The below case results were obtained by Attorney Tom Pavlinic while working independently as well as jointly with the Group’s local co-counsel. These cases include not-guilty verdicts, dismissed charges and negotiated pleas attained for prior clients who were facing sexual assault or sexual abuse charges. While the future result of your case cannot be predicted, and not all of our cases have had desirable outcomes, we hope that a review of the below cases illustrates the level of sex crimes criminal defense experience that would be brought into your case.
Below are cases involving clients who have consented to Tom’s sharing factual summaries of their cases.
Case Dismissed for Maryland Man Charged with Sexual Abuse of a Minor and Second Degree Sexual Offense
Court: Circuit Court for Baltimore County, MD
Case Name: State v. Michael S.
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Date: November 04, 2019
Result: Case Dismissed
Our client is a 20-year member of the U.S. Navy who was only weeks away from retirement when his girlfriend’s 16-year-old daughter made an allegation that he sexually abused her for 3 years between 2011-2014, when she was 10-13 years old. Because of the allegations, Michael’s retirement from the Navy was held up, and he was indicted on state criminal charges, including sexual abuse of a minor and second degree sexual offense.
As part of our due diligence investigation, Michael and I worked closely to establish a timeline. Michael was a hands-on client who assisted in every way he was asked. It was an impossibility for the alleged abuse to have to have occurred for 2 of the years as he was deployed to Germany that entire time. Further, when he returned to the States, the complainant was living with her mother in California, and he was in Virginia.
Our investigation also revealed that the complainant made allegations against her biological father as well as some of her brother’s friends. These allegations were also investigated by the Navy. Once the Navy investigation was terminated, we were able to access all of the exculpatory information.
Without the benefit of counsel, Michael made the decision to give long interviews with both Navy investigators and the Baltimore County Police Department. Fortunately, though, he made no admissions that the State could have used against him. We were worried that some of his comments may have been ambiguous, and law enforcement is prone to putting a prosecution-oriented spin on such statements.
We faced a number of hurdles in the case because the complainant lived with her mother in California. Mother was also an active member of the U.S. Navy and not subject to State subpoena power. Had the case proceeded to trial, we would have had to follow the Touhy procedure that the military requires before its personnel can be asked to appear in civilian court.
Fortunately, we were dealing with an objective and ethical prosecutor. We first provided him with all of the deployment records. We then followed up and furnished the Navy’s investigative file. After the prosecutor reviewed all of the information and talked to his potential witnesses, he opted to dismiss the case. That was done on November 4, 2019.
Michael has since been able to retire with an honorable discharge from the Navy. We will follow through and have all of the records pertaining to the State prosecution expunged.
Military Father Not-Guilty of Sexual Abuse
Military Court, Maryland
Military Counsel: LT S.Y.W
Civilian Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Date: March 04, 2019
Result: Not Guilty on All Charges and Specifications
Our client had a daughter, M., with his then girl friend before joining the military. Shortly after he enlisted, he married and had 2 daughters. He and his family tried to have M. visit with them during some of his out-of-country tours, but they were unsuccessful for logistical reasons related to housing and interim deployments. The first long-term visit was for M. to come for the summer, spend the 2012-2013 school year and return to Puerto Rico.
In October 2015, a minor argument between M. and her father escalated to her alleging that he choked her. She left the house and moved in with her boyfriend and his family who lived four houses down the street, because she “felt safe.” Her father and her mother did not approve of this relationship. In early 2016, M. accused her father of sexual abuse.
M claimed her father molested her on a weekly basis from December 2012 through January 2015 in residences she shared with her stepmom and 2 sisters. She testified to this abuse even though she visited with her mom in Puerto Rico and voluntarily returned 5 times. Her mother and extended family came to the mainland on 2 occasions, to celebrate Thanksgiving and her high school graduation. M also testified she continued to live with her dad for 10 months after the alleged abuse ended.
State law enforcement refused to charge our client. The military, though, filed charges and specifications against him just as he was ready to retire. Court-martial proceedings began March 4, 2019. The government called M., her ex-boyfriend and his parents as fact witnesses. It also called two experts, one to talk about counter-intuitive behavior of alleged victims of sexual abuse and a strangulation expert.
The evidence presented by the government was so inherently weak, that the defense rested without offering any evidence whatsoever. After closing arguments, the jury members deliberated for just two hours before finding our client not guilty on all charges and specifications.
On Appeal, Department of Human Services is Directed to Expunge “indicated report” of Child Sexual Abuse from ChildLine
Court: Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania Department Of Human Services Bureau Of Hearings And Appeals
Case Name: C. G., Jr. In re: B. G.
