This webpage was designed to explain exactly what my role is when I am assisting a client who has been falsely accused of child sexual abuse. First, please understand that my role is in the capacity of a trial consultant and criminal defense strategist and not that of a private investigator, and certainly not as that of an attorney. I am not an attorney and nothing I ever say should be taken as or considered to be legal advice. I have 42 years prior experience as a private investigator and have devoted my practice to assisting the falsely accused and wrongfully convicted since 1989.

My work is mainly with my client. I assist them in choosing the correct attorney, preparing a defense strategy based on whatever material and documents are available, preparing my client for trial, identifying experts as necessary and assisting my client's attorney as requested. If I have the need of a private investigator on any case, one is retained that is licensed to work in the state that the case is located in.

There is no magic in what I do. It simply takes effort, time, rational thinking and a desire to be successful. I do not work for headlines or media attention. My only concern is the safety and welfare of my client, their family and their future. When I am working with a client who has been falsely accused and criminally charged, I have two main goals; to do everything possible to destroy the case prior to trial, but if that is not possible; to do whatever is necessary to win an acquittal on all charges.

I was asked the question, "There are a lot of people on the internet professing to be experts in false allegation cases." "What makes you better or unique?" My answer is very simple. Yes, there are a lot of so-called "experts" who claim to specialize in false allegations of abuse but I never claim to be better than anyone else. The only thing that makes me different is the fact that I work "with my client" where most others just read documents, make recommendations and then refer to other experts or attorneys and, in most cases, without having even met the client or having any knowledge about them personally.

If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times; child sexual abuse allegation cases come down to credibility and who has it. Simply put, that means that my client must be the "star" of the show, so-to-speak, so my first concern with my client is always, "Is there anything preventing them from giving an honest and credible account of what happened?" If so, the first order of business is to correct that.

As a perfect example, I have a case that I referred to a particular law firm and shortly after becoming involved, one of the attorneys looked at me, laughed and said, "You gotta be kidding," referring to my belief that the client was innocent. Based on the "less than credible" explanation that client had given, that attorney was absolutely right.

In that case, after I met with my client and analyzed all case data, there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were innocent, but when they attempted to explain what had happened, they were not credible at all and mainly because of other issues affecting them that had absolutely nothing to do with the allegations themselves. That made them appear guilty. I worked closely with the client until they had the ability to give a credible account and only then did that change that attorney's opinion.

Do not misunderstand, I did not "make" a story for the client, I simply guided them in a proper direction. Their accounting of the events was theirs, not mine. So many innocent people are convicted simply because they could not provide a credible account of what happened, they were told not to testify or they were told if they did testify, not to show any emotion. You cannot properly prepare someone to testify unless you spend time with that person and you know them. I recall a prior case where a family discussed retaining me, but then decided to go with someone who was "far more qualified, had a much fancier website and had written books." The "expert" told that family they had a "network" of professionals they could use as a resource. The family was referred to an attorney on the west coast and the man went to trial. He did not testify and he was convicted. Not one person in that "entire network" worked with that man personally. That is a huge mistake in a child sexual abuse allegation case! My theory is simple; I will let the other "professionals" and "experts" get the headlines, play politics and brag. I am content to work quietly with my clients because they are the only people that honestly matter.

Now, let's go straight to the real heart of the matter. Is the testimony of my client honestly all that important? After all, a good lawyer is really all someone needs, right? False allegations of child sexual abuse are the most emotionally charged cases in existence. Even the hardest working, most caring, and best of attorneys sometimes have no choice other than to roll the dice when defending a case of this nature and sometimes the results are not what was expected.

As a perfect example, consider a conviction. My client had been charged with molesting his step-daughter and was facing life, but he was actually sentenced to 25 years. His verdict had absolutely nothing to do with facts or the evidence that was presented. It was all based strictly and only on emotion. I had worked with my client and prepared them to testify. My words to them, "This is a credibility case." "It will all come down to who the jury believes, you or the child."

The fact is, no one knows how a case will actually come in as things unfold during a trial and it is very easy to arm-chair quarterback, after the fact. That is not my intention and it is not what I am doing here. The attorneys involved in this case are the most professional I have ever worked with. They aggressively attacked and actually destroyed the State's case, but regardless of how successful they were, that alone just was not adequate. The child's testimony was nothing short of a joke and, in reality, that was the State's entire case. Realizing the damage that the defense had actually done to the State's case, and after much discussion, it was decided not to put on any defense at all, so the defense rested just after the State did. The argument was, "The State had not proven it's case."

There is absolutely no question that the jury should have acquitted, but regardless of how absurd the accusing child's testimony was, rather than calling her a liar, the jury opted to take the "safe" road and they found the accused guilty of all charges. Now, in hind-sight, there certainly would have been no risk to have presented a thorough and a complete defense or to have put the accused on the stand, but, as I said, that is arm-chair quarter backing.

