Attorneys, as noted in any profession, can be either good or bad. There are those who care and those who do not. There are those with no ego and those with an ego the size of Texas. There are those who work with their clients and those who say whatever is necessary to simply pacify their client. There are those who develop a defense "strategy" and those who "shoot-from-the-hip." There are those who prepare a defense well in advance of trial and those who wait until the eve of trial to even begin preparation.

As I have stated repeatedly, throughout this website, when someone is facing trial, falsely accused of child sexual abuse, they need to know if they have adequate legal representation, prior to their jury being selected. Obviously, it is a little late to do anything about it at that time.

Another fact I have repeatedly stressed is, a defense attorney, who attempts to handle a false allegation of child sexual abuse like they would any other criminal case, is making a mistake that could easily result in their client's conviction.

As part of our work, we have the opportunity to see many cases where the falsely accused have been wrongfully convicted. Unfortunately, most are the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, something that no one was concerned about prior to conviction, because the attorney had everyone convinced they had everything under control.

When I am retained by someone falsely accused, prior to trial, I ask them not to advise their attorney that I am involved until I have the opportunity to determine exactly where the defense stands. That is especially true when a potential client tells me that their "local" attorney has a great deal of experience defending child sexual abuse allegations. When an attorney makes that statement to their client, usually the client accepts it at face value, never questions it and is happy to have someone in their corner with experience. The problem is, usually that "experience" is not true. For example, if I wanted to specialize in false allegations of child sexual abuse cases and I sat in Mississippi, I may see one case, two at the most in a life time. Hardly enough to gain any real experience. Only because I have been willing to travel extensively and work these cases have I gained experience. The fact is, these cases are everywhere, but not specific to any one area, so the question becomes, how did a "local" attorney get so much experience? I say "local" because there are a few attorneys in the country who do travel and do have experience, but again, only because they are willing to work out of their area.

One of the biggest problems I have experienced with "local" attorneys is that fact that I may represent a threat to them, especially since I am not a lawyer. What they failed to realize is that much of my education has resulted from observing "great" attorneys defending false allegation cases and I am simply passing on many of those things that have proven successful. There are those lawyers who talk well, but put together a half-hearted defense, at best, and the last thing they want is someone experienced in legal malpractice, looking over their shoulder. That same "threat" is non-existent in a lawyer who cares about their client's defense, realizes they are in unfamiliar territory and are asking for assistance. What a pleasure it is to work with those individuals, but the bottom line is, you must determine exactly what the defense is before walking into court.

Although the majority of our cases have been professionally handled by competent and caring attorneys, the following are some examples of problems that we have encountered:

• A perfect example of an ego, out-of-control, was noted in a case in a northeastern state. A family retained me to assess a relative's legal defense. As with any case, I asked them not to say anything to the attorney about my involvement until I had a chance to at least see what had been done and what was going on. Prior to my involvement, the family said the attorney had convinced them that he had a great deal of experience defending these specific cases. Unfortunately, prior to my arrival, another family member went ahead and told the attorney that I had been retained and the date that I would be arriving. The attorney left a message that he would like to meet with me while I was there. When I did arrive and had a chance to go through everything, it was very easy to establish that the defense left a great deal to be desired. Once the analysis was complete, I agreed to meet with the lawyer, and did so. He was obviously upset at my involvement, leaned back in his chair and, with a sarcastic attitude asked, "What can I do to help you?" My immediate response was, "You can't do anything to help me." "I was retained by the family and will report to the family." "If I can help you, in any manner, while I am here, I would be happy to." Since the attorney discovered that he was unable to intimidate me, he settled down quickly. I mentioned to him that I had been told that he had a great deal of experience defending these type cases and, when he said he did, I asked him how he was dealing with the "multiple" interviews and the "leading" and suggestive" questioning of the children. He had no clue as to what I was referring to. I asked him if he had considered a "taint" hearing. Again, he was lost. I asked what testing he had considered for his client. He had no idea as to what was even available. I advised him that he had at least five of the best known "experts" in the world, specific to these cases, sitting right in his own state. He had never heard of any of them. He quickly realized that he was far from experienced and began asking for help. Unfortunately, shortly after I left, they had a preliminary hearing, his client's bond was revoked and, many of the options available, no longer existed as he was sitting in jail.