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Co-counsel: Lori A. Yost
Date: December 2018
Result: Appeal Sustained, Expungement Ordered
This case is different from those that we normally handle as it was an administrative appeal from the agency’s intention to add our Client’s name to an internal listing of sexual abusers as a result of a finding of indicated child sexual abuse. At the time, a criminal investigation was pending, but there were no criminal charges.
Our Client and his first wife, T., had two children: C. and B.G. (the “complainant”), born 2000 and 2003, respectively. E. and Er., born 2003, are twins that the Client had from his relationship with S.
In 2004, the Client began serving a jail sentence as a result of his conviction of a sexual offense against a minor. (This conviction had nothing to do with the instant case. It stemmed from a voluntary interaction with an under-aged teen.) While incarcerated, the Client received frequent visits from the complainant; he was released in 2010.
After his release, the Client used the time between 2010-2015 to adapt to civilian life and re-establish contact with his children. In March 2015, he moved into an apartment. While living at that residence, he received regular visits from his son, the complainant, E. and their friends.
The Client met his current wife, J., in April 2016, moved in together and subsequently had a son. When J. announced she was pregnant, B.G. made threats to other family members about killing the unborn baby. Shortly thereafter, B.G. moved out but maintained frequent contact with her father before she initiated her complaint.
The issue of abuse arose on September 23, 2017, when the complainant told her sister, E., who in turn immediately told J. Two days later, on September 25, 2017, the complainant gave a formal statement to the Child Advocacy Center (“CAC”). B.G. alleged repeated incidents of graphic sexual abuse, some of which were to have occurred in the presence of others. Surprisingly, though, even after the allegation was made, the complainant continued to contact the Client for financial assistance.
The weaknesses of the Agency’s case were obvious from the very outset. B.G.’s testimony at the hearing was not only replete with inconsistencies, but also contradicted by other family members. Her own siblings disputed her accusations. When the Administrative Law Judge wrote up his opinion, he detailed those contradictions in a comparison chart. The Agency’s tactic of trying to use our Client’s prior conviction backfired.
After the conclusion of a 3-day evidentiary hearing, the parties submitted written briefs framing the issues and arguing the facts and the law. The Administrative Law Judge’s opinion fully supported our Client, and he prevailed on appeal. In short order, law enforcement closed its investigation without bringing any criminal charges.
After Extensive Pre-Trial Investigation and Depositions, Prosecuting Attorney’s Office Dismisses Sexual Abuse Charges
Court: St. Louis County
Case Name: State v. T. R.
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Co-counsel: Joseph M. Hogan
Date: August 2018
Result: All Charges Dismissed
T. R. (our client) and B. G.( his girlfriend) had an on-again, off-again romantic relationship. B. G. lived across the street from G. (the minor complainant) and her mother. G. was an animal lover and often came to B.G.’s house to play with the cat.
According to the police report, G. said that she was at her home on Sunday, March 8, 2015, when B. G. asked her to come out and help her to look for her dog. G. then related that our client and B. G. initially took her upstairs and both had sexual interaction with her. When this incident was reported to the initial investigating officer on March 9, 2015, the complainant clearly and unambiguously stated that the date of the alleged offense was Sunday, March 8, 2015.
During law enforcement’s follow-up visit, the complainant’s mother then said the alleged incident actually occurred on Saturday, March 7, 2015, and not Sunday, March 8, 2015, as originally reported. According to the mother, she believed her daughter’s sexual abuse allegations because the mother did not keep any pornography in the house, and her daughter otherwise had no access to it. Further defense investigation uncovered this was not true.
The police investigation also revealed that the complainant was hospitalized twice since December of 2014 for behavioral issues. She was taken from the school directly to the hospital for in-patient care. The prosecution never attempted to obtain these psychological records because the prosecutors considered them to be “irrelevant,” despite their obvious relevance and importance
Both our client and B. G. were picked up on arrest warrants in the spring of 2015, but they were not formally charged. On August 12, 2015, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office opted not to prosecute either our client or B. G.
In 2017, a different prosecutor issued charges, and both our client and B.G. were formally charged and released on bail. It was obvious to both defense teams that our clients were factually innocent, and all the attorneys formed a tight and focused working relationship at the outset. T.R.’s brother provided the financial backing to ensure an in-depth investigation. Because Missouri is one of the few deposition states (this means that the defense could take formal statements from all witnesses under oath before a court reporter), the defense intensely researched the case to establish a timeline and command of all the facts before the witnesses were deposed. The information that we gained during those depositions was shocking.
