Child Sexual Abuse

State v. John Doe (2024)

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

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

John Doe v. The Warden (Habeas Corpus)

Charges: Child Molestation; Exploitation

States 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.

Judgement:

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

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

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2023)

Charges: Child Molestation, Sexual Battery

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2022)

Charges: Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

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

Charges: Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

Investigation Reveals Implausible Allegation (2020)

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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 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).

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation; Aggravated Sodomy

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

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

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

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

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation, Aggravated Sodomy, Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

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).

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

States 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.

Judgement:

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 of Georgia v. John Doe (2019)

Charges: Child Molestation; Sexual Battery (m)

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

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)

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

States 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.

Judgement:

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)

Charges: Incest

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

State v. John Doe (2019)

Charges: Child Sexual Abuse

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2018)

Charges: Rape; Aggravated Child Molestation; Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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

Charges: Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2018)

Charges: Statutory Rape; Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2017)

Charges: Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2018)

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

States 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.

Judgement:

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. John Doe (2017)

Charges: Child Molestation; Aggravated Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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)

Charges: Aggravated Sexual Battery

States 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.

Judgement:

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. Jane Doe (2016)

Charges: Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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)

Charges: Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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)

Charges: Rape

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

In Re: John Doe (2016)

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

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2014)

Charges: Rape and Incest

States case:

The 17 year-old defendant was accused of committing Rape and Incest against his 10 year-old sister, who told two classmates that the defendant repeatedly had intercourse with her. The students reported these allegations to their teacher, who in turn notified the school counselor, who then interviewed the sister and subsequently contacted police. The defendant was arrested; and because he had just turned 17, charges were filed against him in Superior Court rather than in Juvenile Court. If convicted, he faced 25 years minimum mandatory time to serve, followed by life on the Sex Offender Registry.

Judgement:

Defense counsel obtained discovery and had it reviewed by experts, who concluded that the “forensic interview” by the detective in the case was done very poorly, violating fundamental interview protocols. Further, a careful review of the detective’s interview of the school counselor revealed that the child’s purported “outcry” was suspicious, that the child never even identified the defendant as an alleged offender, and that the counselor likely tainted the process by introducing the idea that “penetration” occurred and that it was “painful.” The counselor failed to record the interview, and the detective did not obtain her rough, hand-written notes. Nor did the detective interview the two students or their teacher as potential witnesses to the “outcry.” Defense counsel also obtained records of the child’s physical examination and had the records reviewed by a forensic pathologist, who concluded that the examination was normal, consistent with nothing having been done to the child. The expert also noted that the child’s description of the alleged intercourse was not consistent with how she would expect it to be reported. In the child’s pediatrician records, defense counsel found that the child had been diagnosed with ADHD and ODD and was prescribed various medications for behavioral and emotional problems, and found nothing suggesting a history of sexual abuse. And the school records defense counsel obtained confirmed conduct and behavioral problems documented independently by teachers and counselors throughout the child’s academic career. The defendant submitted to a polygraph examination, where he maintained his innocence of Rape and Incest and was found to be truthful. After defense counsel presented the foregoing to the District Attorney, the state dismissed the Rape and Incest charges in Superior Court, transfering the charges to Juvenile Court, where the defendant’s case was resolved by a period of probation. Having charges resolved in Juvenile Court resulted in the defendant not having to serve time in detention, not facing 25 to life, having no conviction on his record, and not having to be on the Sex Offender Registry.

State v. John Doe (2014)

Charges: Child Molestation and Sexual Battery

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2014)

Charges: Child Molestation, Enticing a Child for Indecent Purposes

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

State v. John Doe: (2013)

Charges: Child Molestation

States case:

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

Judgement:

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)

Charges: Child Molestation, Sexual Battery

States case:

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

Judgement:

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 (2012)

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

In RE: John Doe (2012)

Charges: Rape; Aggravated Sexual Battery; False Imprisonment

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2012)

Charges: Child Molestation, Aggravated Child Molestation, Aggravated Sodomy

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2012)

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

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2011)

Charges: Rape; Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

State v. John Doe (2011)

Charges: Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2009)

Charges: Child Molestation and Sexual Battery

States 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.

