One of the most unfortunate problems we encounter in our work are local attorneys, defending clients against false allegations of sexual abuse, who either refuse to accept or they completely ignore any and all outside assistance. Obviously, ego plays a big part in their actions and they attempt to defend their client in the same manner as they would any other criminal case. Normally, we can work around this problem by properly preparing the client to testify, which usually covers any mistakes the attorney may have made during trial, however, that is not always the case.

In a recent case, our client was convicted and sentenced to 45 years. The shame of it was, the 62-year-old client, who was and is innocent, faces 45 years which, in all reality, equates to a life sentence. As I write this, our client sits in an orange jumpsuit, wondering what happened and why.

The question is, how could an innocent man be convicted? The answer is, ineffective assistance of counsel and, although the client will, most probably, have his conviction reversed, he will sit in prison for approximately three years and will face another trial and possibly, another conviction.

In this case, our client was accused of child sexual abuse by four young girls. Defending against one allegation by one child is a monumental task, but allegations from four children takes an unbelievable amount of planning and strategy.

Prior to trial, I referred our client's attorney to my website and, specifically the part that deals with jury voir dire. Prior to any criminal trial, a "jury pool" is selected that could be between 35 and 50 people. From that group, a jury of 12 and usually an alternate is selected. Jury voir dire amounts to the defense attorney and the prosecutor, addressing the entire panel, covering issues that hopefully will weed out potential problems. Understand that a jury is not "picked," but rather those potential jury members with problems are eliminated, either through cause or challenge, and what you are left with is what makes up the jury that hears the case.

Jury voir dire presents an excellent opportunity for an attorney to "educate" the jury and, when defending a case of child sexual abuse, that is a must, especially when there are multiple charges or multiple accusers. One of the recommendations I made to the attorney was, ask the jury if any of them were familiar with any of the prior sexual abuse hysteria cases in the country where multiple children, with seemingly no connection to each other, made multiple allegations of abuse, where the end result was that the allegations were false and a direct connection between the children was discovered, either through a police officer or social worker who had a preconceived idea that the abuse had taken place. The point is, that information educates a jury and lets them know that allegations of abuse are not necessarily true simply because four children said they were. It also lets them know that just because there does not appear to be a connection between the accusers does not mean that there is not one. I told the attorney that if he did not cover that issue carefully, there would be no defense to the prosecutor's closing argument. In closing arguments in a criminal trial, the prosecutor addresses the jury first, followed by the defense attorney and then the prosecutor has a final opportunity to make their case. In short, the last words the jury hears before deliberating are from the prosecutor. In this case, the attorney did not listen, failed to bring up any recommended issues during jury voir dire and, just as suspected, the final words from the prosecutor amounted to, "Ladies and gentlemen." "Think carefully as you decide this case." "You heard these children accuse this man of sexually molesting them." "These children did not know each other and there was no chance for them to "prepare" a story, therefore, the allegations they have made must be the truth." That was a powerful argument and, again, the last words that jury heard before they left the courtroom to decide the case.

The attorney had a wealth of information available to use as an educational tool in his jury voir dire, yet used nothing. Why? Simply put, no one was going to tell him how to defend a case. He was the lawyer and he knew what was best. Well, "his way" resulted in a guilty verdict and his client receiving 45 years.

The next issue was the attorney's handling of the defense expert, a psychologist who had carefully gone over the interviews of all accusers and determined that the use of multiple interviews and leading and suggestive questioning actually "tainted" the testimony of the accusers to the point where it could not be relied on. She could have testified that there was no way to determine if the children's allegations were an account of events that actually took place or if they were the result of what the children had "learned" during the interview process.

I had the opportunity to watch the attorney and the psychologist, prior to trial, prepare for her testimony. On three occasions, I heard the expert ask the attorney specifically what she would be asked and the attorney told her, just say what you would normally say. The psychologist became frustrated because there was no clear understanding of what was expected of her. The overall preparation was inexcusable.

Prior to the expert being able to testify, a Daubert Hearing was scheduled to determine if her testimony would be accepted by the court. It was, but her overall testimony was nothing short of a joke, something that was not her fault, but rather the fault of the attorney who was completely unprepared. One solid rule for any defense attorney is, "never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to." This attorney asked repeated questions that produced responses from the expert that made her look bad.

