First, please understand that my role in assisting those falsely accused of child sexual abuse is in the capacity of a defense strategist and consultant and not that of a private investigator. My work is mainly with the 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 I am in.

I have gained a great deal of experience since 1989, by preparing a defense strategy or consulting on false allegation cases or by assisting in reversing wrongful convictions, based on child sexual abuse allegations, for clients in 47 states and 5 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. The information on this page does not apply to the attorneys who retain us, but rather to those individuals who have been falsely accused and are seeking assistance.

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:

• In a prior case in Montana, the clients did respect my request and said nothing to their attorney, allowing me to complete a full and proper case analysis. My client had been charged with fondling and penetrating a young girl's vagina with his finger and he was actually scheduled for trial two weeks from the date I became involved. As I reviewed all transcripts and tapes, I learned that the child accuser had never said that she was touched or penetrated by anyone. What she did do was to "agree" with the people who interviewed her that it had happened. There is a big difference in "making" an allegation and "agreeing" to something that an interviewer suspected. Based on my findings, I recommended a Taint Hearing and I prepared a 60-page report, explaining the hearing and the experts who could assist. After completing my report, I asked my client to provide his attorney with the report I had prepared and to let him know that I was there, if by chance he wanted to discuss any of my findings. The following day, I received a telephone call from the attorney. He was as cold and as arrogant as anyone I had ever talked with. He stated, "I understand my client's family hired you and you are supposed to be some kind of expert in these cases, but I have everything I need." "As you may well understand, I am very busy preparing for trial, so if you want to meet with me, that would be fine, but it needs to be done quickly." Based on his attitude, I told the attorney that there was no reason for either of us to waste our time with a meeting, that I had provided my client with a written report he could share with him and, if he had any questions, I would be there through the following day. The next day, the attorney telephoned me again, but that time, all sarcasm disappeared and it was if I were talking to another individual. I was told later by my client that he had met with his attorney earlier that morning and was told that my report provided nothing that would be beneficial to them. The client asked his attorney why they could not get a Taint Hearing and the attorney replied, "What's a Taint Hearing?" Needless to say, the client was not happy, especially since the attorney obviously had not read one word of the report that he had been supplied with. Thankfully, that case had a happy ending. A new attorney was retained, a Taint Hearing was granted and information was obtained that then allowed the client to successfully defend at trial. In that case, although my client's attorney had access to the same information that I had, he had not studied it and was not even aware that the child accuser had never personally made any allegations. In reality, the only thing that attorney was prepared to do was send my client straight to prison, yet right up to the point where I got involved, my client sincerely believed that he was in the best legal hands possible and was prepared for trial. The point in this case is, had the client told his attorney that I was being considered, most probably, the attorney would have done everything in his power to keep me out. The last thing he wanted was any outsider educating his client as to what was actually going on.

• In an Ohio case, when allegations surfaced against my client, he was referred to me and told his attorney that he wanted me involved in his defense. His attorney told him that it would be a waste of time and money because no one could prove something didn't happen that really didn't happen. The client accepted what he was told and, for the next nine months, watched as his life was all but destroyed. He was forced into supervised visitation with his children, watched his business fall off to nothing as the local people whispered behind his back, calling him a child molester, yet he did nothing. Finally, out of desperation, one night he did call me and, following a lengthy conversation, I made arrangements to meet with him. During our meeting, we developed a strategy and, within two weeks, I had a signed document from the accuser, stating that he had never been molested by anyone. What the accuser actually signed was a survey I developed, dealing with Megan's Law, the law that requires a child molester to register, but regardless, it was a signed document, from the accuser, in which he personally responded to various questions and in which, again, he stated that he had never been molested. It was with great joy that I presented that document to my client's attorney, the same attorney who stated that retaining us would be a waste of time and money. Needless to say, another attorney was retained and the document, used at trial, was all that was necessary.

• I was retained in a Florida case that had actually been going on for a year, prior to my involvement, and in which my client's attorney was doing everything in his power to get my client to accept a plea. I was actually retained by my client's wife and his family and, for the most part, against my client's own wishes. He told me that he did not believe that it would be possible for me to do anything in a few days that his attorney had not done in the past year and he thought my involvement would amount to nothing more than a waste of money. I was told that, early in the case, the prosecutor had offered to drop everything if my client could successfully pass a polygraph. His attorney sent an examiner to test him, just after he had been arrested and "while he was in jail," something that was inexcusable. Needless to say, that test was inconclusive. His attorney had him complete a second test when he was released on bond. He was told he failed that polygraph, but the fact is, the person who tested him had absolutely no experience in testing for allegations of abuse, real or false. When I became involved, after reviewing all available documentation, I completed a time line and a case history. Amazingly, as the history came together, it alone identified gaping holes in the prosecution's case and, following that, I had my client complete a polygraph with an examiner who had a great deal of experience testing for sexual abuse issues. He passed perfectly and then, following the polygraph, my client successfully completed a battery of testing. One thing my client did do early in his case was retain a local psychologist, mainly to keep the State from using him. We took all test results and the documents I had prepared, presented them to the psychologist, who happened to know the prosecutor well and, within a week, all charges were dismissed and his one year nightmare ended. In this case, the last thing the attorney would have wanted was any outsider involved, especially since he was trying desperately to have my client accept a plea, so making him aware would have only met with the strongest resistance.