Judgement:

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. John Doe (2009)

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

States 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.

Judgement:

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 (2009)

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

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

State v. John Doe (2009)

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

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

State v. Jane Doe (2009)

Charges: Aggravated Sexual Battery and Child Molestation

States case:

The 22 year old female Defendant babysat the alleged victim who made outcries that the Defendant sucked on her breasts, fondled her vagina, inserted her finger in the child’s vagina and made the child suck the Defendant’s breasts.

Judgement:

Following a rapidly performed defense investigation of facts, the defense presented evidence to the detective that showed the alleged victim had a history of lying, that she had made false sexual accusations in the past, that the Defendant’s character was excellent, and that multiple witnesses would testify to the bad character of the alleged victim. The detective then consulted with the District Attorney's office and agreed to close the investigation without obtaining a warrant for the Defendant’s arrest and without attempting to prosecute the Defendant.

State v. John Doe (2009)

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

States case:

The 15 year old Defendant was under investigation after his sister told DFACS that he had kissed her, inserted toys into her vagina and behind, and kissed her behind.

Judgement:

Defense investigation revealed the alleged victim in the past had exaggerated claims for attention, had been presented with suggestive and sexual stimulus materials by teachers, the Defendant passed a polygraph, and defense experts did not feel she was acting in a manner consistent with being molested. Following presentation of this evidence to the District Attorney, DFACS, and the police the District Attorney and DFACS ceased all investigation against the Defendant. All information was given to the presiding Juvenile Court judge who was ruling over the deprivation hearing and the judge dismissed the deprivation action and apologized to the family for the terrible ordeal this must have been.

State v. John Doe (2009)

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation and Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

State v. John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 (2006)

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation (2 Counts) and Aggravated Sodomy (2 Counts)

States case:

The Defendants were juveniles (16 and 14 year old brothers) who were indicted as adults for committing multiple acts of anal intercourse against a three year old neighborhood boy for whom they had babysat on several occasions over a six month period of time.

Judgement:

Court granted Defendant's pretrial motion to exclude the child's hearsay statements from trial as being unreliable. Following the Court's order, the District Attorney dismissed the indictment.

State v. Reverend John Doe (2006)

Charges: Aggravated Sexual Battery and Aggravated Child Molestation

States case:

The Defendant was the head pastor at a major church in Gwinnett County, was in his late 50's with no prior criminal record. Defendant was arrested following allegations by his grandson that the Defendant had rubbed his penis, and injured his grandson by inserting his finger into his grandson's anus.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the warrant was dismissed.

State v. John Doe (2006)

Charges: Child Molestation

States case:

The Defendant was a 60 year old male. A ten year old girl who lived next door to the Defendant claimed that the Defendant stood nude in front of the window at home and masturbated in her presence.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the warrants were dismissed.

State v. John Doe (2006)

Charges: Aggravated Sexual Battery, Child Molestation

States case:

The Defendant was 45 years old, a CPA, no prior record, married for 10 years whose wife claimed that his four year old daughter stated he had inserted his finger into her vagina.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the warrants were dismissed.

State v. John Doe (2006)

Charges: Child Molestation (9 Counts)

States case:

Defendant's "live in" nanny made a report to the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services that Defendant had engaged in inappropriate conduct with his daughters.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the Department of Family and Children Services, and the Department of Family and Children Services terminated their investigation and no criminal charges were filed.

State v. John Doe (2006)

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

States case:

The Defendant was 54 years old. He and his wife had become Foster parents; and, from 1994 through 1999 had taken the alleged victims (brother and sister) into their foster home. The state alleged that he had repeatedly molested the children throughout the five year period.

Judgement:

2 Week Jury Trial, Not Guilty All Counts

State v. Dr. John Doe (2005)

Charges: Child Molestation (3 Counts)

States case:

The Defendant was a 1st grade school teacher and was indicted for three counts of allegedly molesting a six year old female in his class.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the indictment was dismissed. Defendant entered Plea of Nolo Contendere to 2 misdemeanor counts of Simple Battery to 24 months probation. Defendant was not required to register as a sex offender.

