Jason B. Sheffield – Criminal Defense Notable Cases:
Child Sexual Abuse

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.

Investigation Reveals Implausible Allegation (2020)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

Defendant’s 13-year-old daughter alleged that when she was 8-years-old, Defendant molested her in her bedroom. In the forensic interview, the daughter reiterated her allegation. Defendant faced at least 25 years in prison if convicted of the charged conduct.

Defense and Outcome:

Defendant was the father of two teenage children, a son and a daughter who lived with their mother in Idaho. Previously, Defendant, his ex-wife and his children lived in Georgia. In 2019, a detective contacted Defendant, and requested to interview Defendant regarding his daughter’s allegation.

Defense counsel reached out to the detective to find out what the allegations were, and informed the detective, that counsel would cooperate with his investigation by providing him information, but that counsel would not let the Defendant be interviewed by him. The detective agreed not to take out a warrant for a short period of time so that he could see what counsels’ own investigation produced.

Defense counsel immediately met with Defendant and had him provide all information he had regarding his ex-wife’s background, marital history, his divorce paperwork, his shared parenting arrangement, his relationship with his children, his children’s relationship with his new wife, and his relationship with his stepdaughters. It was clear from the records that she was alienating her children against Defendant.

Defense counsel had Defendant take a polygraph which showed that he was telling the truth when he denied touching his daughter inappropriately. Counsel also had Defendant evaluated by an expert in sexual offenders. The expert determined that Defendant was not a pedophile.

Defense counsel was able to obtain extensive psychological records for Defendant’s daughter. Six months prior to her allegation outcry, Defendant’s daughter spent a week in an in-patient program for depression, and despite extensive counseling, she made no mention of being sexually abused by Defendant or anyone else. In fact, she attributed her depression to having to move to Idaho with her mother. The absence of a disclosure by her of sexual abuse in a safe setting was of paramount importance.

Counsel provided the forensic interview to an expert in forensic interviews. The expert found numerous problems with the interview, including the interviewer’s failure to screen for the ex-wife’s influence in the face of parental alienation, and allowing Defendant’s daughter to engage in speculation and fantasy. These problems coupled with the delayed disclosure made the allegation extremely unreliable, according to the expert.

Defense counsel provided all of the information gathered to the Camden County District Attorney’s Office, and argued that the case should be dismissed because there was no reliable evidence of a crime. The District Attorney’s Office reviewed our evidence, agreed with defense counsel, and closed the case without arrest of Defendant.

State v. John Doe (2017)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation; Aggravated Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

The 71-year-old defendant played a "penis game" with his 3-year-old grandson and put his grandson's penis in his (the defendant's) mouth. The child disclosed to his parents, then in therapy, and then again in a forensic interview. The case was being investigated by police, who were willing to meet with defense counsel prior to making an arrest decision.

Defense and Outcome:

The alleged victim's mother was the defendant's daughter-in-law. Because the mother was molested as a child and she was hypersensitive to abuse, she inappropriately questioned her son when she saw her son acting inappropriately (but age appropriately) with his 2-year-old sister. During this questioning, the mother alleged that her son disclosed being touched inappropriately by the defendant. She then took her son to therapy to be treated for a molestation that never occurred. The mother also had a motive to falsely accuse the defendant because she and the defendant had a history of problems and disagreements. After the child spent 1.5 years in counseling for abuse that did not occur, he came to believe it was true. The defense prepared countless documents and pieces of evidence that demonstrated the defendant and his grandson had a normal, appropriate relationship. Dozens of witnesses served as good character witnesses of the defendant and reverse character witnesses against the mother. The defendant also took and passed two polygraphs and psychological testing. The defense shared their investigation with the detective. He chose not to arrest the defendant.

State of Florida vs. John Doe (2016)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Aggravated Sexual Battery

Prosecution's Case:

The alleged victim was the 12-year-old son of the defendant’s on-again, off-again girlfriend. The boy alleged the defendant sexually abused him over the course of 2 years at various locations. The abuse included inappropriate touching of his penis at the defendant’s apartment and forced penetration of his anus by the defendant’s penis at the boy’s home and in a department store dressing room at the mall. The boy said he did not make an outcry right away because he was afraid, but, when he did outcry, his mother filed for warrants and also a protective order against the defendant. The defendant was facing Life in prison and Sex Offender registration.

