Robert G. Rubin – Criminal Defense Notable Cases:
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.

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.

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 of Georgia v. John Doe, M.D. (2018)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

A fourteen year old girl contended that her pediatrician touched her bare breast and groin area over her pants during a sports physical examination. The girl’s mother was in the room during the examination, but stated that she could not see what the pediatrician was doing because his body was blocking her view.

Defense and Outcome:

The defense immediately contacted the lead detective and arranged to meet and share information within 30 days if the detective agreed to hold off on taking out an arrest warrant. Over the thirty days before the meeting with the detective, the defense put together expert opinions that it was standard medical care for a pediatrician to take a femoral pulse located in the groin area during a physical exam. Further, the defense polygraphed the physician on whether he touched the girl’s breast, and he passed. The defense was able to show that the girl’s mother had a substantial criminal history for felony convictions, and that she had immediately sought to file a civil complaint against the physician. Finally, the defense was able to show that in over thirty years of pediatric practice, there were no complaints for sexual misconduct. After the meeting with the defense team, the detective determined that there was not sufficient evidence to take a warrant against the pediatrician.

State v. John Doe (2017)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

The ex-wife of the Defendant accused the Defendant of improperly touching their mentally challenged daughter. The ex-wife claimed in a TPO petition that the daughter touched herself constantly and claimed it was a “trick I do for Papa.” The mother’s accusation prompted a GBI investigation.

Defense and Outcome:

Once the TPO was granted, the Defendant hired me and I met with the GBI. I would not let the GBI interview the Defendant, but the agent gave me time to do my own investigation. I immediately had the Defendant take a private polygraph, which he passed. The Defendant also did a psychosexual evaluation, which showed that he was not sexually interested in children. I interviewed the staff at the aftercare program who saw the child stimulating herself. The staff denied that the child ever said the “trick” was for Papa. Pediatric records and aftercare records showed that the child’s self-stimulation had been going on for years and the parents had been instructed on how to correct the behavior. I presented all of this information to the GBI agent and she agreed to dismiss her case without seeking a warrant.

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 (2019)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Sexual Abuse

Prosecution's Case:

A 13 year old girl accused 16 year old Mr. Doe of rape. She alleged that she and her girlfriend snuck out of her friend’s parent’s house, and met up with Mr. Doe and his friend. She said that she sat in Mr. Doe’s truck and her girlfriend sat in the other boy’s truck, and while she was sitting in Mr. Doe’s truck, he forced her to have intercourse. The girl did not tell anyone except her girlfriend until months later when she got suspended from school and she told her mother. In a forensic interview, she again claimed that Mr. Doe raped her in his truck. Mr. Doe was arrested by police based on the girl’s allegation.

Defense and Outcome:

Counsel was hired and immediately moved for a preliminary hearing in order to subpoena records and witnesses. The DA opposed the motion and the judge refused to hold a preliminary hearing. Counsel asked the DA not to indict the case until the two sides could meet and share results of the investigation. Counsel began the investigation by polygraphing Mr. Doe and having a psychosexual conducted. The results of both were positive—he passed the polygraph and his psychosexual was normal. Counsel’s investigator interviewed the other boy that was there that night and obtained the girl’s school records and phone records. The school records showed that the girl was a constant behavior problem and only made the outcry when she got suspended, thus showing that she was trying to deflect negative attention away from herself. Her phone records showed that during the time of her encounter with Mr. Doe, she was calling her friends. Counsel’s investigator called the friends who spoke to the girl during the encounter and none of them were aware that the girl claimed to having been assaulted, and none of them heard her make any comments at the time that she was being assaulted. Counsel met with the DA to share the results of his information. The DA called counsel’s investigation the most thorough she had seen and ultimately declined to prosecute Mr. Doe. The case is closed.

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.

State v. John Doe (2011)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

The Defendant, a 65 years old man, was walking in a park, and said hello to a toddler walking with her mother. The child said hello, and the Defendant told her she was wearing a pretty dress. The toddler said it was pink. The Defendant asked her if she was wearing pretty pink panties to match her dress.

Defense and Outcome:

The charge was dismissed at the preliminary hearing. Investigation revealed that the Defendant did not do anything other than comment on what the girl was wearing. He did not make any attempt to touch the girl or entice the girl to his car. Further, the defense was able to show that the Defendant did not possess any evidence in his house or car that was indicative of an interest in children.

State v. John Doe (2003)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

The Defendant was accused by his 15 year old daughter of coming into her room while drunk, exposing himself to her, and attempting to have intercourse with her.

Defense and Outcome:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the arrest warrant was dismissed. Defendant's arrest record expunged.

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.

State v. John Doe (2009)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Rape, Aggravated Sodomy, Aggravated Sexual Battery, and Kidnapping

Prosecution's Case:

The complainant accused the Defendant of forcing her to engage in intercourse and oral sex one day after school. The Defendant admitted to police that he had sex with the girl but contended that it was consensual.

Defense and Outcome:

Defense investigation of the case revealed that the complainant had lied about her past sexual experience including falsely alleging that she had been raped in the past. The defense was able to show that the sex was consensual and that the complainant was unworthy of belief. Following the defense presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the District Attorney dismissed the indictment and allowed the Defendant to enter a pretrial diversion program.

