Prior to reading any of the following, consider this. More than a year ago, you were criminally charged with several counts of child abuse. Today you just completed your trial and the jury has just returned with their verdict. Now, you have had more than a year to assure you had the proper attorney, that all discovery, motions, investigation, preparation and pretrial hearings were conducted properly and now, your judgment day has arrived. Your heart stops because "now this is serious." It will take that jury about 5 seconds to say, "We the jury find the defendant"

• Guilty as Charged - In which case law enforcement will immediately remove you from the courtroom, many times in chains, without allowing you to even say goodbye to your loved ones and you will sit in a cold jail cell awaiting sentencing. After sentencing, you can appeal. On some occasions you may remain free on an appeal bond, but that is "very" rare. If you file an appeal, you will probably sit in prison for 2 years waiting for a decision from the Court of Appeals. If the conviction is affirmed, you simply serve your sentence, which could be years, and when and if you are released, you may be required to register as a sex offender and possibly be required to wear a monitoring device. Many states are going to that now.

• Not Guilty - In which case you are free to go and if there are no additional charges in other jurisdictions, then the only concern might be a possible civil case the accuser could file against you. People laugh, but that is exactly what happened in the OJ case. He was found not guilty at his criminal trial, then guilty in his civil trial. I actually have a client that was facing 13 felony counts. All charges were dismissed one month prior to his trial, then his own daughter filed a civil suit against him and was awarded a verdict of 1.7 million dollars. Unfortunately, since all criminal charges against my client had been dismissed, everyone took the civil suit as a joke. Wrong attitude.

The question is, how does a person who has been criminally charged with a false allegation of child sexual abuse win at trial and avoid a conviction? Simply put; by doing things right, beginning at the time that the allegation was initially made, and then by continuing to work on and prepare a proper defense right up until the minute they walk into a courtroom.

Usually in a criminal trial, an accused will face either a judge or a jury. In a case of child sexual abuse, there are arguments supporting the benefits, or lack thereof, of either:

One argument is that a judge will listen to the evidence and make a decision based on fact and not on emotion. Not all the time. Many judges are elected and the last thing they will want is a newspaper headline, "Judge Acquits and Frees Child Molester." I have actually been involved in several cases where the defense requested a bench trial and the judge refused, stating that it was going to have to be up to a jury to reach that decision. One main reason for requesting a bench trial would be when there are multiple counts and/or by multiple accusers. That argument is simply based on a belief that a jury may believe the accused is innocent, but they may find them guilty on "something" just to be fair.

An argument for a jury trial would be that a defense would like to tap the emotions of a group of people when it would be doubtful that would happen with a judge. When you have a bench trial, only one person decides on guilt or innocense. When you have a jury trial, consisting of either 6 or 12 members, they must all agree and one who refuses to go along with the rest could easily "hang" that jury. A hung jury is far better than a conviction. When there is a hung jury, the State may decide to re-try the case or drop the charges.

Now, assuming you opted for a jury trial, you will begin by "picking" a jury. That is actually far from reality. You do not "pick" members of a jury, but rather you attempt to remove those you believe would be problematic. The actual jury is based on those you are left with. That is accomplished with what is known as "jury voir dire," and in most states, it is the time the Court, prosecutor and defense attorney all get to address the jury with a series of questions. As an example, a defense attorney may ask the jury "panel" if anyone has ever been abused or molested. Just as a means of discussion, let's further say that a middle aged female raises her hand. The defense attorney may want to ask follow-up questions. Why? There are two ways the State and defense can eliminate a possible member of the jury. One is through "Cause," and that means the Court determines that person, for whatever reason, would not be a fair and/or impartial member of the jury. The second way is that both the State and defense are given a certain number they can use to dismiss members, regardless of the reason. Let's say the State and defense both are given 5 challenges. That means that during jury selection, each can do away with 5 potential members they would not want on the jury.