State v. John Doe (2005)

Charges: Aggravated Sexual Battery (2 counts), Child Molestation (3 counts)

States case:

Defendant was accused by the six year old daughter of a friend of his wife's of inserting his finger into her vagina over a two year period of time.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the indictment was dismissed.

State v. John Doe (2005)

Charges: Child Molestation (9 Counts)

States case:

The Defendant was a 34 year old, single male who had served as a Foster Parent in Gwinnett County for approximately two years. 9 alleged victims testified that the Defendant had molested them over a period of 1 1/2 years.

Judgement:

2 1/2 Week Jury Trial, Not Guilty All Counts

State v. John Doe (2004)

Charges: Rape, Aggravated Sexual Battery, and Child Molestation (3 Counts)

States case:

The 16 year old Defendant was arrested as an adult, denied bond, and indicted for the alleged rape and assault of a fellow high school student.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the indictment was dismissed. Defendant's adult arrest record expunged. Case transferred to Juvenile Court for 70 Days in Juvenile Detention followed by probation.

State v. John Doe (2003)

Charges: Child Molestation

States 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.

Judgement:

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.

State v. John Doe (2003)

Charges: Statutory Rape, Aggravated Child Molestation, and Aggravated Sodomy

States case:

The Defendant was an employee in the United States Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and was working in the capacity of investigator/community liaison officer. The alleged victim was a 13 year old prostitute, chronic run away, and reputed nude dancer.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the District Attorney agreed to include Defendant=s evidence with the State=s evidence for the Grand Jury=s consideration. Grand Jury dismissed all charges.

State v. John Doe (2002)

Charges: Child Molestation, Statutory Rape, Incest

States case:

The Defendant's 16 year old daughter ran away from home. She reported to the Gwinnett County Police that her father had sexually attacked her and raped her three times a week from 1992-1996 from the time she was six years old to ten years old. She further claimed that her mother was aware of what her father had done and told her not to tell anyone.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the Gwinnett County Police they were convinced not to issue warrant.

State v. John Doe (2001)

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

States case:

The Defendant, 28 years old, was accused of committing Aggravated Child Molestation (Sodomy) by his three year old daughter. The Defendant and the child's mother had been having an off again, on again dating relationship for an extended period of time.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the DFACS investigation was terminated and the criminal investigation was terminated by the District Attorney prior to presentation to Grand Jury.

State v. John Doe (2001)

Charges: Child Molestation, Statutory Rape, Incest

States case:

The Defendant's ex-wife reported to authorities that Defendant had molested his six year old daughter during a weekend visitation. The mother of the alleged victim stated her daughter informed her the Defendant had fondled the child's vagina.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the warrant was dismissed by District Attorney.

State v. John Doe (2001)

Charges: Felony Murder, Cruelty to Children, Aggravated Child Molestation and Aggravated Sexual Battery, Shaken Baby Synrome

States case:

The Defendant was a 14 year old boy who was accused of inserting his finger into the vagina of a 23 month old baby he was babysitting and then shaking her to death.

Judgement:

Two week jury trial, Not Guilty All Counts

State v. John Doe (2000)

Charges: Aggravated Sodomy (4 Counts), Assault Against a Person in Custody (4 Counts), and Sexual Battery (4 Counts)

States case:

The Defendant was employed at an educational training and daycare facility providing services for children and adults who are handicapped. The alleged victim was a 23 year old male suffering from cerebral palsy and mental retardation that claimed on 4 separate occasions the Defendant committed acts of sodomy on him when he was assisting him to go to the bathroom.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the District Attorney agreed not to present the case to the Grand Jury and all charges were dismissed.

State v. John Doe (1999)

Charges: Child Molestation

States case:

The Defendant was charged with 1 count of Child Molestation. The alleged victim was his four year daughter who claimed that the Defendant had inserted his finger in her vagina when she was staying overnight with her father while her mother was out of town on a church retreat.