Defense and Outcome:

In preparing for and then conducting the protective order hearing, the defense team learned there was no physical evidence and no reported physical injuries to the boy or his rectum, something forensic medical experts ultimately concluded was inconsistent with the allegations. Additionally, other family and friends recounted how the boy’s conduct during the time of the allegations was consistent with not being abused at all, rather, he showed normal, loving behavior toward the defendant, something psychological experts concluded was inconsistent with the boy being abused by the defendant.Defense counsel was able to use their investigation coupled with medical and psychological expert opinion and the testimony from the protective order hearing to convince police that defendant had been falsely accused. The defense worked jointly with police and presented their case to the District Attorney office. He was never arrested.

State v. John Doe (2012)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

The defendant's 6-year-old son reported to his mother, to his teacher and to state investigators that his father inappropriately touched and licked his genitals.

Defense and Outcome:

After being contacted by police, the defendant asked the defense team to intervene and maintain his innocence. The defense team immediately began trying understand why the defendant's son would allege that his father committed the acts if he (the defendant) did not. When looking at the history of the family, the defense learned several concerning things that explained why the child would say such things when they were, in fact, not true or how the child's statements could be misconstrued by those persons who took his statement. Ultimately, the defense was able to convince the police not to arrest the defendant.

State v. John Doe (2012)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation, Aggravated Child Molestation, Aggravated Sodomy

Prosecution's Case:

The Defendant was going through a divorce when his wife alleged that the Defendant sodomized and molested all four of their children. At the forensic interview, the children confirmed that the Defendant sexually molested them over a long time period. The allegations were being investigated by prosecutors in Georgia and Alabama.

Defense and Outcome:

Defense investigation focused on the Defendant’s wife who had a history of making false allegations and erratic behavior. Medical experts were used to prove that the allegations were not physically corroborated. Child psychological experts were used to show the children’s behavior was inconsistent with abuse. The defense possessed audio tapes and sworn testimony from the divorce that showed that the wife perjured herself and coached the children to make the allegations. The results of the defense investigation were presented to the Georgia and Alabama authorities before indictment and in each county an indictment was averted.

State v. John Doe (2011)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Rape; Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

A father of a 15 year-old girl repeatedly raped and molested her in their home since she was 12 years old. After her alleged outcry, the state found “biological” material inside the girl’s vagina, which she stated was from her father after he raped her the day before.

Defense and Outcome:

Despite the girl’s allegations, the defendant vehemently denied that his DNA could be inside his daughter’s vagina and looked to defense counsel to help him prove that he was telling the truth. Defense counsel, immediately investigated the girl’s background, reviewing thousands of text messages, Skype messages, Twitter posts, Facebook entries, and MySpace entries, which demonstrated her obsession with sex and older boys, and interviewed witnesses who reported no behavior by her consistent with being repeated sexually assaulted by her father. Defense counsel also discovered a long history of discipline issues with the girl, which included her disrespecting all authority, skipping school and being impregnated by her 18 year-old boyfriend. The detective, responding to defense counsel’s evidence, inquired further into the girl’s conduct, which defendant and defense counsel believed might cause her to admit she was lying. In fact, it did. In an “eleventh hour” video confession, the girl admitted that she lied and made the entire story up. The defendant was telling the truth about his daughter’s allegations. But, in a bizarre twist, it turned out that the semen inside the girl’s vagina was, in fact, the defendant’s. On the video, the girl went on to explain how she knew that her father and step-mother were using condoms during sex, that she collected her father’s semen from a used condom she discovered in his bathroom trash, inserted the semen inside her own vagina and then went to school to make the false outcry. The detective terminated his investigation against the defendant and charged the girl with False Report of a Crime.

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.

State of Georgia v. John Doe (2019)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation; Sexual Battery (m)

Prosecution's Case:

The defendant tickled his 3-year-old son inappropriate around his genitals; allowed his son to crawl across his lap and crotch for sexual gratification; and got erections when cuddling with his son in bed. He also inappropriately touched the buttocks of his 18-year-old stepson.

Defense and Outcome:

The defendant denied all allegations. He explained they were being made by his ex-girlfriend who was controlling. When the defendant sought court ordered visitation of their child, she retaliated with the unsupported allegations. Further investigation revealed her financial motive, her prior false allegations against the father of her oldest son under the same circumstances, and her crude misinterpretation of innocent conduct. All charges were dismissed.

