Foss G. Hodges:
Child Sexual Abuse

State v. John Doe (2023): Detective Closes Aggravated Child Molestation/Aggravated Sodomy Investigation of Client After Defense Counsel Proves Neighbor’s Allegations Were False.

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Law enforcement was investigating the client for allegations of Aggravated Child Molestation, Aggravated Sodomy, and Cruelty to Children against multiple children.

Prosecution's Case:

A former neighbor accused the client, a medical doctor, of molesting the neighbor's children and his own children, and forcing his own children to molest the neighbor’s children. If arrested, prosecuted, and convicted, the client was facing a mandatory minimum 25 years up to Life in prison.

Further, in a separate matter, the Georgia Composite Medical Board was investigating whether the client violated the Board’s laws or rules by allegedly sexually harassing two employees.

Defense and Outcome:

The client was married to his wife for 25 years. They had 3 children together, two of whom were transgender. Their former neighbor had 4 children around the same age as the client’s children. Two of them were close friends with the client’s children. The two families were friendly and would sometimes get together socially for swimming, bonfires, and other family activities. They lived next door to each other for 10 years until the neighbors moved away in 2018.

In 2022, the client was contacted by DFCS, the police, and directly by the former neighbor, alleging that the client molested the neighbor’s 4 children, molested his own children, and had his children molest the neighbor’s children.

The client adamantly denied all the allegations. Defense Counsel met with him and his wife to discuss the allegations and prepare a defense. The client and his wife provided the texts in which the former neighbor made his allegations, photos and correspondence showing the history of all the relationships, and the social, psychological, and medical records for their own children.

Defense Counsel contacted the client’s children’s therapists, who had been working with them for several years prior to this allegation for ADHD, transitioning gender, and other mental health issues. The therapists confirmed that in their hundreds of hours of working with the family, the children made no mention of any kind of sexual abuse. Further, the therapists confirmed that they had no suspicion that the client was abusing his children.

Counsel also arranged for the client to take a polygraph, which he passed. He also underwent a psychosexual evaluation, which showed no indication of deviant sexual behaviors or sexual interest in children.

Defense counsel’s investigator interviewed the client’s children and numerous friends and family members. The children denied being abused by their dad or participating in or observing any abuse of the neighbor’s children. Countless friends and family who spent time around the client and all the children involved said they never saw anything suspicious. Instead, they observed that the kids acted completely normally around the client and each other – that everyone’s conduct and behavior was completely inconsistent with the alleged abuse.

Finally, Defense Counsel agreed to allow one of the client’s children to be interviewed by a forensic interviewer, who reported no disclosure of abuse or anything suspicious.

Defense Counsel presented all of this to the detective investigating the case. After reviewing the extensive materials supporting the client’s innocence, the detective closed her investigation without making an arrest.

Counsel also supplied to the Medical Board investigator proof that the complainant who alleged sexual harassment at work made false statements in her complaint. Defense counsel interviewed employees in the practice who contradicted the complainant’s allegations and provided the practice’s own internal investigation report, which contradicted many of the complainant’s allegations to the Board’s investigator. After reviewing the materials provided by Defense Counsel, the Board voted to close its investigation.

State v. John Doe (2022)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

Child made a disclosure of suspicious touching and inappropriate behavior by mother's live-in boyfriend (the client). The child had a forensic interview where he repeated the "bad touch" by the client. Police immediately began to investigate, but elected not to make an arrest, if at all, until after meeting with defense counsel. If arrested, client was facing 20 years in prison and a lifetime on the Sex Offense Registry, not to mention losing his professional medical license.

Defense and Outcome:

Defense counsel found the client had been in a dating relationship with the mother for a couple of years. Their relationship had taken a bad turn, though, because the mother had been embroiled in a long, ongoing custody battle with her ex-husband for several years. The client explained, after two years-worth of craziness, he could not take her volatile personality any longer. He ended their relationship, which meant all their plans of her and the kids moving into his new house were ruined. She was angry with the client. The allegations followed immediately thereafter.
The client took and passed a polygraph and submitted to extensive psychological testing, which revealed that the client did not demonstrate a sexual attraction to prepubescent children or have any psychopathy or mental illness that might cause him to victimize young children.
Lastly, defense counsel discovered a long history of court filings by the mother against her ex-husband and his family wherein she had made several false allegations. After consulting with the District Attorney's office, the police elected not to arrest the client.