Now, back to the woman above who raised her hand when the defense asked had anyone on the panel ever been abused or molested and she raised her hand. As I said, the defense attorney may ask addition questions. At that point, all you know is that this woman responded to a question, but you do not know any facts. She could have been molested as a child, but she could have been the one that initiated the event so she may not be emotionally distraught just because she may be selected to serve on a jury that is going to hear a child sex abuse case. On the other hand, she may have been molested and would love to find the accused in this case guilty just as a means of dealing with her own ghosts. The defense attorney needs to find out exactly what happened and then if that person would be problematic, he needs to try and have the Court remove them for "cause," so the defense attorney will not use up his given challenges.

Shortly after a case begins, the jury "panel" is brought into the courtroom. That panel may consist of 18 to 25 people and sometimes more. From that group, a jury and one or more alternates, will be selected following jury voir dire. An alternate is simply a person who sits and listens to all evidence, just as members of the jury do. When the trial is complete, if all members of the jury are able to deliberate, the alternate is released. The alternate is there simply to fill in should a member of the jury be unable, for whatever reason, to complete the trial or deliberations.

Now, as the jury panel arrives, the Court advises all of them as to the charges against the accused, so everyone in that panel is fully aware of what the case is about before jury selection even begins. Unfortunately, child sexual abuse cases are, for the most part, worse than other cases, mainly because of the emotions involved. No one wants to think that an adult could sexually molest a young child. That is disgusting and that is a great deal of the problem. In jury voir dire, the panel is told, usually by the Court and then normally by the defense as well, "You have heard no evidence in this case and you must consider the defendant innocent at this time." I have actually heard defense attorneys follow up on that issue by asking prospective members if they had to deliberate "right now," based only on what they know, what would their verdict be, and heard responses of "guilty." When asked why, the prospective juror said, "Well, we would not be here right now if he had not done it." Folks, people think like that and of one thing I can assure you; If you have been charged with sexually molesting a young child and there are multiple charges and/or multiple accusers, "To most people in that entire jury panel, you will be guilty when the charges are read to them by the Court." No, that is not justice, it is pure emotion, the desire to protect a child and the desire to rid society of a child molester. So, it will be up to the accused to "dig" themselves out of that hole as the trial goes forward.

As the trial begins, the State and defense may or may not make an opening statement. Then the State will put on their case. When the State puts witnesses on the stand the defense will have the opportunity to cross examine them. When the State completes it's case, it will rest and then it will be up to the defense to put on a defense or rest themselves.

In reality, the defense does need to put on a case and that goes against every argument a defense attorney may usually make. "It is not up to the defense to prove anything." The responsibility of proof rests with the State, not the defense." "You cannot hold it against my client if they do not testify and you cannot hold it against my client if I refuse to allow them to testify." Folks, that may be a great argument in a murder or a robbery case, but not in a case where a child has made an allegation of sexual abuse. In cases of that nature, if the child testifies and the accused does not, regardless of how ridiculous the child's story may be, it will be the "only" story the jury will have heard.

About 25% of what I do consists of assisting persons who have been wrongfully convicted based on a false allegation of child abuse. One of the greatest benefits that has provided to me has been the ability to speak with members of juries who had convicted. In conversations I have had with prior jury members, the number one response I have gotten as to why they convicted was, "The accused did not testify." The number two response, and just as powerful and the first was, "They showed little, or no emotion." These facts will freak out most attorneys and solicit an immediate response from them of, "I don't believe that." The reason they do not believe it is, many have a history of telling clients, "I don't want you on that stand, but if you do testify, don't show any emotion at all." The fact is, a jury is usually made up of normal and simple people. Following trial, the jury will go into the jury room and begin to deliberate. Yes, they have jury instructions the Court has provided them with, but in most cases, they will simply discuss the case and go with their heart. It is hard for them to understand why a crying young child took the witness stand and told them about the abuse they suffered, but the defendant did not take the stand to even deny it. Another factor that makes these cases so difficult is, for a jury to acquit an accused, they must be willing to tell the child accuser that they believe they were lying. That can be a very hard pill to swallow for some.