The point I am making here is, regardless of what was done, the jury could not have found more against the accused than they did. No one knew or could have possibly predicted the guilty verdict, but clearly, there is a lesson here. So many times it is easier to take the short road, but when you consider the total emotions in these cases, more often than not, it is better to put on a thorough, aggressive, and a complete defense. Here, the accused got 25 years. In a prior case, the defense decided not to put the accused on the stand, "because of a risk factor." Clearly, that jury should have also acquitted on all charges, but they ended up finding him not guilty on all counts but one. That one count put him in prison for years. I would also point out, I have seen cases were the defense was considering requesting a bench trial and I have seen some judges instantly refuse with the explanation that they were not going to be responsible for deciding that case, a jury was.

When defending a case of child sexual abuse, it is often easier to take the safe road; IE, no defense, or as little as possible, because of a fear that the testimony of the accused could put them at far more risk than not having them testify at all, or a plea as opposed to potentially facing years in prison. Regardless, I still stand by one of the most important statements that I have been making for years. As I previously stated, a child sexual abuse case is "all about credibility," who has it and who does not. The accused must come across as being credible to their jury and they must be able to withstand a prosecutor's rigorous cross examination.

I spend the better part of my time with every client preparing them to testify properly. No, I do not tell them what to say, I simply work with them until they have the ability to withstand a prosecutor's cross examination and where they can say with heart, compassion, and credibility, "I am not guilty." I have seen far too many cases where the testimony of the accusing child was ridiculous, but when the accused did not take the stand, the child's testimony is what the jury was left with and what they went with. When that happens, you can expect a conviction, which is exactly what happened here. Sometimes, saving a life requires presenting the "entire case" to the jury and then letting them decide.

In discussing preparation for testimony, unfortunately there are some people who just are not interested in doing anything to help themselves and some that you just cannot help. Of course, that attitude usually changes quickly when they hear, "Guilty as Charged," and their cell door closes. Talk about a wake-up call. There are those who believe:

• Let my lawyer take care of this. That is what they are being paid to do.
• Let my family or friends take care of me, I am too stressed out and depressed to deal with it.
• I have turned it all over to the Lord. Let him work it out.
• I am not going to deal with this and I will use any means to keep from doing so, including running or finding fault with those who were there to help me.
• I am not guilty, so there is no reason for me to do anything.
• I feel sorry for me, so everyone else should too.

My advice to these people is very simple; Have your pity-party later. Play whatever game you are choosing to play later. Your life, your freedom, everything you have worked for, your family and your future is worth far more than playing a game. Sticking your head in the sand or running will not make the problem go away and it is certainly not in your best interest.

Unfortunately, there can be a real problem with an accused who is suffering from a severe depression, one that actually affects their eating and sleeping. In most cases, those people need help and that help usually means an anti-depressant. Anti-depressants do not "cure" a depression, they simply mask the symptoms, but by doing so, they give the person the ability to think and act rationally and logically. A depression will usually run it's course over time, but the last thing that I want is a client with a severe depression trying to talk to a social worker, detective or even thinking about trying to testify. Again, they think they are explaining things properly, but more often than not, what they say is simply not rational or logical and it can easily make them appear to be guilty. The real problem comes when someone with a severe depression is in "denial." "Oh no, I can handle this." "I am not going to take any mind altering drug." "I can beat this." Some are actually afraid to take an anti-depressant. Some fear they will not be in control if they do. If a person with a severe depression begins an anti-depressant, it can take a month to 6 weeks to even determine if it is working. If it is not, increasing the dosage or changing the medication should be considered. I might also add, if a person with a severe depression attempts to take psychological tests, there is a very good chance the results will be far less than favorable. Once again, the person taking the tests believes they are thinking in a rational manner and that is just not the case. The important point here is, even a person with a severe depression who honestly wants help can get it. The question really becomes, "Is the accused really serious about defending themselves?"

Let's be very clear about one thing here. These are not cases where a client retains me and I do all the work. When I work with a client, they are required to meet me half-way and nothing less is acceptable. I cannot build a proper or an adequate defense without the client's involvement, participation, and dedication. The client and I must work together as a team. I do not and will not "feel sorry" for a client, nor will I even think about assisting anyone who refuses to help themselves. It serves no purpose to spend time trying to save someone who already believes they have lost.

I would also mention that there is far more involved in preparing someone to testify and/or conduct interviews properly with either social services or law enforcement than just telling them to "tell the truth." I had one case where I worked with my client once, but based on that "once," that client believed they could handle anything and they tried. When they did, everything blew up in their face and then it was "my fault." The fact is, that client was not ready or prepared to do anything, yet they decided they could handle it all. They were wrong. I find it humorous that this client wanted to blame me. The fact is, it takes far less effort just to blame others for the situation they are in than it does for them to put an honest effort into doing it right. Now, also understand that I have had some clients that I advised "not" to talk to anyone, strictly because of their personality and the potential risk involved, but in reality, I do not know what anyone is capable of doing before I have the opportunity to meet with them face to face during my initial assessment. Also, please understand that I have provided web pages that deal with how to talk to a social worker or the police. I do not recommend anyone attempt such an approach until they had worked with someone and determined that was in their best interest.