Judgement:

During jury selection the State dismissed the indictment and allowed the Defendant to enter an Alford plea (no admission of guilt) under the First Offender's Act (no requirement of registration on the Sex Offender Registry) to misdemeanor Simple Battery (offense of touching not in a sexual way) and probation.

State v. John Doe (1999)

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation and Aggravated Sodomy

States case:

The Defendant was charged in a 15 count indictment including counts of Aggravated Child Molestation and Aggravated Sodomy. All offenses were to have been committed against his adoptive daughter when she was 8-10 years old. The Defendant also had multiple charges against him in Gwinnett County, Georgia, as well as Dallas, Texas for similar alleged acts.

Judgement:

After a jury was selected and prior to opening statements the State agreed for the Defendant to enter an Alford plea (no admission of guilt), Nolo Contendere (no conviction), to six months work release/home confinement. Prosecuting Attorneys in Gwinnett County, Georgia, as well as Dallas, Texas, agreed to dismiss additional pending charges against the Defendant.

State v. John Doe (1999)

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

States case:

The Defendant, a special education teacher for approximately 10 years, was arrested and charged with Aggravated Child Molestation for allegedly sodomizing his three year old daughter.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the District Attorney dismissed all charges and refused to present the case to the Grand Jury.

State v. John Doe (1998)

Charges: Sexual Abuse First Degree (2 Counts)

States case:

The Defendant was indicted for allegedly sodomizing (mouth to vagina) and digitally penetrating the vaginas of his girlfriend's two daughters (ages 5 and 3).

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the District Attorney dismissed the indictment.

State v. John Doe (1996)

Charges: Aggravated Sexual Battery and Child Molestation

States case:

The Defendant was indicted on one count of Aggravated Sexual Battery for allegedly inserting his finger into the anus of his girlfriend's daughter and one count of child molestation for allegedly rubbing his penis against her buttocks.

Judgement:

At Evidentiary Hearing on Pretrial Motion the State dismissed the indictment. The State agreed for Defendant to enter a plea of Nolo Contendere (no admission of guilt) under the First Offender's Act (no conviction), under Alford v. North Carolina (maintaining his innocence), to one misdemeanor count of Simple Battery, to sixty days probation, all suspended upon completion of 40 hours community service.

State v. John Doe (1996)

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation (2 Counts) and Child Molestation (5 Counts)

States case:

Defendant was indicted for two counts of Aggravated Child Molestation and five counts of Child Molestation against his two children. The Defendant=s marriage was troubled and his wife had undergone chronic depression, suffered from bulimia and believed herself to have been molested as a child.

Judgement:

Following defense investigation of facts, preparation of case for trial, and presentation of evidence to the District Attorney the District Attorney dismissed the charges one week before the case was scheduled for trial.

State v. John Doe (1994)

Charges: Child Molestation

States case:

The Defendant was an international pilot for Delta Airlines. He was indicted for inserting his finger into the vagina of a 6 year old female who was the daughter of the Defendant's neighbors.

Judgement:

One week Jury Trial, Not Guilty All Counts.

State v. John Doe (1992)

Charges: Aggravated Sodomy, Child Molestation, Cruelty to Children

States case:

The Defendant was a Haralson County school teacher accused by his niece of molesting and sodomizing her over a three year period at his home in Haralson County.

Judgement:

One week Jury Trial, Not Guilty All Counts.

State v. Dr. John Doe (1990)

Charges: Child Molestation

States case:

The Defendant,and Optometrist, was accused by his wife of molesting their two year old daughter during overnight visitation periods while their divorce case was pending.

Judgement:

1 Week Jury Trial, Not Guilty All Counts.

State v. John Doe (1989)

Charges: Aggravated Child Molestation and Child Molestation

States case:

The Defendant was accused by his fifteen year old sister-in-law of folding her vaginal area and attempting to have sexual intercourse.

Judgement:

1 Week Jury Trial. Jury dead locked 9 to 3 for acquittal. District Attorney dismissed all charges and did not retry case.