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.