Far too many people who have been falsely accused of molesting a child are looking for any shortcuts possible. That can be a very serious mistake. Shortcuts can lead to convictions. These cases demand a complete defense.

An allegation of child abuse is normally a very dangerous charge and there are many initial questions and concerns to consider:

• How many accusers are there?
• Are the allegations against the accused credible?
• Was divorce or custody an issue when the allegation was made?
• What is the extent of the evidence against the accused?
• Is the attorney representing the accused adequate?
• What exactly is the defense for the accused?
• How is the testimony of the accusing child expected to come in at trial?
• Will the accused be ready to testify at trial?
• Does the accused really want to win?
• What exactly will it take to win?
• If the accused is convicted, will their family appeal? I ask this simply as a means of explaining, "Do not get caught up in a wait and see attitude where there is no defense and the result is a conviction before realizing the matter is serious." In a conviction, often a family will spend an unbelievable amount time and money trying to get a conviction reversed and, if successful, the accused goes right back to trial and faces a possible second conviction. If the conviction is reversed, the accused probably will have already spent the better portion of two years in prison. The point is simple; Do it right the first time.

When I am retained to assist a client, the first thing that I do is to meet with them personally at their location whether that is within the United States or not. I work all over the world. Yes, laws differ in various states and in countries outside the United States, but the work that I do falls more toward the human side of a case rather than the legal side. Conducting a complete analysis of a case, working to expose the lie and preparing my client and their family all remain somewhat the same regardless of where I am working. I do not meet clients in Mississippi. I am rarely there and when I am, that time is devoted to my family. I fly about 150,000 miles a year, usually average only 4 days a month at home and I have worked that same schedule for the past 20 years since I began devoting my practice exclusively to defending the falsely accused.

My initial meeting with my client is critical. In a case as serious as an allegation of child abuse, you do not prepare a "boiler plate" defense "then" attempt to mold the personality of the accused into that defense. The proper method is to first understand their personality "then" build the defense around that personality. You are fooling yourself if you believe that you can "email" or "send" someone your case documents and have them make recommendations on a defense when they know nothing about you personally. It may cost less, but it does not work.

During my initial meeting with a client, I have several issues to address:

• What is my client’s personality and what will it take to prepare them to testify if their case goes to trial? This is one of the most critical aspects to building a defense.
• It is somewhat impossible for most people to be falsely accused of molesting a child and not have issues with depression and paranoia. The question is, to what extent is their depression? Do they have a major depression? If so, it needs to be treated. The last thing I want is a client trying to assist me in building their defense when they have an untreated major depression that prevents them from even thinking logically.
• I am equally concerned that my client may have a family member, such as a wife, who has a major depression as a result of the allegations. It is highly possible that others, outside the family, may believe that a depressed wife, who is angry and bitter, is that way because she believes that her husband is guilty.
• Can I actually work with this person or have they reached a point where their only emotion is to feel sorry for themselves, blame the system and everyone else for their problems and have no desire to defend themselves? Usually they want to stick their head in the sand and let everyone else take care of them. With these people I am wasting time because they have no desire to even help themselves. Solutions to problems are found by looking for them, not running away from them.

Once I have had my initial meeting with my client and somewhat understand their personality and the emotions they are dealing with, I will begin to analyze any written material that I am provided with. Following that, I will prepare a written report, making any suggestions and recommendations possible based on the information that I was provided with. Once my report is complete I will meet with the client and/or their family to discuss it. At that point, my involvement in the case ends unless the client wishes to continue working with me. That is strictly the client's choice and it also depends on the case itself. In some cases, all it takes is my initial trip and recommendations. On some of the more serious cases a client may desire to continue working with me, but again, that is strictly up to the client and also based on my belief that my continued involvement would be productive.

After the final meeting with my client on my initial trip, should they desire a continued involvement on my part, the next issue that I address is to make sure that my client has an attorney who can represent them properly. The key word here is, "properly" and this is discussed in detail below. Assuming that my client is being properly represented, then we simply move to the next issue; looking for anything that could be used to have the case dismissed and, at the same time, preparing my client and their family for trial. If my client does not have the right attorney, then we begin a very systematic procedure for locating and identifying one. The system that I have used for the past 20 years to identify the "right attorney" does take some effort and time, but far less time than it would trying to reverse a conviction, but again, that is discussed more thoroughly in the following.

Initially, there is no way to tell how many days a case will actually take. As I have stated, some require an initial assessment and others may take more, that would be up to the discretion of the client. The question is, can anything really be accomplished during the initial visit and assessment? To quote a prior client's wife, "I wanted to hire you, but my husband said there was no way that you could accomplish anything in his case in a few days that his attorney has not considered or done since it started." In respone to that, I recall a prior Florida case:

As you read the following information on this webpage, never lose sight of the fact that anyone who has been accused of child abuse and has been criminally charged, aside from accepting a plea, is facing a very dangerous trial, or their "Judgment Day." That day will easily end up being one of the most important, if not the most important day in their life. The fact is, innocent people do get convicted and are sent to prison. The fact is also that most everyone sitting in prison today had a lawyer. See The Falsely Accused and Judgment Day.