Aggravated Child Molestation investigation ends without arrest where Defense Counsel proves allegation and purported confession were product of misunderstanding, improper influence, and suggestibility (2020).

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

Defendant was under investigation for having his sister perform oral sex on him when he was approximately 18 and she was approximately 13. Defendant admitted to the conduct. Although the sister subsequently recanted, and a witness said she was present and saw nothing inappropriate, police still planned to arrest Defendant for Aggravated Child Molestation based on the sister’s initial outcries and Defendant’s confession. Defendant was facing at least 25 years in prison and a lifetime on the Sex Offender Registry.

Defense and Outcome:

When the police detective agreed to let defense counsel investigate the case and share their findings before making an arrest decision, defense counsel set out to answer the question, “If nothing happened, then why would Defendant say that it did – why would he confess to something he didn’t do?”

Defense counsel interviewed all the witness the kids talked to about the incident (teachers, parents, therapists, and DFCS). It appeared that the sister had described the incident as horseplay, wresting around, accidental contact, no big deal. However, the parents and others began to call it “oral sex.” When the parents interrogated Defendant about "having oral sex" with his sister, and demanded that he own up to it, Defendant finally admitted that it happened.

Both children had been adopted from situations involving severe neglect and abuse. Defense counsel interviewed the parents about Defendant’s history, and obtained extensive records documenting that history. The parents explained, and the records confirmed, that Defendant had suffered trauma as a child; had cognitive difficulties; had a history of being a "yes man," going along with whatever he thinks you want from him.

Defense counsel hired a forensic psychologist to review all the case materials and conduct a psychological evaluation of Defendant. She determined that Defendant had PTSD, significant cognitive deficits, and highly elevated levels of susceptibility to influence, compliance, and “interrogative suggestibility.” She believed that the way his parents and others confronted/interrogated him increased his risk of compliance and suggestibility. Ultimately, she concluded that there were multiple personal and external factors that could have led Defendant to “falsely confess” – to go along with the allegations when, in fact, there was no sexually inappropriate behavior.

After presenting this information to the police detective, he decided to terminate his investigation and not to arrest Defendant.

State v. John Doe (2014)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation, Enticing a Child for Indecent Purposes

Prosecution's Case:

Defendant, who was on the Sex Offender Registry for pleading guilty to Child Molestation in 1999, was under investigation by police and DFACS for making inappropriate, suggestive sexual remarks to his 14 year-old stepdaughter when the two were alone in the basement of their home. The stepdaughter alleged that Defendant asked her to masturbate while he watched, asked to see her boobs, and told her that he was bigger than her and could rape her.

Defense and Outcome:

A rapid defense investigation revealed that: Defendant was a stern disciplinarian who constantly lectured his children and step-children. The alleged victim was a troubled child with a history of disciplinary problems, lying, failing in school, drug abuse, risky interactions with strangers, and psychological issues, including “cutting.” On the night in question, Defendant confronted his stepdaughter about getting in trouble at school that day, and the lecture grew into an emotional, graphic lecture about sexual activity and the kinds of things that could happen to her if she were not more responsible. Although the conversation happened in the basement, this was high-traffic area, where the family television, children’s toys, and Defendant’s wife’s work desk were located. Defendant’s wife and son were at home, and could have overheard the conversation or entered the room at any time. In 15 years on the Sex Offender Registry, Defendant had never been accused of inappropriate conduct with anyone. Defense counsel presented all this evidence to police, demonstrating that Defendant had no sexual intent towards his stepdaughter. The police agreed to close its investigation without obtaining an arrest warrant, and DFACS subsequently dropped its case against Defendant.

Aggravated Child Molestation, Aggravated Sodomy, and Child Molestation charges dismissed; defense counsel convinces prosecution to drop the case without seeking an indictment. (2020)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation, Aggravated Sodomy, Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

After being accused, tried, and found not guilty of molesting his young daughter, Defendant was accused of molesting two of his sons. Defendant’s six-year-old son said Defendant placed his mouth his anus and penis; and Defendant’s eight-year-old son said Defendant put his mouth on his ears, neck, and belly in a sexual way. Defendant was arrested and facing 70 years to life in prison, followed by probation and sex offender registration for life.