State v. John Doe: (2012)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation, Sexual Battery

Prosecution's Case:

The father had been groping his 17-year-old daughter’s breast since she was 14-years-old.

Defense and Outcome:

Following Defense Counsel’s intensive review of the facts of the case, detective reports, interview with witnesses, and presentation to the District Attorney’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office dismissed all charges.

In RE: John Doe (2012)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Rape; Aggravated Sexual Battery; False Imprisonment

Prosecution's Case:

The defendant, a juvenile, aided and abetted an 18-year-old boy in the rape and sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl by sexually assaulting the girl himself with his fingers and his penis and by holding the girl down while an 18-year-old male vaginally raped her.

Defense and Outcome:

The defense centered on the juvenile client's denial that he himself assaulted the girl in the manner described by the girl and his denial that he assisted the 18-year-old assault the girl. The 18-year-old had told the juvenile and the girl that he was 15-years-old. Although the juvenile was present when the 18-year-old and the girl were kissing; masturbating each other; and having intercourse, it appeared consensual. And although he did not try to physically stop the 18-year-old from being sexual with the girl, he felt it was wrong. After extensive investigation and recreation of the events alleged, it became clear that the juvenile was equally a victim of the 18-year-old's manipulation, as the 18-year-old insisted that the juvenile be present during his assault of the girl. The juvenile was also evaluated and found not to be a sexual predator. The state agreed to dismiss all of the charges if the juvenile would admit to being criminally negligent for not taking a more active role in removing himself from the situation.

State v. John Doe (2009)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Attempted Aggravated Child Molestation; Computer Exploitation of a Child

Prosecution's Case:

Defendant, an out-of-state resident, knowingly participated in online and telephonic sexually explicit chats with a person he believed was a 14-year-old girl, agreed to meet the girl at her home in Georgia while her mother was away to engage in sexual intercourse and oral sex, and then traveled to meet the girl. Defendant had Viagra and condoms with him at the time of his arrest. The "girl" was in fact an undercover agent posing as a 14 year-old.

Defense and Outcome:

The state's prosecutor agreed to give the defense time to investigate the case before indicting the defendant, during which time the defense studied every line of communication between the defendant and the agent posing as the "girl." Embracing the defendant’s belief that the “girl” was really a woman pretending to be younger -– a woman that he intended to have sex with -– the defense searched extensively for every fact in the case that supported defendant's belief. After months of line-by-line comparisons, extensive study into online behavior and clinical studies about on-line behavior and on-line belief systems, and consultation with "internet psychologists and behavioral experts," the defense met with the DA’s office on several occasions. Ultimately, they elected not to present their undercover sting operation to the Grand Jury and chose not to seek a criminal indictment.

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.

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.

State v. John Doe: (2013)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

The father showed his 6-year-old daughter his penis and pornography.

Defense and Outcome:

Following Defense Counsel’s intensive review of the facts of the case, which centered on prior false allegations amidst a divorce and custody battle over the child, Defense Counsel convinced the District Attorney’s Office that the child had been improperly influenced by the mother to make false allegations against the father. The District Attorney’s Office dismissed all charges just before trial.

State v. John Doe (2012)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Rape, Incest, Aggravated Child Molestation, Aggravated Sexual Battery and Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

The 16 year old defendant admitted to forcing his younger sister to engage in oral sex and admitted to having non-consensual intercourse with her.

Defense and Outcome:

There was no legal defense to this case. The defendant confessed to his actions to his guardians and therapists. There was, however, extensive mitigation. The defendant had his own history of physical and sexual abuse in his childhood. He also had a long history of psychiatric treatment for a variety of disorders that stemmed from his abuse. The defense team poured through thousands of pages of treatment records for the defendant, and had a forensic psychiatrist conduct an evaluation of him. The defense team also ensured that the defendant's sister had her own lawyer. Although he faced a 25 year mandatory minimum for several of his charges, the defense team, working with the defendant's family, the sister's lawyer, and experts, was able to convince the prosecutor that this young defendant needed extensive psychiatric treatment before beginning any prison sentence. As a result, the Court sentenced the defendant in a way that allowed the defendant to enter into a 2 year sexual offender treatment program out of state before starting to serve a short prison sentence.

State v. John Doe (2018)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Rape; Aggravated Child Molestation; Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

The 14-year-old sister of the 23-year-old defendant wrote in her journal that her brother had treated her like a "sex toy" - made her engage in intercourse and fellatio. The girl's mother reported the statement to her daughter's therapist and notified the police. During an interview with police, the defendant allegedly confessed to all crimes. There was no physical evidence, only the girl's word; yet, the defendant was facing two Life sentences.