• In another case, I was again retained by a family to assess their son's legal defense in Texas. After meeting with the family and after going through all material, I made two recommendations; one, discharge the attorney and two, do not go to trial as scheduled. I told them that I would assist them in finding a new attorney and, if requested, I would be happy to work with them. I heard nothing else until four months later, when I had just returned from a criminal trial in Iowa. I received a telephone call from the young man in Texas. He was upset and crying. He told me that he had testified that day. He said his jury would be going out the following morning and there was not much doubt in his mind that he was going to be convicted. Amazed, I asked if he had changed attorneys. He said that after I left, he and his family met with his attorney, who quickly convinced everyone that he had everything under control and, since they already paid him, they decided to stay with him and go on to trial as scheduled. I asked him how much time his attorney spent, preparing him to testify and his response, "He was supposed to do that?" He said he would give anything if they has listened to me, but obviously, it was too late to do that. I told him to call me the following morning and let me know what was going on. Unfortunately, the next day, he was unable to call, but a family member did. He was convicted, sentenced to 25 years and removed from the courtroom in handcuffs. The final call I got from his family was a request to assist in getting the conviction reversed. That, most probably, will not be that difficult, but that young man will probably sit in prison for at least 3 years waiting, and then, even if and when it is reversed, it will be in favor of a new trial. In other words, he goes right back to square one and faces conviction all over again.

• In a case in Montana, I was contacted by a family, following their son's conviction. One of the best compliments I ever received was from the brother of the young man who was convicted. He was an attorney himself and he is the one who told his family to contact me. Obviously, that brother had very limited involvement in the overall case. In that case, the young man was accused of molesting four young girls and, as I said, had already been convicted and was awaiting sentencing. Amazingly, he was out on bond. When I initially made my trip to Montana and had a chance to begin reviewing all documents, the entire case was very confusing, to say the least, but as I continued, everything began to simplify. The end product was, without question, the allegations were false and the defense was absolutely inexcusable. The young man's attorney had the family convinced that he had a great deal of experience defending false allegation cases, had never lost one and was not going to start with them. He even went so far, just prior to trial, as to tell the family, "The prosecutor is ready to eat crow," yet he had not even bothered to file a Motion for Discovery. In addition, he repeatedly, told the young man that he did not have to "prove" his innocense, but rather the State had to "prove" their case. While that may be true in a murder defense, in a case of this nature, when "4" young girls testify they were molested, the state has more than proven it's case. On my final day in Montana, the young man asked me about "testing" we do with clients in Atlanta. He had been told that he would be required to submit to sexual preference testing in Montana, as part of his pre-sentencing and he was afraid any examination that he would submit to there may be biased. Although Atlanta was not something that I would have even considered for him, under his circumstances, his argument made sense and, Atlanta would at least provide him with an unbiased analysis. I explained that Atlanta would be far worse than any testing he would be required to take in Montana and that, in addition to a great deal of psychological testing, he would also have to submit to a polygraph and a drug screen. I wanted him to understand how serious and how thorough Atlanta was before he or his family made a decision. Without hesitation, everyone agreed, he got permission from the Court to leave the state and the testing was scheduled accordingly. Amazingly, following the most in-depth, two-day testing that anyone could possibly submit to, he passed everything with flying colors. Here was a young man, facing 99 to 400 years who, without question, was not guilty, yet looking at the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison. The fact is, the testing in Atlanta was not what "proved" his innocense. We had done that before ever going to Atlanta. In that case, presenting a proper defense, something that was never done, would have "proven" the allegations were a lie and, more importantly, how and why the allegations surfaced in the first place.