I have gained a great deal of experience since 1989, by preparing defense strategies, consulting on false allegation cases and assisting in reversing wrongful convictions based on child sexual abuse allegations for clients in 49 states and 7 countries. Each case I have been involved in has been a learning experience and I have been fortunate enough to have taken that education on to other cases. My success is based on the fact that I have "clients" who are people and not simply cold and impersonal file numbers.

Again, when I am initially retained by someone to assist in their defense of a false allegation, my first step is to meet personally with my client and determine exactly what their defense is. Following interviews with my client and my analysis of all documents, evidence and case material available, I develop a strategy designed to either destroy the accusations or assure that my client is properly prepared to defend at trial.

At the time that I am retained, if my client has an attorney, I ask them not to identify me or my involvement until such time as I have had the opportunity to complete my analysis. If the client does not have an attorney, I ask them to wait until my initial analysis is complete prior to retaining any legal representation. During my initial trip, one document that I will complete is a time line of all events and a written explanation of the overall problem. I have found that it is very beneficial to have my client take that document to several attorneys, ask them to read it and then schedule an appointment with my client if they feel that they would have success in defending the case. In this manner, the client has the ability to talk with several attorneys and to obtain several opinions, not just one. This is a far better approach than simply having my client run to an attorney, in a panic, begging them to take the case.

It is not my intention to undermine anyone by asking a client not to identify me to their attorney, but rather for the client's own protection. When my analysis is complete, I will be more than happy to meet with the attorney, answer any questions or assist in any way that I can. When I make my analysis, I want to assure that what I see is accurate. I have had occasions where attorneys knew that I was coming and they "assisted" me, not because they wanted to, but only in an effort to appease their client. In many of those cases, the information that I was provided with was less than accurate and far from complete.

Unfortunately, experience has dictated that this is the best approach and the following are actual case examples that support this:

Simply put, when I first become involved in any case, I want to know exactly what shape the defense is in. The fact is, there are attorneys who talk well, convince a client that they know exactly what they are doing and then do absolutely nothing. It is not a good idea to learn that one's legal representation is less than adequate as a jury is being selected. These cases are won or lost long before they actually reach the courtroom. An uncaring attorney will, for the most part, accomplish nothing and the last thing they want is any outsider involved making their client aware of what is going on. Time and again I have heard, "I printed the information from your website and gave it to my attorney." That may be well and good for some attorneys, but most would never read it and could care less. I have also heard, "Why won't you work with my lawyer?" Working with an attorney is not the issue. I am happy to work with any attorney who defends their client with heart. A perfect example is an Oklahoma case I was involved in. I did my initial work, prepared a defense strategy and the client retained what he believed was the best lawfirm in northern Texas. Within two weeks that firm had dropped the ball so badly that the client discharged them and began looking for another attorney. Shortly thereafter, he asked me to join him as he talked to a prospective attorney in Oklahoma. Amazingly, during that meeting, the attorney told us, "I am good at what I do and can present a case to a jury fine, but I have never been involved in anything like this and cannot accept it unless I know that you will work with me, preparing for trial." What an honor it was to work with an attorney who had no ego and was interested in honestly defending his client, but attorneys like that are far and few between. My point is, before making everyone aware of what is taking place, honestly determine exactly where everyone stands.

Approximately 25% of my work is for clients who have been convicted, based on a false allegation of child sexual abuse. I never cease to be amazed at the number of cases where the client honestly believed that their conviction was the result of anything but ineffective assistance of counsel, but the fact is, that is the reason for at least 95% of the cases I have been involved in. I have had clients who have sworn by their attorneys and did not change their minds until they were made aware of what a proper defense should have been.

