The below case results were obtained by Premier Defense Group attorneys. These cases include not-guilty verdicts, dismissed charges and negotiated pleas attained for prior clients who were facing sexual assault or sexual abuse charges. While the future result of your case cannot be predicted, and not all of our cases have had desirable outcomes, we hope that a review of the below cases illustrates the level of sex crimes criminal defense experience that would be brought into your case.
Below are cases involving clients who have consented to Tom’s sharing factual summaries of their cases.
Rape Charges Dismissed – Non-Registration Plea Entered for Maryland Client
State: Maryland
Court: Circuit Court Prince George’s County
Judge: Darren S. Johnson
Case Name: State v. Victor U.
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Co-Counsel: Charlotte K. Weinstein
Verdict: August 30, 2024
Non-registration Misdemeanor Plea
In 2023, the State indicted Victor for second degree rape, sex offense in the fourth degree and second degree assault in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland. Second degree rape in Maryland has a guideline sentence range of 5-10 years and carries mandatory Tier III lifetime registration
The charges were brought by Victor’s former wife. They attended a party at the home of mutual friends. Alcohol was served. Some of the guests stayed the night. The case was defensible.
Victor was able to avoid a trial. Due to persistent plea negotiations with the prosecutor, the charges brought under the original case number were dismissed, and a new indictment filed in 2024 alleging only misdemeanor second degree assault with no sexual factual basis. This procedural step was important as Victor lived in another State. That jurisdiction often looks at the original charge when deciding on the registry.
Victor received a fully suspended sentence for misdemeanor assault, a non-registration offense. Also, as part of the plea agreement, he is entitled to request a probation before judgment when the term of his probation expires. (Under Maryland law, a probation before judgment allows a defendant to have his conviction record expunged.)
Maryland Client Not Guilty of Touching Complainant While She Slept
Court: District Court Anne Arundel County
State: Maryland
Judge: Kemp M. Hammond
Case Name: State v. Wilmer R-S
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Co-Counsel: None
Verdict Date: October 10, 2024
Court Trial Verdict – Not Guilty on All Counts
Wilmer was charged in the District Court for Anne Arundel County with one count of sexual offense in the fourth degree (touching) and one count of assault in the second degree. Fourth degree sex offense carries a mandatory 15-year, Tier I registration.
Because these were misdemeanor, he would have had to specifically request a jury trial. It is rare for defense counsel to try a sex case in front of a judge, but, under Maryland rules, had he been found guilty, he would have had an automatic right to a de novo appeal and have a new trial by jury in the Circuit Court.
The facts were unusual. Wilmer was at his girlfriend’s mother’s house for an evening graduation party. The complainant and a number of her friends attended. During the course of the evening, these teenagers went swimming in the creek. At some point, the complainant lost her cell phone. She came outside looking forward and ultimately accused Wilmer of having stolen it. She further claimed he come into where she was sleeping and touched her.
The complainant and her family first sought a civil protective order that was denied. Her father testified that if the phone were returned, no charges would be brought.
The case took a few hours to litigate. The defense called Wilmer’s girlfriend and her mother during its case. Wilmer also took the stand and effectively testified on his own behalf. The judge concluded that there was reasonable doubt and found Wilmer not guilty.
Maryland Client Accused of Sexual Abuse Against Two Stepdaughters – Not Guilty
State: Maryland
Court: Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Judge: Christine M. Celeste
Case Name: State v B.C.
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Co-Counsel: Charlotte Weinstein
Verdict Date: April 29, 2024
Jury Verdict – Not Guilty on All Counts
B was accused of multiple sexual offenses in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland. B has given us permission to share his story so that it may help others. We will refer to his former wife as “S” and her twin daughters as “H” and “M.” If you would like to speak with B about his experience, please feel free to contact me, and I can make the introduction.
B met S in 2012 when her twin daughters, H and M, were five years old. They married in 2013 and lived together until December 16, 2021. During this eight-year period, B was a father figure to the twins. They enjoyed a positive father-daughter relationship. Although there were signs that the marriage was not strong and starting to fail in 2016, the relationship between B and the girls was positive in every respect.
B again asked for a divorce in October 2021. Three days after S and the girls moved out of the home on December 16, 2021, S sent B a number of text messages imploring him to return to the marriage. She said she loved him, she and the girls needed him and asked B to move in with them at their new apartment after he sold their marital home. These text messages were admitted into evidence during trial. Although there was no hostility, B told S that the marriage was over, and it would not be in anyone’s best interest for him to continue the relationship.
Contrary to her text messages and B’s impeccable 10-year history with the girls, S told investigators a year later in December 2022, she had suspected B of grooming the girls towards the end of their marriage and that she thought she got out of the marriage on time before anything happened. She also testified to her delusion of grooming during trial.
B continued to live in Maryland from the December 16, 2021, separation until he left for Georgia on March 28, 2022. In that three-month period, he maintained a positive relationship with the girls. In fact, on the very day that he departed, H wrote a glowing letter professing her affection and appreciation for B, detailing the many instances of how he had always been there for her. That letter was admitted into evidence at trial.
After B refused to return to the marriage, S’s attitude changed. Over the course of months, beginning January 2022 and on an almost daily basis, S started posting TikTok videos vilifying him, making accusations he was a pedophile and a Mormon believing in polygamy who was grooming her daughters to be his future wives. In reality, B had long since left the Mormon church. The girls brought their mother’s actions to his attention. B confronted S with her accusations, but she never responded.