The State had a medical examination conducted on one of the children, an exam that was within normal limits, but an exam that stated "consistent with sexual abuse." In most of the cases of sexual abuse, there are no medical findings and that is "why" the experts say, "consistent with abuse." That same exam is also consistent with non-abuse. The exam was completed on one child that claimed penile penetration on multiple occasions, from the time she was nine, yet the exam showed her hymen was intact.

Rather than accept the report, the defense called the doctor. She was sick and angry when she was forced to testify. Again, I recommended to the attorney that, prior to questioning the doctor, he say, "Doctor, I understand you are sick and I apologize for having brought you in today, but my client is on trial for his life and I need all the help I can get." Nothing along those lines was mentioned as the attorney began questioning her. Just prior to her taking the stand, I telephoned an expert, explained the circumstances and was given a list of questions that the attorney should ask the doctor. Although I provided those questions, the attorney asked none of them. Worse than anything, that doctor was hostile toward the defense and left the jury with the impression that a hymen will regrow and the examination she conducted was what she would have expected to see in a young girl who had been repeatedly penetrated by an adult penis. Inexcusable. That attorney had no clue as to the proper method in examining that doctor.

Thankfully, that doctor's testimony had no real bearing because the jury acquitted on all charges pertaining to that child. Why? Not because of anything done by the defense attorney, but rather because the client had a "tattoo" 2 inches from his penis that child could not identify. That child amounted to three of the six total charges against my client.

Another child claimed that my client had "touched" her at his office. This allegedly took place in a 10 foot by 10 foot space, with an open door on a main hallway and glass walls in his office with open blinds. One of her allegations was, she was under his desk, her back to the rear of the desk, head bent over and her knees drawn up to her chest. While in that position, my client allegedly put "both" of his hands down the "waist" of her "jeans" and fondled her vagina. That is not physically possible. One recommendation I had made was, get a desk identical to the one the client had in his office, reenact the allegation and show the jury the act could not be done. For whatever reason, no desk was used. As a result, I carefully worked with my client on his testimony to cover the issue. Just as expected, his attorney asked him, "You have heard the allegations about the desk." "Did that happen?" The client responded, "No sir, it did not happen." "It was not possible." Instead of his attorney asking him to explain "why" it was not possible and allow him to explain, the lawyer simply began questioning him about another issue.

Two of the three charges my client was convicted on were from that child and, without question, the evidence did not support the verdict.

I left that case just prior to closing arguments and, when I heard the verdict, I was in total shock. I talked to the client's wife and emailed her and the attorney as well. I recommended that an immediate motion be filed to set aside the verdict on the one child because the verdict was not supported by the evidence. At the very least, a record needed to be made. The last I heard, the attorney was not going to do that, but did intend to file a Motion for a New Trial. That was an automatic and probably not worth the effort it took to prepare it.

There are many other issues, but the picture is clear. That attorney did it his way, without regard to anything that was recommended and the result was a conviction on three counts. That conviction could have been avoided and was absolutely inexcusable. There was no real pre-trial preparation and the overall defense left a great deal to be desired. The real shame is, that attorney still goes to work and still goes home every night while my client sits in a small cell, convicted of crimes he never committed.

One thing this case taught me is, I will never allow another attorney to sink a client without making the client fully aware of what is actually taking place.

This fiasco produces one main thought. If you are accused of child sexual abuse, defending against those allegations will be an uphill battle. Your attorney works for you. You pay his salary. He is "your" employee. Although he may repeatedly say, "I'm the lawyer." "It's doesn't work like that here" or "You have to trust me," remember that it is you that will go to prison, if found guilty, not the attorney.

In the above, things would have been different if the attorney had been well prepared, or presented a proper defense, but that was not the case. Both during pre-trial and during the trial, I was painfully aware that the attorney was not and would not listen to anything I had to say. Realizing that the problem may be me, a non-lawyer, I referred that attorney, on several occasions, to other attorneys and to experts, yet he refused to contact any of them. He did it his way. His way failed miserably, something that my client will pay dearly for.