We learned that G. was taken from school for hospitalization because she threatened to harm her teacher and fellow classmates. Her mother could not remember any of the incidents and claimed not to have any knowledge of the doctors, medications, therapists or diagnosis. From G. we learned that she had access to pornography through an app on her phone and that she had killed two of her pet lizards. There was also evidence of G. leaving her baby sitter’s care and hiding outside with no coat or shoes in frigid temperatures.
There were multiple contradictions between the statements that the G. first gave to law enforcement, then at the depositions we took and finally at the depositions taken by B.G.’s defense counsel. There were also substantial discrepancies and inconsistencies between G.’s various accounts and those testified to by her mother. Moreover, the testimony of one of the investigating police officers directly contradicted G.
Further depositions were taken of all of the other fact witnesses designated by the state. As the defense was gearing up for a contested motions hearing and trial, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office voluntarily dismissed all charges against our Client and B.G. in August 2018.
Military Specifications Against Army Officer Dismissed Due to Statute of Limitations
Military Counsel: MAJ Kevin M. Adams
Civilian Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Date: March 23, 2018
Result: All Specifications Dismissed
In 2017 a high-ranking, retired Army officer was accused with 6 specifications of having sexually abused his daughter between 1983 and 1989. The complainant did not make a report to the military until 32 years later in January 2015, when she was 44 years old.
During the course of the investigation, the discovery which was provided by the government showed multiple, major contradictions in the complainant’s statements.
At an Article 32 hearing (the equivalent of a preliminary hearing in civilian court) the presiding judge recommended that 4 of the specifications be dismissed. Despite the court’s recommendation, the government referred all 6 to a general court-martial. (Commanders in the military court have discretion beyond civilian prosecutors.)
At pre-trial motions, the first 3 specifications were dismissed by the trial court, as was previously recommended at the Article 32 hearing. The court also found that the referral of specification 4 for court-martial was defective and solicited further rationale from the government to substantiate this offense.
While preparing for a July 2018 general court-martial, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the military’s highest tribunal, in an unrelated case, overturned years of military decisions and held that the statute of limitations for an alleged rape committed before 2008 was 5 years. Since the prosecution in this case did not begin until 2015, the court granted the defense’s motion for dismissal, thereby ending the prosecution against our client.
Client Facing Sexual Abuse Allegations in Two States Found Not-Guilty by Jury
Court: Cobb County Superior Court
Case Name: State v. C.W.
Lead Attorney: Tom Pavlinic
Co-counsel: Corinne Mull
Judge: C. LaTain
Date: May 15, 2017
Result: Jury Verdict – Not Guilty on All Counts
Our client was charged in Cobb County Georgia in a 3-count indictment with the following offenses: Child Molestation as a result of allegedly touching a child’s vagina and breasts (Counts 1 and 2, respectively) and Cruelty to Children in the First Degree based upon the alleged touching causing extreme mental pain (Count 3).
While visiting her grandmother and our client (Client) in August 2015, the 11-year old complainant reported to her grandmother that Client made her feel uncomfortable when he gave her a back rub. Client had known the complainant since 2009, when he and the grandmother began their relationship. Evidence at trial established that Client had given the complainant backrubs for many years, and the grandmother described her granddaughter as a “backrub freak.”
When the grandmother returned the complainant to her parents in North Carolina, new allegations surfaced. Now the complainant – for the very first time – alleged that Client had touched her vaginal area during a vacation in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina a year earlier in the summer of 2014.
The parents took the complainant to a therapist who reported the allegations to law enforcement. As part of the investigation, the complainant and her grandmother gave video interviews that were provided to the defense in discovery. Client was first arrested at his home in North Carolina and extradited to Georgia and then arrested in Georgia and extradited to South Carolina.
Jury selection began on May 9, 2017, and testimony started the following day. The State called 7 witnesses in the following order: mother, father, complainant, the interviewer, therapist, grandmother and investigating detective. Although our client was only on trial in Georgia for conduct that allegedly occurred in that jurisdiction, the State was able to introduce statements regarding the conduct that allegedly occurred in South Carolina as “propensity evidence.” Cross-examination of the state’s witnesses brought out inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony and also established the implausibility of the South Carolina allegations. At the conclusion of the State’s case, a defense motion for directed verdict as to Count 1 was granted.