Every case is different and strategy should be developed on an individual basis. On occasion, a proper strategy can actually stop an allegation from getting out-of-hand. In a Texas case, a DCF, (Department of Children Services), investigator contacted my client and wanted to interview both him and his wife. Just prior to talking with me, my client discussed the matter with his attorney and was told, "hell no, do not go near those people." That decision was not based on strategy nor anything other than a "standard" response. In this case, I knew that if my client did not agree to the interview, there was no question that he would be indicted and face a criminal trial. Granted, the DCF investigator had hopes of "catching" my client either in a lie or in some statement that could be used against him, therefore, the interview could be dangerous, but it also presented us with an opportunity to turn the tables on them. I knew that both my client and his wife were well educated and neither was a hot-head, so we discussed the prospective interview at length. Obviously, one of the most famous questions the DCF investigator would ask was, "Why would the child say this if it was not true?" The fact is, there is no real answer to that question. They simply ask it to get you to talk, hoping you will hang yourself out to dry. I simply told them, be polite, answer their questions and do not speculate on anything. In other words, if they did not "know" the answer, they were not to guess. I also had both him and his wife wear a small, hidden tape recorder in their pocket. Texas is a one-party recording state, so as long as one party to the conversation was aware that it was being taped, no law was being broken. Both my client and his wife completed their interview perfectly. They did not speculate and the DCF investigator got so frustrated that she began saying things she never should have, and all of it was on tape. In addition, the investigator asked my client to submit to testing that he had already successfully completed, although she was not aware of that. My client had several more recorded conversations with the DCF investigator. During one of them, he asked, "If I were to successfully complete the testing you recommend, would your investigation end and the allegations be unfounded?" "In other words, would a successful test convince you that I am innocent?" He told her that he was sure they would attempt to use a failed test against him and, therefore, he wanted to know that a favorable result would be beneficial to him. He also had her explain, in detail, how "good" and "reliable" the testing was and why they used it. The investigator, obviously having never been hit with such a question, was lost. Her immediate response was, "Well, if it was up to me, sure, it would all be over, but I don't know what my supervisor would say." At that point, the investigator referred my client to the doctor that would be doing the testing for DCF. He called the doctor and was again told how reliable the test was. The doctor even went so far as to say that he had testified on numerous occasions in Texas specific to the test results. The reason that I had my client get as much detail as possible from the DCF investigator and from the psychologist who would administer the test was to give that test credibility and prevent a prosecutor from keeping it out at a later date, should my client be indicted. As I said, my client had already successfully completed the same testing that they were asking him to submit to. After the client was told by the DCF investigator that, if it was up to her, "she" would unfound the allegations if he passed, my client told her to discuss it with her supervisor and call him back. Two weeks went by and he heard nothing. I had him attempt to contact the investigator on several more occasions, but to no avail. He could not get her and she would not call him back. Then I had him send a certified letter to her, then one to her supervisor and finally, one to the head of that district office. He received no response from any of them. Finally, my client took copies of all transcripts (remember, every word had been recorded with everyone he talked with), copies of all letters he sent and his test results to the supervisor over that district. That same afternoon, my client's attorney received a telephone call from the DCF supervisor who advised that their investigation was concluded, in my client's favor, and he apologized for any discomfort and inconvenience that they may have put him, his wife or his family through. It ended there and all because he agreed to complete interviews that he was told not to. Again, had my client refused, there is no question that he would have faced a criminal trial. The fact is, the advise that my client was given by his attorney was absolutely correct in most cases, but not in his. Again, every case is different.

In my experience in dealing with false allegation cases, I have had the good fortune to work with some excellent and caring attorneys, and then I have also been exposed to several who were motivated solely by ego. On occasion, where ego has been apparent, I have even been constantly reminded that I am not an attorney and therefore, have no knowledge of the laws specific to a particular state. The fact is, some attorneys are very threatened by anyone, especially a non-attorney, having any input in their case, regardless of the fact that they may have either very limited, or absolutely no experience in defending a false allegation of abuse case. It is not unusual at all for these attorneys to make the argument to the client that any outside party is not necessary. On several prior occasions, I have had that happen to me after I had been retained to assist a client. In each of those cases, the attorney convinced them that paying me was an unnecessary expense and that there was nothing I could do that their paralegal could not. As a result, my services were terminated by the client with the explanation, "Sorry, but we have to do what he says," and "We just can't afford to make him mad at this point." On two of those three occasions, well after I had gone, I received telephone calls from family members, asking me to assist them in reversing the conviction and apologizing for discharging me when they did. I might also add that each of the convictions resulted, without question, because of ineffective assistance of counsel. There simply was no defense and no real preparation for being hit with the unexpected at trial. The unexpected, in both cases, was the fact that the child's testimony not only came in perfectly, but the child also alleged additional abuse as well. Simply put, the accused never saw it coming and was not prepared. In one of those two cases, the accused did not testify, based on the advice of his attorney. It took his jury just less than 45 minutes to reach their verdict; "Guilty."

Even in those cases where attorney ego is present, there are still solutions. As a perfect example; In a Chicago case, both the client and I knew that his attorney would reject any outside assistance and, for that reason, we decided that it would be best for me to remain in the background and guide the client as he went through his ordeal. In that particular case, thankfully, we managed to destroy all of the sexual abuse allegations that his wife had made against him prior to any criminal charges being filed. Immediately thereafter, my client was awarded full custody of his daughters and child support. The Court ordered that all visitation between my client's wife and her children be supervised and his wife was ordered to pay a portion of his legal fees. Amazingly, in that case, my client's attorney told him that he could not get custody, his wife would not be ordered to pay him child support, he could not have his wife's visitation with his daughters restricted to supervision and that no Court would order his wife to pay his attorney fees. In each case, that was incorrect. For the full story on that case, see Success Story.

The question is, why would any attorney desire to reject outside assistance, especially in a false allegation of abuse case? In most instances, the answer is simple; The greatest majority of attorneys practicing today have very limited or absolutely no experience in defending these specific type cases. Many times they find themselves stumbling in the dark, especially when they approach a false allegation defense as they would any other criminal case. Usually, the last thing they want to deal with is their perception that someone with experience may be looking over their shoulder. As I previously mentioned, many of these insecure attorneys have a great gift of "talk," and can easily convince their client that everything is under control. Unfortunately, "talk" does not make a defense, action does. As a perfect example an attorney may recommend the services of their private investigator to the accused, yet is not even concerned enough to follow up and see what the investigator has accomplished, if anything.