So, how does one really "dig" themselves out of the "guilty" hole? This will sound amazing, and without question will be disputed by others, but about 75% of the success of your case will depend on "your" testimony. In these alleged child abuse cases, it all comes down to credibility and who has it, the child or the accuser. I tell clients frequently, "This is all a play and you are the staring actor." "Give a good performance, the audience will applaud and you go home." "Give a bad one, the audience will boo you and you will go to prison."

First of all, testifying can be a very scary thing. I vividly recall the first time I ever took a witness stand about 40 years ago as an investigator. At that time, and based on the case I had worked, my entire testimony should have only required about 10 minutes, but no. For some idea, I had the notion that the judge and jury wanted me to enlighten them with every fact since the beginning of time and I made it my responsibility to do so. During the course of the 4 hours I was on the witness stand, I managed to bore everyone and water down the real facts I was there to present. At that time, I thought I had done a magnificent job, but today, after many times on a witness stand, I realize that my first effort was nothing short of an absolute joke. The point is, testifying is not something people know how to do. It is a learned experience and it can be a very scary experience as well, especially for someone accused of molesting a child.

There is far more to testifying than simply have an attorney say, "Well, just tell the truth." I have worked with some prior clients for days, weeks and even over a period of months to prepare them to take the witness stand. After all, they get one chance and only one chance. It has got to be right.

Having the proper attorney to represent you is the real key. If you do, they will properly prepare your defense, which includes preparing you as well, and they will not have a problem seeking outside help for issues they may not be familiar with. As one perfect example, in a prior case, many years ago, the attorney believed he was an expert in dealing with sexual abuse cases and he did have some experience. One thing any attorney must have is the ability to properly cross examine a child accuser on the witness stand. If a jury believes that an attorney is going "after" the poor child, they will convict an accused in a heartbeat. There is an art to talking with these children. You must have the ability to question them properly "without" causing problems for the jury and to expose problems in their allegations and testimony. Now, back to the "expert" attorney. He believed he could handle any child on the witness stand, under any circumstance. Wrong. He had a 13-year old girl on the stand. She was sad and crying as she made her allegations with the State. Upon cross examination, after only a few questions by the defense attorney, that girl began crying hysterically, beating her fists on the railing in front of her seat and screaming at the defense attorney, "You know he did this to me." "Why are you trying to get him off?" The attorney had never faced that. He stopped his cross and sat down telling the client he did not want to upset her anymore in front of the jury. That man was sentenced to 45 years.

Now, usually an accused has an adequate amount of time between the time that they are charged and the time of their trial. Many just let others handle their case and they have no real idea as to what is even taking place. Many get lulled into a false sense of security since they are "not" sitting in a courtroom and they are basically going on with their lives. Many believe:

• My attorney is handling everything.
• My attorney said he is an expert with these cases.
• My attorney has told me not to worry.
• The charges against me will probably be dropped.
• I am not worried, I didn't do anything.
• No reason to get upset. This has not really affected my life.
• I know that the truth will come out.
• I turned it all over to the Lord.

The above reasoning amounts to nothing more than a denial of reality. Now, let's jump forward a year as the accused stands in a courtroom waiting to hear their verdict. If they hear, "Guilty as Charged," they will wish they had prepared a proper defense as they are being dragged from the courtroom.

Do not wait until you are picking a jury to find out that your lawyer is ineffective or that you have absolutely no defense whatsoever. Get someone involved in your case that does have experience. Just because you are not guilty does not mean you will not be convicted.

You have accessed one of the many pages here at the Cowling Investigations, Inc., a False Allegation Defense Website. For an explanation of how we assist our clients who have been falsely accused, see Our Expertise, We Can Help. If you have been falsely accused, see What to Do - What Not to Do When Falsely Accused.