• In a case in Chicago, I met my client in February of 1999. He was being falsely accused of sexually molesting his daughters and, was closer than anyone I have ever seen in my life to committing suicide. With some effort, and to make a long story short, we did away with all sexual allegations and, he was left with a divorce and custody issue. He had discharged his initial attorney and retained another one. In that the new attorney had a huge ego, we decided that it would be best for me to work in the background, without his lawyer's knowledge. After about 6 months into the case, I told my client that I wanted him to have his attorney to file a motion for temporary custody of his children. Needless to say, my client got excited, just at the prospect of getting his children, but that excitement was short lived. When he approached his attorney, he was told, "You don't understand the laws in this state and you don't understand what is going on." "These are two young girls of tender years, and the Court will not take them away from their mother." "It does not work like that in this state." "I am not going to file a motion that I know will not be successful and a motion that would make me look like an idiot in front of the Court." After meeting with his attorney, my client telephoned to tell me what his attorney said. For the next two weeks I talked with my client. I finally got him to return to his attorney and say, "Look, this is my life and the life of my children." "My last concern is that you will make a fool out of yourself by filing a motion." "We don't know what the judge will do and never will know unless we at least ask." "I want the motion filed and, if you will not do it, I will find someone who will." Over protest, the attorney did file the motion and, amazingly, the judge granted it. My client had temporary custody of his daughters, something his own attorney told him "could not" and "would not" happen. About a month later, I told my client to have his attorney file a motion, asking that his wife pay him child support. Same argument from the attorney. Would not happen. Again, the client pushed, again the motion was filed and again, the motion was granted. Some few months later, I told my client to have his attorney file a motion that would require his wife to have any contact with their children, supervised. Again, same argument from the attorney, but that motion was filed and again, granted. As the client reached a point where trial would be scheduled, I knew that the only defense left for his wife would be in having her attorney file a motion to have my client evaluated as a possible sexual predator, something my client's attorney never even considered. Based on my fears, I had my client complete an extensive battery of testing in Atlanta, Georgia. Once done, I had his report sent to me, not to him or his attorney. As expected, opposing counsel did file a motion to have my client evaluated and, following some testing their psychiatrist required, my client was told his testing identified that he was a liar and a child molester. As the end of the discovery period ended, I sent my client his test results from Atlanta and told him to give them to his attorney. When he did, his attorney told him that the testing was a waste of time, money and effort because he could not use it. The following day, my client received a telephone call from his attorney who apologized, said he had read the report, did not realize it was "that heavy," and said that he wanted to take it straight to the judge. My client refused to allow that because of prior discussions with me, based on the fact that under those circumstances, the testing would not be admissible. I also had my client assure that the report would not be identified in discovery until he was sure that the psychiatrist report, from the opposing side, had been submitted. When that was accomplished and my client's wife's psychiatrist became aware of my client's Atlanta testing, he immediately recanted every negative statement he had made about my client. Finally, as my client's trial neared the end, I asked him to have his attorney file a motion, asking that his wife be ordered to pay for his legal expenses, which amounted to over $115,000.00 at that time. Again, the attorney objected, but again the motion was filed and the judge ordered her to pay $44,000.00. During the case, my client got temporary custody of his daughters, child support and his wife had her visitation with their children supervised. In the end, my client got his home, custody of his daughters, she continued with supervised visitation, continued paying child support and was ordered to pay $44,000.00 of my client's legal expense. Amazingly, my client's attorney had told him that it was absolutely impossible to achieve any of the things that were successfully accomplished. The bottom line is, just because an attorney says something cannot, or will not happen, does not make it so and there could be no better example than what was seen in this case.

• In a criminal case, my client was accused of molesting his step-daughter. He had also previously been accused of molesting his own 7-year-old daughter, but a thorough "forensic investigation" had proven that he was innocent. During jury selection at his trial, there were two individuals I did not want cut. One was a pediatrics nurse, who had experience with sexually molested children, and the other was a male, social worker. My client's attorney thought I was crazy, but the fact is, if these two were made aware that my client had been accused of molesting his own daughter, but had been vindicated following a thorough investigation, that, in itself, would lend great credibility to the current allegations being false. The attorney agreed, but as trial progressed, not one word of the allegations by his daughter surfaced. I was shocked, amazed and, at the very least, upset, especially since those two individuals were sitting on the jury and the only issue before them were the current allegations. During a break, the client asked his attorney why nothing had been brought out, specific to the allegation he had been cleared of. The attorney stated that he thought about it and he was "afraid" that it might wrongly influence the jury. How could being "cleared" do anything but help? Thankfully, what I wanted brought out was discussed thoroughly and properly when my client testified. His testimony was impeccable and, although facing 60 years, the jury acquitted him in 25 minutes.

• In one case, during a custody battle, false allegations of sexual abuse surfaced against my client. In that case, he had a civil and a criminal attorney. I had reviewed everything and had met with the civil attorney on several occasions, but not the criminal attorney. One thing that was perfectly clear when analyzing all data was, the investigating officer in the case, one of only a few real professionals I have ever encountered in law enforcement, found absolutely no credibility, whatsoever, in the accuser or their allegations. That is extremely rare, but all evidence clearly supported that fact. During a meeting in which both the civil and criminal attorney were present, I made the statement, "The investigator does not believe the accuser or the allegations." Before he even had a chance to think, the criminal attorney replied, "I don't believe that." Fortunately, the civil attorney asked what I meant. When I explained it, begrudgingly, the criminal attorney admitted that I was right and, amazing, as the case was built, that same investigator became my client's best ally. The point is, that criminal attorney was going to run the show and, in no manner was he going to accept input from any outsider, regardless of what it was. Funny thing was, he did not respond to me after "thinking" about it, but rather through "instinct." That is a very dangerous individual, who weighs no evidence, but responds by instinct because he wants to be in control.