In every false allegation case, there are two specific sides; the legal side and the human side. Granted, the legal side does deal with issues specific to every jurisdiction, but the human side, dealing specifically with the testimony of the accused and their witnesses, remains constant in most every case. In trial, no defense attorney can normally predict the testimony of a child accuser. Most probably, the child may offer testimony that is far more detailed than anything they said prior to trial. How is this possible? Very simple. Through multiple interviews, which assist in coaching the child and, on occasion, even exposing the child to a full "mock" trial, including a jury, to get them prepared to testify properly and comfortable with the trial process.

In trials specific to allegations of child sexual abuse, the defense may have expert after expert lined up telling the jury there was no physical evidence of abuse and that a child can lie, even about issues as serious as being sexually abused, under certain circumstances, but when the smoke clears that jury will be left with basically two issues; the credibility of the testimony of the child as opposed to that of the accused. Simply put, who is believable? The testimony of the accused must combat the child's testimony, especially given the fact that many jury members may "side" with the child simply because the accuser is a child. Again, in our general perception as humans, we generally ask ourselves, "Why would any child lie about something as serious as being abused if it had not happened?" and "How could any child possibly have the sexual knowledge necessary to make the allegation if it was not true?" Without question, these issues must be resolved to the jury's satisfaction or a conviction is almost certain.

Never lose sight of the fact that any jury begins a false allegation trial with only the knowledge contained in the individual indictments and with the prosecutor telling them that they expect the evidence to prove that the accused did molest the child. At that point, depend on the fact that each individual jury member will begin closely watching every action of the accused. While there is absolutely no profile or characteristics of a molested child or a child molester, depend on the fact that jury members will try to determine, in their minds, if the accused "fits" their perception of what a child molester would be. That is simply human nature.

A great deal of the defense will rest with the attorney's ability to properly question that child while they are on the witness stand. Juries have convicted simply because they did not like the way the defense attorney "picked" on the child and, equally so, many cases are lost either because the accused did not testify or because they were not properly prepared.

In most child abuse allegation cases, as previously stated, a jury will not acquit unless the defendant testifies and, obviously, unless they believe the accused has more credibility than that of the child accuser. Put yourself in the place of any jury member. You are trying to determine if an accused is guilty. You hear the child tell you that they were sexually molested by the accused, but the accused does not testify and deny the allegations. Would you acquit or would you think that the accused was afraid to testify, was hiding something and was probably guilty? Never lose sight of the fact that these cases are not like any other criminal case. An accused may well get by in not testifying in a murder case or a burglary, but in these cases, there is usually minimal evidence and again, everything will usually come down to the word of the accuser against that of the accused.

When we are assisting a client at trial, our involvement can include, but is not restricted to the following:

For a more thorough explanation, see How We Assist at Trial

Also consider reading, When Charged with Child Abuse, What can Happen? and Charged with Child Sexual Abuse? How Trials are Won or Lost.

Now, back to the human side. The accused should have no problems with testimony when they are being questioned by their own defense attorney. The true danger will come during the cross-examination by the prosecutor when the accused may be faced with possible issues they may not be aware of. That is highly possible when the defense strategy was based solely on the information obtained pretrial and no concern was given to new allegations that may surface when the child testifies. If the accused is properly prepared, hopefully, they will avoid pitfalls, old or new, that might give a jury a reason to believe that they are guilty, simply based on responses they provide during their own testimony. The testimony of the accused could easily make the difference between prison and freedom. It certainly is not something anyone should gamble with nor something that any accused should take lightly.

In a great many of the cases that we have been retained on following a conviction, I learned that the entire pretrial preparation of the accused consisted of, "tell the truth and you will do fine." The fact is, honestly preparing a witness takes time and effort. In cases where we have been involved, we have carefully worked with our client, going over every possible aspect of the case, step by step, until they are able to respond to any questions or issues properly and without hesitation. Obviously, that approach has proven successful, especially when we have watched juries acquit our clients on all charges, even where there have been numerous indictments.

Preparing a witness is just as important as picking the correct jury, yet seldom is a major importance attached to either of these factors. You do not survive a false allegation of abuse trial by "shooting from the hip." You do survive by preparing a perfect defense and assuring that anyone who will testify in behalf of the defense has been properly prepared to do so. Obviously, that includes being prepared to address issues the child accuser may never have brought up prior to their trial testimony.

The greatest fear for many of those who have been falsely accused is the fear that they will not be absolutely perfect when giving testimony. The fact is, no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes, however, by gaining a thorough knowledge of all issues specific to the allegations through continuous discussion, the accused will certainly be more prepared to avoid potential prosecution "tricks" and "traps."