The defense presented the testimony of 6 witnesses: South Carolina defense counsel, Client and 4 character witnesses, including Client’s friend of 50 years, his son and 2 former wives. The testimony of South Carolina defense counsel was crucial because it permitted argument during closing that no action had been taken in South Carolina, and Client had the constitutional right to defend himself in that jurisdiction as well.
The case went to the jury on Monday, May 15, 2017, around lunch time. After several hours, the jurors sent a note saying that they were hopelessly deadlocked. Nevertheless, the judge ordered them to return the following morning and continue deliberations. After a total of 8 hours over 2 days, the jury entered Not Guilty verdicts to both remaining counts on May 16, 2017.
Jury Finds West Virginia Magistrate Judge Not Guilty of Sexual Abuse
State: West Virginia
Court: Harrison County Circuit Court
Case Name: State v. M.G.
Lead Attorney: Tom Pavlinic
Co-counsel: Belinda Haynie
Judge: Thomas W. Steptoe Jr.
Date: July 5, 2016
Result: Jury Verdict – Not Guilty on All Counts
Our client was a 46-year old Magistrate Judge with 2 older children when he met the mother (to be referred to as “Mother”) of the complainant in 2000, who had a 9-year old son and a then 4-year old daughter, the complainant (to be referred to as “Complainant”). In 2003 our client, along with his daughter, Mother and her 2 children moved in together. When our client (to be referred to as “Client”) and Mother married in 2005, she was employed by the prosecutor’s office.Read More...
Between 2009 and 2014, Complainant’s life was in complete chaos. Although she had been a good student and active cheerleader throughout her school years, at age 15 (2011), she became addicted to injecting and snorting heroin, often using in excess of 24 bags a day. Her addiction led her into 3 stints of rehabilitation. Complainant’s medical records substantiate that she attributed her addiction to her circle of friends and an inability to stop. At a preliminary hearing she testified that the alleged abuse did not cause her drug addiction. At trial she retreated from this previously given, under-oath testimony.
Also, during the 2009-2014 time-frame, Mother, Father and other family members continued to ask Complainant if she had been sexually abused by Client; they had their “suspicions.” Despite Complainant’s repeated denials to her parents and family, Mother testified, “I just could not let it lie.” Not only did Complainant deny the allegations to her parents and family, but also to medical personnel whom she saw for her addiction. The defense presented 7 exhibits culled from Complainant’s records in which she denied any abuse.
Events exploded in August, 2014 when Complainant was hospitalized for her third attempt at rehabilitation for heroin addiction. Her father kept pressing her to explain why she kept relapsing. Complainant, for the very first time, blamed her mom’s “perverted ex-husband.” She made the allegation after having heard another patient tell an almost identical story. Having finally gotten the answer that he had been awaiting 5 years to hear, Father, against the advice of hospital staff, then immediately checked her out of rehab and took her to the state police. It was there, for the first time, that Complainant made an accusation to law enforcement against Client.
Complainant reported that she was raped on 5 separate occasions. She claimed two of the incidents occurred before she had her period on Valentine’s Day in 2006 when she was 9 years old – once when her mother was not home, and once when her mother was in an adjacent bedroom. An additional two incidents were to have occurred on June 15-16, 2006, when her mother was at a conference. The final incident was to have taken place in 2009. Complainant also maintained that Client drilled holes in the door and walls to spy on her. While this was supposed to be occurring, Client’s daughter’s uncontradicted testimony was that she lived in the house from the time they all moved in together in 2003 until the middle of 2008.
Law Enforcement’s Investigation
The investigating trooper then conducted what many observers described as a biased and incompetent investigation. The trooper failed to: contact Client’s daughter, review medical records, verify the mother’s trip, interview Complainant’s therapist or challenge Complainant about the imaginary holes in the walls. A purported independent witness to an alleged specific spying incident was never identified. He also secretly recorded a conversation with Mother’s boss (the then elected prosecuting attorney) in an apparent attempt to verify Mother’s versions of the 2009 conversations — an unheard of undertaking in law enforcement circles.
Although Complainant claimed that the abuse took place on a very specific weekend, June 15-16, 2006, when her mother was at a conference, the trooper failed to obtain records that clearly established that the mother never even attended such a conference. Inconceivably, when the case was presented to the grand jury, the trooper testified that those dates were verified.
The Arrest & Pre-Trial Motions
Client was arrested in October 2014 and suspended without pay while the case was pending. As part of reciprocal pre-trial discovery, the defense presented the state with documentary evidence that Complainant’s mother never attended a 2006 conference. At trial the state then developed a brand new theory, alleging the abuse did not happen in 2006, but rather in 2009! When confronted during cross-examination with this inconsistency, Complainant testified that “we” concluded that it must have been 2009; this version came 2 years after the initial allegations and only after last-minute discussions with the prosecutors.