• In one case, as trial approached, my client's attorney told him that, when he testified, just tell the truth. That was extent of his preparation. What I told my client was exactly what I tell every client I work with when preparing them for testimony, or for even something as simple as sitting in the courtroom. With anyone, who is falsely accused of molesting a child, there are several things they need to understand prior to walking into the courtroom. First, understand that there is no "profile" or "characteristics" of a child molester or a molested child. While "experts" may say, "Oh, they wet the bed, they fail in school, they have night terrors," etc., those same symptoms can easily be caused by issues other than being molested. The problem is, most members of a jury will carefully watch an accused to see if they "match" what they believe a child molester "should" look like. The accused should sit in the courtroom and react to nothing, regardless of what it is. On occasion, an accused who was not warned, may visibly react to testimony and, some jury members could read that reaction as a sign of guilt. The best advise is not to do anything, or react in any manner that could be misinterpreted by anyone on the jury. That is not true when the accused testifies, however. One of the most important things to remember is, that jury has the accused's life in their hands. It is vital to "look" at each member of the jury, communicate with them and to speak from the heart. In these cases, most of the time, the verdict is based entirely in the credibility of the accused against that of the accuser. Simply put, if the jury does not believe the accused, they will convict. Another issue for anyone falsely accused is, be leery of the attorney who does not want them to testify. In most cases, where child sexual abuse is the issue, in order to acquit, a jury must hear the accused tell them that they did not do it and that jury must believe them.

• In several of the divorce/custody cases we have been involved in where allegations of sexual abuse surfaced, my client's attorney has stated that they would not be indicted or face any criminal charges. In one of these, I was working in Virginia when I got the call from my client, in another state, advising that his attorney was wrong. He has just bonded out of jail, was facing 3 charges and was looking at a possibility of 60 years.