As previously stated, there is nothing at all magical or mysterious about what I do, or my ability to prepare a witness. I get to know my client so well that I know exactly what they are or are not apt to say under different circumstances. I actually develop part of the defense strategy based on my involvement with my client. In one major case, the client had been accused of showering with his step-daughter. That one allegation grew to 14 individual indictments because of the child being exposed to multiple interviews. 2 of the 14 indictments were rape and in that particular state, if convicted on a rape charge, the sentence was life without possibility of parole. When I first got involved, the client was a complete psychological mess because everyone had hammered into his head that his taking a shower with his step-daughter was completely inappropriate. I will never forget my first meeting with him. I asked him what he had done that was wrong. All he could tell me was what everyone else said he did wrong. Again I asked what he had done wrong and again, he quoted everyone else. I asked him to go back in his mind to the time he showered with her and asked him if it was wrong "then." His immediate response was, "no." The fact is, the circumstances under which the shower took place was not improper, but he had allowed everyone else to control his thinking. As I got to know him, his wife and his children, I quickly realized something that no one else had. This man was actually more of a mother to his children than his wife was. That resulted from the fact that he had previously been divorced and had raised a daughter on his own prior to marrying his current wife. Unfortunately, no one could or would understood his actions unless they first understood him. When his true personality was realized, he used that effectively in his testimony and convinced the jury that he had done nothing wrong and was innocent. He was acquitted on all charges, but could easily have spent the rest of his life in prison with absolutely no chance of ever being released.

Our main areas of expertise in defending against false allegations of abuse are divided into three basic categories; working with children, building a complete defense strategy for our client, and assuring that the attorney representing the client represents them properly. Most false allegation cases, where a trial resulted in a conviction, was largely due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Either the attorney was not experienced in handling these matters or simply did not care enough to associate themselves with someone who was. Obviously, it is in the best interest of any accused to know whether or not they are being properly represented before they walk into the courtroom the day their trial begins.

When we work for a client, our obligation is strictly to them. Anything we determine that is wrong during our investigation is reported directly to them and it is their choice to accept or ignore the matter. There have been cases where we quickly learned that the attorney representing the client was far from adequate and reported that to the client. In some cases, the client changed attorneys and in others, they remained with the same counsel they had, only to discover at trial they made a mistake. With the risk factor in these cases being prison, there is absolutely no room for mistakes.

Our overall goal in any false allegation of child sexual abuse case is to provide absolute proof that the allegation is false and, hopefully, prevent an indictment or prosecution. If successful, we will have saved our client thousands of dollars and a possible conviction.

In order to reach our final goal, as previously stated, it is first necessary to meet with the client and determine exactly what has been done for them in their defense. Have all steps taken in their behalf been proper and adequate and if not, why not? Finally, what will it take to correct past defense mistakes, if any, and turn everything around for the client? This is no easy task and will not be accomplished by someone who is not experienced in the field, whether it be an attorney or an investigator.

Our expertise includes, but is not limited to, total pretrial preparation, witness preparation, locating and interviewing expert witnesses, arranging specific testing for the accused and working with children, even in cases where others have failed to reach them, to obtain the truth after they made a false accusation. There is an absolute art to properly dealing with a child and the system we have devised has yet to fail in the cases that we have been involved in. Following preparation, we "talk" to a child. We do not "interrogate" them, nor do we obtain the information we seek through leading or suggestive questioning. Our video taped interviews with children are designed to provide the truth and not stress the child.

In post-conviction matters, we analyze the total defense to identify any possibility of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct or any other factor that resulted in the conviction and work with the client in their attempt to have their conviction set aside.

We view false allegation cases differently than many others, including most attorneys. Attorneys specialize in "legal" defense tactics where we specialize in finding the truth and proving that the allegation was false. Any false allegation is a lie and without question, the most direct approach is to expose the lie.

There is, however, an art to "exposing" the lie. If this is not done properly, the "lie" will persevere and in many cases, conviction is inevitable. Exposing the "lie" can also be the solution to reversing a conviction. Even following a conviction, "proving" the allegation was a lie is, in itself, enough to justify filing a motion for a new trial, based on newly discovered evidence. In those cases, since you have proven that the prosecution's main witness lied, the prosecutor will normally dismiss all charges and the horror ends.

Keep in mind, there are no shortcuts in these cases. I have listened to potential clients who panicked and have gone off in a thousand directions preparing what they believed was their defense. One example was a man who told me that he was not worried because he could prove that his ex-wife, and the mother of the child who accused him, was a drug addict. So what! The only issue is what is the jury going to think when that child gets on the witness stand, crying and points at him saying, "He did this to me"? Outside issues usually benefit no one. I have also seen persons who were charged actually approach their accuser and quickly found themselves facing federal charges of tampering with a witness. Preparing these cases for trial is not a joke. Get an expert.

We pride ourselves in educating our clients to the point where they plainly understand in simple terms what is going on in their defense and in preparing our cases in such a manner as to stop prosecution before trial, if at all possible.