Defense and Outcome:

Defendant had been prohibited from seeing his children for some time because of his daughter’s prior allegations of abuse. After being acquitted of those charges, Defendant eventually started having supervised visitations with his sons. Following his first unsupervised visit with them, his ex-wife alleged that two of the boys came home and disclosed that the defendant had molested them.

Defense counsel gathered and studied all the materials in the prior case, and learned that Defendant’s ex-wife was deeply involved in manipulating the daughter’s allegations. Defendant adamantly denied doing anything inappropriate to his daughter then, or to his sons now. Instead, he explained, it was just his ex-wife “at it again.”

Defendant had taken every precaution when he reestablished contact with his sons. He made sure he was always with another person; he recorded phone calls; he even videotaped his time together with his children. All of this material became evidence supporting his innocence.

During the case, the Department of Family and Children Services (“DFCS”) placed Defendant on the Child Abuse Registry (“CAR”). Defense counsel appealed that decision and demanded an administrative hearing, where they cross-examined Defendant’s ex-wife, police investigators, and the children. The children denied that their dad had done anything inappropriate to them, and it became abundantly clear that the ex-wife had manipulated them into saying otherwise. The judge ordered DFCS to remove Defendant from the CAR, finding there was not enough evidence to support the allegations against him.

Defense counsel also conducted an exhaustive investigation of the ex-wife’s background, interviewed witnesses, went to the scene of the alleged crime, had Defendant undergo psychological and other evaluations, and consulted with experts about child behavior and the effects of improper influence and manipulation on children.

After working up the case, defense counsel met with the prosecutor and presented all the forgoing evidence, ultimately convincing him not to indict the defendant on the new allegations. The warrants were dismissed and the case was closed.

Child Molestation charge DISMISSED one week before jury trial (2022)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

Defendant was arrested for Child Molestation when his estranged teenaged son alleged that, from the age of about 4 to 7, every time he visited Defendant, after every bath, Defendant would touch his penis in a sexual manner. His mother recalled that throughout this period, the child suffered from upset stomach and vomiting every time he came home from visits with Defendant. When Counsel could not convince the State to dismiss the warrants, Defendant was indicted and the State’s plea offer was 7 years to serve in prison, followed by 13 years on probation, and a lifetime on the Sex Offender Registry.

Defense and Outcome:

Defendant adamantly denied the allegations. He passed a polygraph test. A psychosexual evaluation showed he had no sexual attraction to children. Counsel had more than a dozen witnesses prepared to testify that Defendant had good character for honesty and appropriateness with children, including his own. Family and close friends said there was no evidence that abuse was happening. Everyone believed that conflict between Defendant and the child’s mother, the child’s alienation from Defendant, and the mother’s influence over the child, were behind the false allegations. Counsel gathered extensive evidence documenting that history. By visiting the home and studying the location of the alleged abuse, Counsel was able to prepare testimony and exhibits to show a jury how ridiculous it would be for Defendant to abuse the child in such a high-traffic, exposed area. Investigation of the child’s mother revealed that she was a police officer with a passion for handling child abuse cases, which Counsel believed impeached her credibility and showed she might have brought work home with her, exposing her son to thoughts and language of victimization.

Counsel consulted two expert psychologists who were prepared to testify about critical mistakes in the forensic interview of the child; significant evidence of improper influence on the child through the family history and during the police investigation; and substantial evidence that the child’s conduct and behavior were inconsistent with abuse. Also, a forensic pathologist was prepared to testify that the child’s stomach problems were consistent with poor eating and bathroom habits, not with abuse-induced stress.

After indictment, Counsel subpoenaed the child’s school, medical, and therapy records, and overcame motions to quash by convincing the Court that, in Child Molestation cases, these records were highly relevant, and that Defendant’s right to a fair trial trumped the child’s privacy rights. Indeed, Counsel found that the records here contained critical evidence supporting Defendant’s innocence.

Counsel also began battling the State on numerous pretrial motions, including a Motion to Admit Expert Testimony about Defendant’s Psychosexual Evaluation. The Court granted the motion, finding that evidence showing Defendant was not sexually attracted to children was relevant to rebut the State’s allegation that Defendant committed the offense for sexual gratification; and that the testing met the standard for admissibility set by Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519 (1982).