• In a more recent case, as the custody issues progressed, my client's attorney's complete lack of "attack," and a failure to deal with the opposing "experts" properly, has greatly increased the risk of criminal charges. In this particular case, my client was married, suspected that his wife was having an affair and confronted her. Although she denied any outside involvement, my client was able to prove the relationship existed and he filed for divorce. During divorce hearings, my client was successful in substantiating several very serious issues that his wife had repeatedly lied about on the witness stand; issues that were an extreme embarrassment to her personally. As soon as that happened, his wife began accusing him of sexually molesting their son. She took the child to a therapist and, once the allegations were "validated," the therapist then recommended a particular guardian ad litem, who then got involved in the case. As I began my involvement in the case, I was provided with the transcripts from two depositions the therapist had given and the tapes of her testimony at one of the divorce/custody hearings. In 32 years, I have never seen such incompetence in any professional as was noted with that therapist. She admitted that she had video taped only one session she had with the child. She stated that she lost that tape and never taped anything again. She had only a few notes of the many sessions that she conducted with the child and she admitted that she did not even know what many of them meant or referred to. She also stated that she was not sure that the writing on her notes was actually hers. She "treated" this child for sexual abuse, something she "assumed" had happened but ignored any and all evidence that supported my client's innocence. She reported the suspected abuse to the department of human services, but continued to interview and personally "treat" the child. She made statements that the "justice system" let this child down, evidently by refusing to indict my client. She accepted every allegation made to her by the child's mother at face value, with absolutely no attempt to determine the real truth. She personally referred the guardian ad litem, (GAL) who made one visit to my client's attorney's office and all but demanded that my client "let" his wife have custody of their children. Aside from that one meeting, the GAL has never once seen my client or visited with him at his home, or anywhere else, while he was in the company of his children. That, in itself, is inexcusable since my client and his wife, each, have alternating two-week periods with their children. The GAL, going only on the hearsay of the wife and therapist, made specific statements that my client is a liar, a sociopath and an alcoholic. She further stated that there is no doubt in her mind that my client sexually molested his son. Amazingly, despite all the sessions with the therapist, the GAL is the only person who claimed that the child disclosed "rectal penetration" to. As far as my client's attorney is concerned, as soon as the GAL well "exceeded" her authority when she visited with my client at his attorney's office, a motion should have been filed immediately to have her replaced and, at the very least, a motion should have been filed to prevent my client's child from continuing to see the therapist, yet nothing was done. When I got involved in the case, there had been no research conducted on the state guidelines for a guardian ad litem and no knowledge whatsoever specific to the rules and guidelines of the American Psychological Association, something that would have quickly identified the "gross" malpractice on the part of the therapist. In addition, there had been no consideration of the emotional damage that my client's child was, and is suffering from, because of his involvement with the so-called "experts," and not one effort to have that child removed from the custody of his mother, who initiated the false allegations. Simply put, any parent who uses a child to make a false allegation of sexual abuse against their spouse, to further their own end, has no regard for the welfare of that child and is not fit to have custody. All things considered, in reality, this case is simple. There are three legs to the opposing side; one the wife, who initiated the allegations, two, the therapist who accepted the wife's allegations at face value and, three, the guardian ad litem who, in reality, is nothing more than an extension of the wife and therapist. The therapist is guilty of the grossest violation of medical malpractice and, without question, the GAL had exceeded her area of authority so far, it is absolutely unbelievable. For her to make the specific statements she did about my client, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, is beyond the word, inexcusable. Both the therapist and the GAL could easily be destroyed and, in doing so, you remove two legs from the "stool," so-to-speak. The remaining leg, the wife, simply cannot stand on her own. Realizing that I needed a professional to attack the original therapist, I got a psychologist involved in the case. We took all of the therapist's testimony that was available to us, analyzed it and the final product was that she clearly violated every rule and guideline of the American Psychological Association. My psychologist's report, detailing her gross errs, was presented to my client's attorney. He seemed enthusiastic, at least while we were there, but amazingly, during our next meeting with the attorney, he stated, "the therapist has not really hurt us and I don't think I want to put her on the stand." Needless to say, we were speechless. The therapist had done a great deal of damage, not only to my client's case, but to the child she had been working with as well. In a follow-up meeting between the my client and his attorney, my client stated he wanted the therapist put on the stand and he explained why. The attorney agreed, but then turned right around, just prior to trial and stated to someone else that he had no intention of calling her. In addition, my psychologist and I had personally been to my client's home and observed him with his children. Not one of the so-called "experts" had done that and, neither had his attorney, or any representative of that attorney. The first time we were at the client's house, his son, having just returned from a two-week visitation with his mother, came running in the house, found his father, who was sitting on a sofa, hugged him, told him he loved him and that he was glad to be home. That was not the action of a child who alleges that same father sexually molested him, but it actually got worse. On our next visit, my client's son took a bath. He left the bathroom door wide open and called to his father several times, asking him to hand him things, like the shampoo. Had any of the experts "ever" experienced what we had seen, it would have been impossible for them to have accepted the abuse allegations. They would have realized that something was seriously wrong and taken an entirely different approach. Instead, they accepted the "ravings" of a vindictive wife, whose sole motivation was to get even with my client and destroy him. The fact is, although the sexual allegations surfaced after the custody battle began, not once, in the attorney's year and one-half involvement, has he ever initiated attacking anyone. He has simply defended to the point where he ended up allowing three "experts," favoring the opposing side to go unchallenged and, each of them with a desire to have my client indicted. Either my client will attack, or most probably lose the custody battle and risk a criminal indictment. The advice I am giving him is, bring in an outside, experienced attorney, complete the current case properly and file civil suits against the therapist and the GAL. While most attorneys will quickly say that cannot be done, that is not the case. There is case law, where a "court appointed" representative was not protected by immunity because their actions were malicious and, numerous case law where a therapist has a duty to the father, under circumstances exactly as seen in this case. The shame of it is, I have never seen a client, in 32 years, have as much "clear" evidence available, but fail to ever use any of it as I have in this case. Even when we thought it could not get worse, it did. The psychologist I got involved in this case has an impeccable reputation and, has probably testified personally at some 500 hearings and trials. Recall, I stated that he personally observed my client with his child in such a manner where he quickly reached the conclusion that all of the allegations were false. In addition, this psychologist clearly has the ability to explain to the court what errs the initial therapist committed and the damage that she actually caused the child, especially when she continued to treat him for abuse that never happened. Finally, the combination of the therapist's testimony and my psychologist's testimony would be the cornerstone of the medical malpractice case my client intends to file. In short, there is absolutely no down side to having either testify, but the attorney has no plans to call the therapist and even went so far as to say that he does not know if he will need our psychologist's testimony. Amazingly, he made that comment some three weeks after my psychologist provided him with a written report, something he admitted that he had never read. The question becomes, what is going on with his attorney? It is not clear if the attorney is either too busy, is up against something he is afraid to handle, is taking the path of least resistence because he does not believe that his client can obtain custody, or is threatened by the existence of me and a psychologist I brought. What is clear is that regardless of his reason, at no time has my client's best interest been served and nothing has ever been done to protect the welfare of his children.

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.