Defense and Outcome:

The defendant's mother hired Doug Peters and Jason Sheffield to investigate and mitigate. Although the mother reported the allegations, she was hesitant to accept that her son was guilty of the charges. Defense counsel learned that the daughter had an extensive history of lying and manipulation and writing sexual fantasy stories of incest between brother and sister. Also, the defendant was mental ill and suffered from a history of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and hallucinations, mania, blackouts, and intellectual disability but was not being treated at that time for anything. While he was fairly high functioning, he was easily coerced by others. During his interview with police, the officers used his history of blackouts against him and convinced him that he had molested his sister but didn't remember it. Ultimately, this reflected badly on the police. After extensive testing on the defendant to show he was not a sexual predator and highlighting the girl's history, defense counsel was able to resolve the case favorably with lesser charges, no jail time, and first offender treatment. Following 5 years of probation, his record would be expunged.

State v. John Doe (2018)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Statutory Rape; Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

The defendant, a 21-year-old college student, met a 14-year-old girl online who was pretending to be a 19-year fitness trainer. They had intercourse at his dorm. His DNA was found inside her vagina. The defense team issued subpoenas for the alleged victim's medical records, school records, and DFCS records, which showed that the girl had falsely accused others of rape. She was also known to be untruthful by teachers, school counselors, and coaches. The defense challenged the DNA results by showing the DNA could be there not as a result of intercourse but by the girl touching the defendant and then touching herself. The defense team also raised a constitutional challenge against Georgia's Statutory Rape and Child Molestation statutes because they did not allow a Mistake of Age defense.

Defense and Outcome:

On the morning of pretrial motions, just prior to trial, the state dismissed the indictment and allowed the defendant to enter plea to misdemeanor charges. He received First Offender probation and did not have to register on the Sex Offender Registry.

State v. John Doe (2014)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation and Sexual Battery

Prosecution's Case:

The defendant attended a wedding at a resort. After the wedding, and allegedly under the influence of alcohol, he climbed in bed with an adult woman and kissed her mouth and groped her vagina against her wishes. He then climbed into another bed and lay next to a 6-year-old child, whom he similarly kissed and groped. The defendant faced a possible sentence of 61 years in prison and a lifetime on the Sex Offender Registry.

Defense and Outcome:

The defendant denied being under the influence of alcohol. He found the adult woman in his bed and thought she wanted to be intimate. He admitted he kissed and touched her but stopped after she said stop. He did sleep on the bed with the child but stayed above the covers and never touched her. The defense team obtained all discovery, including witness statements and a copy of the forensic interview of the child wherein she claimed she was molested. Defense counsel learned that on the morning after the alleged incident, the adults were talking in front of the little girl about all of the sexual activity the night before, including that the defendant climbed in bed with the adult woman. The girl’s father inappropriately questioned the girl about whether the defendant tried to kiss her or touch her vagina. The girl nodded to the father’s questions. Working with experts on the forensic interviews of children, defense counsel learned that the statements made in front of the girl, followed by repetitive direct questions of the girl, were improper and could lead to the false allegations of child molestation. Based on their experts’ opinions, defense counsel informed the state they were ready for trial. Before defense counsel could conclude the pretrial motions, the state offered to dismiss the sexual charges and allow the defendant to plead under Georgia’s First Offender statute to negligently causing the child emotional pain by making contact with her while he was sleeping. He got probation and would never have to register as a sex offender.

State v. John Doe (2009)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation and Sexual Battery

Prosecution's Case:

The 26 year old Defendant was arrested and indicted for allegedly fondling the vagina of his neighbor's 4 year old daughter while sleeping over at the neighbor's house.

Defense and Outcome:

Following three years of investigation of facts, preparation of the case for trial, and presentation of the evidence to the District Attorney, the District Attorney dismissed the indictment of Child Molestation and Sexual Battery and allowed the Defendant to plead to one count of Cruelty to Children (a lesser, non-sexual offense). The defendant received probation and was not required to register on the Sex Offender Registry.

State v. Jane Doe (2016)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

The defendant involved her 6-year-old stepson in acts of S&M with his father. Specifically, the defendant had the 6-year-old spank her bare bottom and shock her breasts with an electric wand sex toy.