A week before jury selection, the State approached Counsel about resolving the case without a trial, ultimately agreeing to dismiss the Child Molestation charge, to have Defendant plead as a First Offender to Cruelty to Children with 5 years to serve on probation - all of which meant no prison, no conviction on Defendant’s record, immediate record restriction, and no Sex Offender Registry.

In wrapping up the case, the State told Counsel, “Y’all do things differently than other lawyers.” Counsel took it as a compliment.

Aggravated Child Molestation and Aggravated Sodomy charges placed on Dead Docket where Defense Counsel raises Sexsomnia (“Sleep Sex”) defense and State elects not to proceed to trial (2018).

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation; Aggravated Sodomy

Prosecution's Case:

Defendant was accused of placing his mouth on his 8-year-old nephew’s penis in the middle of the night. Defendant did not deny the conduct, but said he had no memory of it, because he was asleep when it happened. The State considered Defendant’s statement tantamount to a confession and intended to put him on trial, where he was facing at least 25 years in prison and a lifetime on the Sex Offender Registry.

Defense and Outcome:

Defense counsel understood that even if Defendant admitted to the alleged conduct, it was not a crime if it wasn’t committed intentionally and voluntarily; and that you couldn’t form intent or commit a voluntary act while asleep.

Defense counsel gathered evidence that proved Defendant was asleep during the alleged episode, that he had a history of sexual and other behavior during sleep, and that he was not the kind of person who would sexually abuse a child. Defense counsel then consulted experts about the case: a polygraph showed that Defendant was telling the truth when he said he did not intentionally, knowingly touch his nephew; a psychosexual assessment concluded that Defendant was not a pedophile; and sleep experts diagnosed Defendant with “Sexsomnia,” a recognized sleep disorder. All agreed that the incident appeared to be a tragic accident caused by Defendant’s condition, not abuse.

After considering the Defense’s case, the State decided it would be difficult to win at trial and placed the case on Dead Docket indefinitely.

In Re: John Doe (2016)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Rape, Aggravated Sexual Battery, Aggravated Child Molestation, Child Molestation, False Imprisonment

Prosecution's Case:

The 15-year-old defendant sexually assaulted the victim when she was 9-years-old and he was 11-years-old during the times the victim would visit the defendant's sister in their home. The defendant would lure the victim into his room, tie her up and physically assault her, sometimes into unconsciousness, and then rape her both anally and vaginally. The victim also had serious mental illness resulting from the defendant's physical and sexual abuse of her.

Defense and Outcome:

Defense counsel immediately began to investigate the violent nature of the sexual assault by going to the scene and gathering data about the history of the relationship between the defendant, his sister, his mother and the alleged victim and her mother. Defense counsel also obtained the discovery from the prosecutor, which included all police reports and forensic interviews of the alleged victim. Defense counsel also investigated the alleged victim's history of mental illness and subpoenaed records from her school, from her pediatrician, and from the three psychiatric medical providers that documented her lack of vaginal and anal injuries, her lack of conduct and behavior which would be consistent with abuse and her history of mental illness that pre-dated the allegations. Instead, the victim was obsessed with TV crime dramas and she and her mother hated the defendant's family. After presenting their case to the state that the allegations were false, the state elected not to proceed due to their belief that they could not prove their case at trial.

9 counts of 12-count indictment dismissed for client accused of sexually abusing 4 children; plea to 3 counts of Sexual Battery Against a Minor keeps client out of prison and avoids risk of Life sentence (2019).

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Aggravated Sexual Battery, Attempt to Commit Aggravated Child Molestation, Child Molestation, and Sexual Battery Against a Minor

Prosecution's Case:

The Client was indicted for 12 counts of sexual offenses against 4 children. He faced up to Life in prison and a lifetime on the Sex Offender Registry.

Defense and Outcome:

Defense Counsel obtained extensive background information about the Client, his family, and the Alleged Victims. Everything showed that the Client had impeccable character and was well loved and respected in the community. He passed a psychosexual evaluation and a polygraph test. The Alleged Victims had issues that called their credibility into question. One of the children had a long history of abuse by her biological parents, serious mental health problems, and a history of lying, bullying, making false allegations, and making herself a victim. Defense Counsel was able to show that this troubled child falsely accused the Client in order to get attention; and that she influenced, and maybe even bullied, the other Alleged Victims into joining in the allegations. It also appeared that the children were influenced by the way their parents and others improperly questioned them about the allegations. Finally, it was clear that the children’s conduct and behavior around the Client was inconsistent with their allegations – the evidence showed they all loved him, loved being around him, and were not uncomfortable or afraid of him at all, even after the alleged abuse was supposed to have occurred.