• In a Colorado case, a young man had already accepted a plea, just prior to my involvement because he had been convinced by his attorney that the State had DNA evidence that could not be disputed. What the attorney had failed to do was have a defense expert review the DNA evidence. Had he done so, he would have learned that, along with my client's DNA, there was an "unknown" strain that later proved to belong to the individual who had "set him up." In addition to that, I also found numerous statements where the child accuser had told her friends that she lied, yet not one of those issues had been followed up by the defense. In that case, the lawfirm involved had accepted a "one time" fee to defend, regardless of what it took, so if the client accepted a plea, they would have earned a nice fee with very little effort on their part. In that case, against my wishes, the client did make his attorney aware that I had been retained by his family and, just prior to my arrival is when the attorney actually convinced him to accept the plea, believing that would cancel my involvement. If my client had said nothing, the attorney would not have pushed the plea and then my client would not have been put into a position of first, having to fight to set it aside.

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 was absolutely correct in most cases, but not in his.

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:

• Prepare jury voir dire questions specific to the case.

• Observe the jury panel during voir dire and assist in picking the jury.

• Prepare questions specific to experts who will testify.

• Prepare experts as needed.

• Assist the attorney with witness specific questions.

• Assist the attorney with testimony as it comes in.

• Study the jury as the State and defense's case comes in for problematic issues.

• Assist with legal research when evidence is rejected by the Court.

• Assist with upcoming witness questions based on previous testimony.

• Schedule witnesses as necessary.

• Prepare the client to testify.

• Work with the client as to courtroom procedures.

• Work with the client as to their courtroom demeanor.

• Assist in trial strategy as needed and as issues develop.

• Prepare diagrams used in the defense closing arguments.

• Work with the client and their family as trial progresses.

• Assist the defense attorney as needed.

• For a more thorough explanation, see How we Assist at Trial

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."

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, in most cases, the prosecutor will 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 be 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 all communication with me, I continued to send him new case law, 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:

• First, I meet with and interview my client.

• I review all available material, specific to the case, including, but not limited to any and all medical or investigative reports, audio and/or video tapes, interview transcripts, preliminary hearing transcripts, prior motions that have been filed and any other additional information my client may have obtained through discovery.

• I carefully analyze all medical data, such as colposcopic examination results, to determine the manner in which they will be used by the prosecution and then have them examined by a defense expert when necessary. For information regarding "Analysis of Medical Reports and Findings," see Medical Reports.

• Based on my analysis of the available material and from information supplied to me by my client, I prepare a time line and a case history.

• From the time line and case history, I begin to develop my client's defense strategy, designed to prove their innocense. If there has been an allegation of abuse, but no arrest or indictment, my immediate goal is to prepare a defense strategy that, hopefully, prevents the matter from becoming criminal and, if that is not possible, to assure that my client has a well prepared defense for trial.

• Based on the case circumstances, I determine if any polygraph, psychological or sexual preference testing would be necessary or beneficial to the defense.

• If my client has been indicted, arrested or charged with abuse, I determine what experts, if any would be beneficial to the defense and what experts would be critical to rebutting potential State experts.

• I determine exactly what my client's attorney has done, is doing and is prepared to do. Based on my initial analysis of what has actually been accomplished, I will have an opinion as to whether or not the attorney is honestly capable of handling their case properly and I address that issue carefully with my client.

• In most cases, as I stressed above, I ask the client not to reveal my involvement to their attorney until I have had the opportunity to observe exactly what is being done from a legal standpoint. Again, this is not an attempt to be sneaky or underhanded, but I have been involved in cases where the attorney was far from adequate, had absolutely no experience in handling these cases, yet had the client convinced that "everything was fine." I would strongly recommend that anyone reading this, also read our webpage, Your Attorney, and the 10 other pages linked to it.

• I attempt to determine if my client has been provided with all the discovery material they are entitled to from the prosecution. It is not unusual at all for the prosecution to withhold evidence that may be beneficial to my client and if the defense attorney does not handle discovery properly, evidence that could have resulted in the client's acquittal may never be made known. In one case I was previously involved in, the prosecutor turned a set of 6 colposcopic photographs over to the defense as a part of discovery. The problem was, during the child accuser's examination, there were actually 12 pictures taken. The 6 that the prosecution attempted to withhold, without question, were beneficial to the defense. It is vital to obtain all discovery.

• I obtain all possible information, witnesses or evidence that would support my client's innocence and work closely with my client in preparation for their testimony.

• I determine who will testify against my client, expert or otherwise, and attempt to gain information that will destroy their credibility, reports and/or testimony.

• I prepare a structured set of questions for the attorney to confront my client's accuser with. That is a very delicate matter, especially in dealing with a child.

• If my involvement does continue through trial, I assist with picking the jury, take notes on all testimony, assist in the preparation of the client's testimony, attempt to "read" the jury as the trial progresses and assist the attorney with trial strategy.

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.