Cross Examination of Children Accusers Reveals Contradictions
State: Pennsylvania
Court: Court of Common Pleas for York County, PA
Case Name: Commonwealth v. James W.
Lead Attorney: Tom Pavlinic
Co-counsel: Jerry J. Russo
Judge: Bortner
Trial Date: January 2013
Result: Not Guilty (Jury Verdict) – ALL COUNTS
The Commonwealth charged our client with Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse and 6 related counts involving 2 children, ages 8 and 9 at the time of the offense and 9 and 10 at the time of trial. The accusation was that he forced the 9-year old to have oral sex with him when she and the other neighbor slept out over night in a tent with our client and his daughter. Nearly 6 months later, the other girl said she, too, had been touched. The Commonwealth was able to play the girls’ videotaped interviews as part of its case in chief. The girls’ in-court testimony was filled with contradictions.
The judge granted our motion to dismiss 2 of the counts at the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case. The jury deliberated for 6 hours over two days and then entered not guilty verdicts on the 5 remaining counts.
Expert Computer Analysis Debunks Teen’s Accusations of Sexual Abuse
State: Maryland
Court: Circuit Court for Howard County
Case Name: State of Maryland v. RST
Judge: Gelfman
Lead Attorney: Tom Pavlinic
Co-counsel: Attorney Ron Marryott
Trial Date: August 2012
Result: Not Guilty (Jury Verdict) – ALL COUNTS: Sex Abuse of a Minor; Sex Offense Third Degree; Assault- Second Degree.
Case Comments: Our client, a successful businessman, was charged with digitally penetrating his 13-year-old daughter while she was in his custody/care for weekend visitation. The natural mother and client had been divorced for years. The alleged victim testified that she searched for sex abuse “victim” websites shortly after the alleged abuse had occurred. The State introduced this testimony to corroborate her accusations. We secured the services of an expert computer analyst who determined and testified that the complaining witness in fact was on Facebook and playing games on her laptop shortly after the “abuse”, and that the sex abuse “victim” websites represented only a very small percentage of her computer use in the days following the alleged abuse. The expert completely undermined the alleged victim’s trial testimony, which played a large part in securing a not guilty verdict.
Expert Analysis Highlights Inconsistencies: Leads to Maryland Man’s Case Being Placed on the Stet Docket
State: Maryland
Court: Circuit Court for Frederick County
Case Name: State v. B. U.
Lead Attorney: Tom Pavlinic
Date: May 1, 2012
Our client, his wife and their sons visited with the wife’s former college friend for less than 24 hours on December 31, 2010 to January 1, 2011. Shortly after the client and his wife left on New Year’s Day, the friend’s daughter claimed she had been touched while she sat in an open foyer with her mother and the client’s wife in an adjacent bedroom. The daughter later told her mother that she had a dream of being abused before the abuse ever allegedly happened. Despite the bizarre and implausible nature of the allegations, the prosecution went forward.
The prosecutrix wanted to present the testimony of a social worker to opine about behaviors of sexually abused children. Defense filed a motion in limine supported by an affidavit from Dr. Hagan and requested an evidentiary hearing. The prosecution withdrew its request without a hearing.
Later during the discovery phase of the case, the child disputed and recanted defense-helpful statements that she had made to the investigating trooper. Confronted with these contradictions, on May 1, 2012, the prosecution abandoned the case and placed it on the stet docket. (Stet is a Maryland procedure that operates like a deferred prosecution with no finding. If the person charged does not have any further problem with law enforcement, the case is formally dismissed after 3 years and the client’s records can be expunged.)
Maryland Man Accused of Sexual Abuse: Not Guilty All Counts
State: Maryland
Court: Circuit Court for Prince George’s County
Case Name: State v. D.W.
Lead Attorney: Tom Pavlinic
Judge: Serrette
Co-counsel: None
Date: October 11, 2011
Result: Not Guilty (Jury Verdict) – All 5 Counts: Custodial abuse, object penetration, attempted object penetration, improper touching and assault
Case Comments: Our client was accused of putting a light bulb his son’s anus. The son gave numerous contradictions on cross-examination. We had the light bulb examined: it was negative for fecal matter, and the police technician testified for the defense. We also had a gastroenterologist who had conducted 55,000 anal exams over 35 years testify that the nurse’s test for sphincter tone was bogus.
Pennsylvania Client Charged with Felony Sex Crimes – No Megan’s Law Plea
State: Pennsylvania
Court: Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County
Case Name: Commonwealth v. J.B.
Lead Attorney: Tom Pavlinic
Judge: McDaniel
Co-counsel: David Shrager
Date: April 25, 2011
Result: Nolo Contendere Misdemeanor Plea: No Megan’s Law
Case Comments: Our client was accused of having sexual contact with a 7-year old girl while at the child’s mother’s residence. Despite passing a police-administered polygraph, he was charged with 1st degree and 2nd degree felonies. At his first scheduled trial the prosecution offered our client a plea, but one that was unacceptable to him and us. The trial was postponed. We were then offered a plea the week before his second scheduled trial: no jail time, no Megan’s Law registry, and a nolo contendere plea. While we firmly believed in our client’s factual innocence and were eager to prove this in court, the plea was an acceptable alternative.