Defense Counsel consulted with a psychological expert, who said he could testify at trial about the evidence he saw that the children were improperly influenced; that such influence can lead children to falsely accuse; that you expect victims of sexual abuse to act in certain ways; and that the conduct and behavior of the children in this case were inconsistent with that.

After 2½ years of work, Defense Counsel presented all the foregoing to the Prosecutor, who ultimately agreed to: dismiss the 9 most serious counts of the indictment; plead to the 3 least serious charges; no prison; 12 months house arrest, followed by probation. The Client will be eligible for removal from the Sex Offender Registry when he completes his sentence.

Youth charged as adult for Aggravated Sexual Battery, Child Molestation, and Enticing a Child for Indecent Purposes transferred to Juvenile Court after 3-year battle (2019)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Aggravated Sexual Battery, Child Molestation, and Enticing a Child for Indecent Purposes

Prosecution's Case:

15-year old client was accused of Aggravated Sexual Battery, Child Molestation, and Enticing a Child for Indecent Purposes for luring his 5-year-old cousin into a bedroom upstairs and inserting his finger in her vagina. Client was charged as an adult and indicted in Superior Court, where he faced a mandatory minimum 25 years to Life in prison.

Defense and Outcome:

Defense attorney Hodges battled the State for 3 years, trying to convince the ADA to consent to transferring the case to Juvenile Court. When the ADA refused, Hodges filed a Motion to Transfer, asking the court to transfer the case. Hodges explained in his motion that he would call witnesses to testify that: Hodges had the client get a psychosexual evaluation that showed him as low risk; Hodges already had the client in sex-offense specific counseling; the client had excellent school records and was about to graduate high school; the client had performed perfectly in juvenile detention, house arrest, and ankle monitoring for the prior 3 years; and vast legal, social, and psychological research supported the fact that “kids are different” and should not be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.

Before hearing any witnesses, the court granted the Defense’s motion and ordered the case transferred to Juvenile Court, where the focus is on treatment, counseling, and rehabilitation, rather than punishment. Instead of facing a mandatory minimum 25 years in prison, the client now likely faces continuing treatment and probation, and an absolute maximum of 3 years in juvenile detention.

Incest charge dismissed; plea to non-sexual offense keeps client out of prison and off the Sex Offender Registry (2018)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Incest

Prosecution's Case:

Client was arrested for Incest for having sexual intercourse with his 17-year-old stepdaughter. The victim claimed she had a recording of her and the client having sex. The client admitted to inappropriate conduct with the victim. He was facing up to 30 years in prison.

Defense and Outcome:

The client denied having sex with the alleged victim – proof of sexual intercourse is required to obtain a conviction for Incest. Defense attorney Hodges had the client polygraphed on this issue and he passed.

Attorney Hodges also had the client get a psychosexual evaluation, which showed he had no problematic sexual interests and was low risk to commit sexual offenses. Hodges subsequently enrolled the client in counseling regarding sexual boundaries and judgments.

Hodges thoroughly investigated the alleged victim and discovered she had many credibility issues, including evidence of Munchausen Syndrome, and two prior false allegations of sexual abuse against 2 other men. Hodges found that in both prior cases, like the present case, the alleged victim made her outcries to youth ministers at her church. In both prior cases, the DA’s office declined to prosecute. Hodges filed a Motion to Admit Evidence of Prior False Allegations, and planned to call the investigating officers in the former cases, the two former “suspects,” and the alleged victim, to testify at a pre-trial hearing on this issue.

Defense attorney Hodges also filed a Motion to Suppress the recording the alleged victim made of her and the client purportedly having sex. Hodges explained in his motion that, in addition to not being evidence of sexual intercourse, the recording was made illegally and must be suppressed for that reason. Further, Hodges explained that the alleged victim actually should be arrested and prosecuted for making the recording.

Hodges presented all the foregoing to the prosecutor, who agreed to dismiss the Incest change and allow the client to plead to a non-sexual offense. The client was sentenced to 180 days in jail, followed by 5 years on probation. He did not have to go to prison and did not have to register on the Sex Offender Registry.