In an attempt to bolster its case, the state notified the defense that it intended to call three experts: a physician who performed a physical examination 9 years after the alleged abuse; a social worker who did not conduct an independent investigation but concluded that Complainant was a victim of abuse; and a psychologist who was going to testify about “behaviors of sexually abused children” and reasons for “delayed disclosure.” In pre-trial motions, the defense described the state’s psychologist as a “quack” for agreeing to such testimony after having spent less than an hour with Complainant and having acknowledged, under oath, that there are no objective behavioral characteristics of sexually abused children.
At trial, the state’s medical expert testified that her exam was “normal,” that she really did not anticipate any medical findings after a 9-year period of time, but that she came to court for evidence purposes. Neither the social worker nor the psychologist was even called during the trial. This was in part due to the defense’s expert who was prepared to rebut their anticipated testimony.
The trial began in 2016, and spanned 6 days. The prosecution presented Complainant’s testimony and that of her mother, father, cousin, an acquaintance and the medical expert. The investigating trooper sat through the entire trial but never testified. The defense presented the testimony of Mother’s boss, another then assistant prosecutor, a SANE nurse, a psychologist, its investigator, Client’s daughter, Mother’s own therapist and a character witness who had known Client for over 50 years. Finally, Client took the stand and testified on his own behalf.
The Verdict & Reinstatement
Jury instructions and closing arguments took place the morning of the 6th day. After only 90 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned verdicts of Not Guilty on all 5 counts. Within days of the verdict, the West Virginia Supreme Court restored Client to his position as a Magistrate Judge and ordered that he recover the wages he lost during his suspension.
Not-Guilty Verdict After Conviction Overturned on Appeal
Court: Labette County District Court
Case Name: State v. R.C.
Lead Attorney: Tom Pavlinic
Co-counsel: Melanie S. Morgan
Judge: Jeffry L. Jack
Date: May 01, 2015
Result: Jury Verdict – Not Guilty on All Counts
When our client was only eighteen years old, he started dating a girl who had two young daughters, then ages one and two. They had an on-again off-again relationship for a number of years. In 2007, they purchased a home together, and the daughters moved in with them permanently. Shortly after moving in together, both daughters accused him of having sexually abused them. Although they made allegations of sexual touching, they both denied any penetration. At first, the girls’ mother supported him, but she then turned against him.
Law enforcement did not conduct a very thorough investigation and moved forward primarily on the girls’ allegations. Our client was arrested and went to trial in August 2009. As part of its evidence at the 2009 trial, the prosecutor presented the testimony of a nurse who displayed photographs of both girls’ hymens and testified that they were obliterated. She also displayed pictures of normal hymens, leaving the jury with the impression that there must have been some abuse. Our client was convicted, sentenced to 14 years and required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He served almost four years before his conviction was overturned on appeal. The court released him on an increased bail pending the second trial.
Efforts to resolve the case without a second trial were not successful. The defense offered to accept a plea to time served. The state demanded a sentence of 9 years. Our client rejected the state’s offer and went to trial.
In 2016, Tom was brought in by our client and his family to serve as co-counsel at the retrial — nearly 6 years after the charges were first brought. He worked with one of the original attorneys who had tried the case in 2009, Melanie Morgan, who was very effective in cross-examining the investigating agent at the second trial and exposing the lack of any meaningful investigation. It was obvious when the cross examination was complete, that there had been a rush to judgment.
In addition, the defense took a different approach with the evidence. Since the medical evidence (obliterated hymens) did not comport to the girls’ allegations (touching but no penetration), we brought in a gynecologist who testified that there must have been some penetration, and that the medical evidence was not consistent with the allegations. The defense then displayed the evidence used by the state in its first trial, but not utilized in the second. Tom and Melanie pointed out to the jury that it was the defense who presented the medical evidence that was collected by the state.
There was some evidence that the mother accused a member of her family of abuse. This testimony was not admitted at the first trial but was in the second. As part of the criminal investigation, the social worker and the investigating law enforcement officer recorded video statements from each of the girls, all of which were played for the jury at trial (for over 1.5 hours) despite the girls’ having testified. The defense included a Power Point presentation in its closing argument that outlined all of the reasonable doubt generated by not only the evidence but also the lack of evidence. The jury deliberated less than two hours before finding our client not guilty of all counts.