He listened to what we said and told us he would contact us if he needed anything further. Over the next 48 hours his life turned upside down and everything we predicted would happen did happen. Our client called us back and retained our firm.

Our Defense: As about two days lapsed from the time he initially contacted us to when we were retained, our client was already removed from his own home. We informed him that our priority was to prevent any criminal charges from arising. If he was charged criminally, life as he knew it would cease to exist. He was scheduled to give statements to police detectives and child protective services. When we were retained, we cancelled both appointments for our client. The police searched his home and took various items which they considered evidence. The police and child protective services refused to give us or our client any details regarding the allegation. We, in turn, refused to provide them with any information as they were withholding even the basics of the allegation. The situation stagnated as no incriminating evidence was found. This stalemate was in our client's favor as they had no evidence to support the allegation. Our client was able to move back into his home and secure his possessions again. No criminal charges were filed against our client.