Jury Finds Client Not Guilty of Sexual Abuse of a Minor and Sexual Offense in the Third Degree
State: Maryland
Court: Circuit Court for Montgomery County, MD
Case Name: State v. JK. J.
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Judge: Richard E. Jordan
Trial Dates: March 2-5, 2020
Result: Jury Verdict – Not Guilty All Counts
JK, Our client, was born in Haiti. As a young man, he experienced the poverty, illiteracy, suffering and political corruption of the island. He arrived in the United States on refugee status in 1994 at age 24.
After a series of menial jobs, he landed a position with the Federal Government in 2002. He had an adult daughter before he married in 2004; he fathered 5 children with his wife.
Because of his experience in Haiti, JK wanted to help others. In 2010, he established a small church to minister to members of the Haitian community and other immigrants in Washington metropolitan area. Even though he and his family did not have a lot of money, he reached out and assisted those who had even less.
One of the families that he helped was a co-worker from Haiti that he had known since 1998. She and her then 6-year-old daughter began attending the church, when it was founded in 2010. The evidence established that between 2010 to December 31, 2014, the daughter visited JK and his family and stayed overnight at their home, according to her own words, “50 times.”
The daughter testified that she told her mother that JK “touched her boobs and vagina” on New Year’s Eve 2014, and that they called JK, who came over and “apologized” the next day. JK denied that this New Year’s Eve encounter and New Year’s Day confrontation ever took place. Between 2014 and 2019, the now 16-year old complainant and her mother continued to attend the church, visit his home and stay overnight.
JK testified that he was made aware of the accusations for the very first time in May 2019, when he met the complainant’s mother at a local McDonald’s to discuss some of the behavioral problems her daughter was exhibiting. The complainant said that she told her therapist in January 2019 of the alleged 2014 abuse.
JK was arrested in June of 2019 and charged with one count of sexual abuse of a minor, a felony, carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years, and one count ofnthird degree sex offense, an additional felony carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The advisory guideline range for these offenses was 5 to 10 years active incarceration.
At trial, the complainant said that JK touched her breasts, her vagina and then her breasts again. Cross-examination of the complainant, her mother and the detective established a host of inconsistencies.
The mother was confronted with a statement that she gave to CPS that made no mention of any touching of the vagina and refuted that the client had “made an apology.” The detective’s testimony was important because, according to the complainant, “grandma” was present” on the evening of the alleged abuse. The independent evidence, however, established through passport entries that grandma did not even arrive from Haiti until February 7, 2018.
The complainant’s testimony was further contradicted by testimony from her best friend and the audio statement her brother gave to law enforcement. The defense presented additional testimony from JK’s adult daughter, wife, 2 teenage children, a family friend, her teenage daughter and another person whom the defendant helped. JK took the stand and testified effectively on his own behalf.
During the trial, the defense tried to admit testimony about the complainant’s behavior, but the judge would not allow it. In the mother’s own statements to CPS, she detailed that her daughter had once been an obedient child and good student. However, she began cutting school, lying, stealing, meeting older men on the Internet and attempting suicide on two occasions. In addition, the mother testified that her daughter was “trying to destroy me and anyone helping me” by making allegations that her own mother was unstable, and that she should be “put in the nuthouse.” The court would also not admit evidence of a “sting call” that did not result in JK’s making any inculpatory statements.
The defense argued its closing in a PowerPoint presentation that focused on the complainant’s contradictions and JK’s strong character, stable marriage and steady employment. The jury deliberated less than 2 hours before finding JK Not Guilty on both counts. A sweet victory for a decent human being.
Case Dismissed for Maryland Man Charged with Sexual Abuse of a Minor and Sexual Offense in the Second Degree
State: Maryland
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
State: Pennsylvania
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
State: Missouri
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.