Defense and Outcome:

The case was tried before a jury over a 7-day period. The jury came to understand that the boy's mother had a history of manipulating the boy to falsely accuse his father during their divorce and custody battle. Through experts, the jury learned how the mother’s current manipulation of the boy could create false memories about the defendant that would enable him not only to report explicit details of a false abuse but also to believe the false abuse had actually occurred. Following closing arguments, the jury took less than 90 minutes to acquit the defendant and her fiancé of all charges.

State v. John Doe (2016)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Rape

Prosecution's Case:

The defendant entered the room of his step-daughter and raped her over the course of two hours. The GBI forensic experts confirmed the presence of seminal fluid on the victim's underwear and the defendant's DNA.

Defense and Outcome:

The victim had a history of lying and falsely accusing others of abuse towards her. Other than the GBI's testimony, there was no other physical evidence that supported the allegations. At trial, defense counsel was able to demonstrate through cross-examination of the GBI and presentation of its own experts that the substance on the alleged victim's underwear was equally consistent with female urine or vaginal secretions. Additionally, no sperm cells were seen by the GBI when they microscopically examined the underwear. The defendant's DNA could have been deposited on the underwear through "touch" when he prepared, but did not actually do, the laundry the same morning of the allegations.

John Doe v. The Warden (Habeas Corpus)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation; Exploitation

Prosecution's Case:

The accused was the band director at middle school. The accused communicated with the alleged victim her via text messages, asked naked photographs, and asked to her to meet him at the middle school over winter break. When she did, the accused blocked the door to the band storage room and then sexually assaulted her, having her perform oral sex and by placing his penis on her vagina. The accused was convicted at trial and given 50 years to serve 40 years in prison. His motion for new trial and direct appeal were denied.

Defense and Outcome:

Mr. Sheffield focused on the central issues in the accused's case: the alleged victim did not have credibility and that she made-up the allegations to get back at the accused; that her mother, counselor, and friend coerced her into agreeing that something had happened between her and the accused when she first said nothing happened at all; that her favorite novel, which had an inappropriate sex scene, served as the source of the false allegation and not that something actually ocurred; and that trial counsel never rebutted testimony of the state’s unqualified officer witness about how the cell tower data “located” the accused at the middle school where the alleged victim said the sexual assault occurred.

At the habeas hearing, Mr. Sheffield presented the testimony of lay witnesses and three expert witnesses. Two of the experts about how the alleged victim was influenced improperly; how the forensic interview did not account for that improper influence; and how, as a teenager, she was motivated to lie to keep herself out of trouble. Mr. Sheffield also offered the testimony of his own cell tower forensic expert who testified that the cell tower data, as presented by the state at trial, was misleading and outright false. The cell forensic expert testified the cell tower data should never have been used to “locate” the accused at the school, and the cell tower data equally supported that the accused was at his home just a few miles away.

Conviction reversed.

State v. John Doe (2024)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Criminal Attempt to Commit Child Molestation; Exploitation; Obscene Internet Contact

Prosecution's Case:

The accused had sexual conversations with someone he believed to be a 15-year-old girl. He traveled from Florida to meet the girl for sexual purposes. Upon arrival, he was arrested by police who had been posing as the 15-year-old girl. He later pleaded guilty to 10 years probation, Criminal Attempt to Commit Child Molestation. He was given First Offender treatment, had to register as a sex offender, and had to comply with heavy sentencing restrictions, including that he was not allowed to move back to New York where his family and fiancé lived. Three years after his sentence, the accused ask the Court to early terminate his sentence. The Court denied his request.

Defense and Outcome:

Mr. Sheffield was able to prove to the state and the Court that after five years on probation, the accused had changed his life through sex offender counseling, cognitive behavior therapy, and being honest about his decision making and behavior. He demonstrated extreme remorse and full understanding of how his actions created risk to actual children and chaos and expense for law enforcement and the community at large. His complete personal turn-around, as well completing all conditions of sex offender treatment, mandatory polygraphs, and risk assessments, demonstrated that he earned early termination. Mr. Sheffield prepared for months to present all evidence to the Court, including the testimony of his family, his therapy counselor, his sex offender treatment provider, and the persons who performed his polygraphs and his risk assessments. On the day of the hearing, the state thoughtfully considered the evidence and how it supported Mr. Sheffield's request. The ADA concluded the accused should be rewarded for his great work. With the state's consent, the Court signed the order for early termination.