During the course of our defense preparation, depending on the circumstances and the client, we may recommend various testing by experts. These tests could range from the polygraph, an MMPI (psychological evaluation), depression inventory, sexual history and tests to determine sexual interest, specifically designed to identify if someone is a pedophile. We do not normally recommend the penile plethysmograph for any of our clients except under extraordinary circumstances. For details regarding the manner in which we use various testing when defending a client, see Testing We Use.

It is our practice to prepare our client for any testing, polygraph or otherwise. In any case where authorities request that the accused take a polygraph, and that would be advantageous, we always recommend a thorough pre-test. I have been involved in cases where our client has taken and very successfully passed a polygraph, however, were told they failed the examination when it was administered by local law enforcement. On those occasions, after being told they failed, we presented the report from the first test and after checking into it, the prosecutor decided not pursue the matter. They would have gone forward in their attempt to obtain a conviction had the only test been by law enforcement and the prosecutor was told that the accused failed. In this scenario, it is vital to have the pre-test conducted by a professional who is not afraid to stand by their results, especially when they passed someone that law enforcement then failed.

Polygraph tests are not used as evidence. On occasion, when the State believes they have a weak case, they will give the accused the option of taking a polygraph, telling them that if they pass the test the investigation will be dropped. The sad part is that some people who are innocent agree to take the test, fail it and find themselves facing trial. You can fail a polygraph and not be guilty. The polygraph, along with many of these other tests, are psychological and proper preparation can easily mean the difference of passing or failing.

Beware of the prosecutor who has no desire to determine the truth regarding guilt or innocence in a sexual abuse case. Their sole ambition is to convict. These self-righteous "professionals" use a conviction as a feather in their cap and, in many instances, a stepping stone for political purposes. They will lie to the defense and the jury, will hide discovery when it benefits the defense, and will do whatever else is necessary to achieve their goal. While it's true that these individuals will certainly be judged for their actions one day, that is no consolation to the innocent they have sent to prison in the name of "justice." These "prosecutors" can be defeated, but only by the most seasoned professional.

One question that I am asked repeatedly is, since I provide so much detail as to what I do and how I do it, can't others follow my plan and present themselves as experts? The answer is yes, but the problem is, following my guidelines may work for a while, but since each case is different, someone who copies my methods will quickly run into a brick wall when they are required to develop a proper defense strategy on their own. Unfortunately, when this happens, the accused is usually left with nothing and their "expert" is gone. This same also holds true with some clients. I have had several cases where I have assisted with various testing, identified the proper experts that would have been required and developed a defense strategy, after which some clients have seen fit to carry on themselves. In one case, I met with my client, reviewed all material, including video tapes, assisted with psychological and sexual preference testing, identified possible experts to assist and worked with him as he retained a new attorney. At that point, the client stopped all communication with me and the next time I heard from him was through an email on the eve of his trial when he identified numerous problems he was facing, all of which could have been corrected had he simply contacted me earlier. Amazingly, even after he broke off all communication with me, I continued to send him new case laws specific to his state and his issues, but I never even received so much as an acknowledgment that he had received the information. In that case, my response to his email did not even reach him before he accepted a plea, admitting that he was guilty of a crime he had never committed. Thankfully, most clients do continue to communicate with me throughout their ordeal and most are successful.

In summary, regarding our involvement, when retained:

In the most ideal case, my total involvement usually amounts to 3 to 5 days, depending on client's geographic location in the country and the amount of material that I have to cover. I meet with the client, develop a defense strategy, and then educate my client as to what to expect and how to survive a false allegation of abuse. My continued involvement is based solely on my client's desire, the case circumstances and the actual need for further assistance.

The best possible advice that I can possibly offer anyone who is being falsely accused is, educate yourself and actively participate in your defense. Normally, when someone is falsely accused, their initial reaction is usually panic, depression and withdrawal. That is normal, but far from beneficial. Many times an accused will "run away" from the problem, allowing others to look for assistance or prepare their defense. The fact is, if an accused is convicted, they will go to prison, not their attorney and not their family or friends. As a perfect example; I had a young man contact me regarding my assistance, but since his family was paying for his legal expenses, he decided not to use our services because he did not believe they could afford it. Approximately one year later, I received a telephone call from his sister, stating that he had just been convicted and, as they were taking him out of the courtroom in handcuffs, he handed her a piece of paper with my name and website on it, asking her to get in touch with me. Following our conversation, I was retained and, without question, his conviction was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. He simply had no defense. The problem is, he will face a new trial and possibly a second conviction, when and if his initial conviction is reversed, meaning that his family will be required to spend thousands more than they would have for a proper defense initially. For information on the manner in which we handle a conviction for someone falsely accused, see Reversing a Wrongful Conviction.

Unfortunately, I am unable to accept any pro bono work, (without charge), and I am not aware of any grants or funding that is available to assist with either defending a false allegation case or reversing a wrongful conviction. For an explanation of our fees, please see the Our Daily Rates page.

If you have been falsely accused, I would strongly recommend you review What to Do and What Not to Do When Falsely Accused.