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.

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 (2009)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation, Sexual Battery (2 counts), Enticing a Child for Indecent Purposes, Cruelty to Children (2nd Degree)

Prosecution's Case:

The Defendant was 51 years old. The Defendant, his family, and his son's friend were on vacation for Thanksgiving in the North Georgia mountains. Upon returning home the son's friend accused the Defendant of talking to him about sexual matters, hitting the Defendant in the penis with a cuestick, and massaging him on his legs and back.

Defense and Outcome:

The defense investigation revealed that the alleged victim made his outcry when he was in trouble, that he had initiated the improper conduct with the Defendant, that he had initiated the same improper conduct with others, and there could be a money motive by the alleged victim's family for filing the charges. On the eve of trial, the District Attorney dismissed the indictment and a plea was entered to 1 count of Cruelty to Children in the 2nd Degree, a sentence of probation, and Defendant was not required to register on the Sex Offender Registry.

State v. John Doe (2023)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Child Molestation, Sexual Battery

Prosecution's Case:

The Defendant and his wife babysat a friend’s 7-year-old daughter and 4-year-old daughter. Two months after they babysat, the 4-year-old told her mother she knew what a boy’s private parts looked like. After questioning by the mother, the child eventually said that she saw and accidentally touched the Defendant’s “private parts” when he was in the bathroom peeing. The daughter repeated that allegation in a forensic interview. Two more months went by and the daughter then claimed that the Defendant made her sit on his lap in the bathroom and his private parts touched her booty. Based on this statement in a second forensic interview, the prosecution arrested the Defendant.

Defense and Outcome:

Fortunately for the Defendant, the mother of the child recorded her interviews of the child and took notes, which were critically important in the trial for showing how suggestively she questioned her child. The crux of the defense was to show how the events described by the child could not have happened because the Defendant’s wife was present the whole time they babysat, and educating the jury on how even normal questioning by a concerned mother can pollute a child’s memory of actual events. The defense had experts in forensic interviewing describe for the jury how research shows that leading questions, confirmation bias, and vilification of the alleged offender taint the allegations such that even a forensic interviewer cannot tell if the allegations are reliable or not. The defense also showed that there was no evidence of a sexual interest in children on the Defendant’s phone or computer. Further, there was no evidence that the Defendant ever tried to “groom” the child, or normalized sexual touching. The Defendant testified and forcefully rebutted the allegations as did his wife who accounted for the child’s whereabouts the whole evening. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on both counts after three hours of deliberation.

State v. John Doe (2018)

Defense Counsel:

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

Prosecution's Case:

The Defendant and his biological nine-year-old daughter spent Mother’s Day 2017 at his parents’ house. His daughter accused the Defendant of raping and molesting her after the party at his parents’ house. His daughter told her mother, hospital personnel, the police, and a forensic interviewer that her father assaulted her in his home after returning from his parents’ house.

Defense and Outcome:

The defense team proved the allegations could not have happened, despite the child’s outcry. The Defendant had barely known his daughter due to her mother’s erratic behavior over the years. He had not groomed her in any way. His daughter alleged that the rape occurred in the Defendant’s bedroom with the door open and his roommate less than 20 feet away. The defense expert testified that his daughter’s sexual assault exam should have revealed physical evidence of the assault, yet it was normal and no DNA was found. Further, the defense experts and lay witnesses testified that his daughter’s behavior was inconsistent with the behavior of a child who had been raped. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty after five hours of deliberation.

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: Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

The defendant, a single father who shared custody of his four-year-old daughter with the daughter’s mother was accused by the state of fondling his daughter. The State alleged that he had molested his daughter during the daughter’s weekend visitation with the father. The state presented evidence showing that the daughter told her mother, her pediatrician, and a forensic interviewer that her father touched her genitals and she told him to stop. The defendant adamantly denied the allegation.

Defense and Outcome:

The defense team proved that the allegation was false by showing that the daughter’s “outcry” to her mother occurred only after the defendant told the mother that he had a new girlfriend, and she became distraught over his relationship. The same day he changed his relationship status on Facebook, the mother claimed their daughter made her statement alleging he fondled her. At trial, defense counsel was able to disprove the allegation through medical experts to show that the allegation was not physically corroborated. The defense team also presented its own experts on the best practices for interviewing children and cross-examination of the State’s witnesses (including the forensic interviewer and her supervisor). Experts in forensic interviewing testified that the forensic interview was wrought with improper procedure and coercive questioning. During jury deliberations and with defense counsel’s presentation of the evidence in mind, the jury requested to view the forensic interview. Just hours later, the jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

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.

State v. John Doe (2009)

Defense Counsel:

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation and Child Molestation

Prosecution's Case:

The Defendant was 40 years old. He awoke sucking on his daughter's breast and stomach. The State alleged that he had molested his daughter while under the influence of alcohol.

Defense and Outcome:

The defense presented evidence of 3 1/2 days. The evidence included lay witness testimony to the Defendant's life time sleep behavior habits, expert toxicology testimony that the Defendant was not intoxicated, and testimony from two psychiatrists describing parasomnia (recently recognized sleep disorder) and their opinion that the Defendant suffered from the disorder. 1 week and 1 day Jury Trial, Not Guilty All Counts.