When S testified at trial, on cross-examination, she began rambling about the teachings of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This was all utter nonsense.
Eventually, S successfully convinced her daughters of her delusions that B was “grooming” them. The grooming concept was also inconsistent with B’s interactions with the girls. They were living in Maryland, and he was living in Georgia between March 28, 2022, and late November 2022 when they accused him of sexually abusing them.
In these intervening seven months, both girls sent Father’s Day messages in June 2022. M referring to B in her Father’s Day message as “probably the best dad” she has “ever had,” and how she loves “how honest and true” he is. These texts were also admitted into evidence at trial.
The girls were in daily contact with B and even wanted to visit him in Georgia over the summer. S denied their multiple requests and became infuriated with their persistence. The girls even sent B birthday gifts in September 2022, paid from money they had earned and saved from their lifeguarding jobs over the summer. They even wished him a happy Veterans Day in November 2022. Despite having shared their lives for 10 years, in late November 2022, they blocked B from all contact and made false allegations of sexual abuse against him.
On December 21, 2022, S and the girls gave statements at the Child Advocacy Center. At that time, both girls described incidents of B touching them in an inappropriate sexual way and “grinding” his penis against them on the outside of their clothing.
H indicated how this happened on a beanbag in his office. Yet, when she testified at trial, she gave an entirely different version of that event. She testified she could not remember what she had initially told the investigators, nor could she remember her stepbrother visiting over that Thanksgiving break when this allegedly occurred.
M testified that B touched her breast and buttocks, kissed her with his tongue and would grind his penis against her bottom in the kitchen for a seven year period between 2013 to 2020. No one saw or suspected any inappropriate contact by and between B and the girls. At the end of M’s cross-examination, she testified that despite the alleged abuse, that B was still a better father than her own biological father.
None of this insanity prevented the State from recklessly charging B with multiple felony counts involving both girls. As part of the State’s evidence, it presented the testimony of Crimson Barocca, a social worker. She described the concepts of delayed disclosure and grooming in sex abuse cases.
Ms. Barocca gave biased testimony in an attempt to establish a link between grooming and delayed disclosure. However, on cross-examination, she could not describe the methodology used to distinguish delayed disclosure and grooming from either a fabricated accusation or a false memory. The defense called Dr. David Thompson to testify about how family pressures, parental influence and negative stereotyping could impact this process.
B took the witness stand and testified effectively on his own behalf. He described his personal background, marriage to S, relationship with the girls and how he treated and valued them.
B’s cross-examination ended with the prosecutrix asking a bizarre and totally absurd question. We did not object as we knew the answer would backfire. She asked B to identify the two women who attended the trial, ostensibly to foolishly imply they were his wives. B identified them as his sister and girlfriend. This exchange was highlighted during the defense’s Power Point closing argument.
To wrap up its case, the defense called B’s former wife and their son as character witnesses. They compellingly described B as a caring and dedicated parent.
On April 29, 2024, the jury deliberated for 3 hours and 45 minutes before finding B not guilty on all remaining 8 counts of the original 20-count indictment.. A pretrial motion eliminated 9 counts, and the trial judge dismissed 3 counts after the State concluded its case.
Baltimore Client Accused of Rape – Probation Before Judgment Plea
State: Maryland
Court: Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Trial Judge: Administrative Judge
Case Name: State v A.J.
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Co-Counsel: Peter T. McDowell
Plea Date: April 01, 2024
Non-registration Plea – All Charges Placed on Stet Docket
A. J-L lived in an apartment complex where he met C. They engaged in sexual intercourse on a number of occasions and maintained a relationship over a three-month period of time.
A. J-L was accused of rape. On the day of trial, right before jury selection, the State offered A. J-L a plea deal that involved no admission of guilt, a disposition with no finding of guilt, no jail time and no sexual registry.
Virginia Client Accused of Sexual Abuse Against Stepdaughter – Charges Dismissed
State: Commonwealth of Virginia
Court: Circuit Court for Fairfax County
Judge: Administrative Judge
Case Name: Commonwealth v J.M
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Co-Counsel: Jonathan Oates
Nolle Prosequi Date: October 13, 2023
All Charges Entered Nolle Prosequi (Dismissed)
Maryland Client Accused of Sexual Abuse Against Biological Daughter – Charges Dismissed
State: Maryland
Court: Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Judge: Administrative Judge
Case Name: State v W.A
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Nolle Prosequi Date: September 20, 2023
All Charges Entered Nolle Prosequi (Dismissed)
Virginia Client Facing Potential Life Sex Crime Charges – Dismissed
State: Virginia
Court: Circuit Court for the City of Staunton
Trial Judge: Anne F. Reed
Case Name: Commonwealth v D.C
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Nolle Prosequi Date: March 08, 2023
All Charges Entered Nolle Prosequi (Dismissed)
David’s now 18-year-old daughter accused him of raping her between November 2016 and February 2017 when she was 11-12 years old. At that time, David had alternating visiting arrangements with her and her half-sister.
In 2020, David discovered that his then 15-year-old daughter was sneaking out in the middle of the night to meet a 29-year-old man whom she had met online. She was able to sneak out of the house and return undetected in the morning. Finally, her sister told her father. He, in turn, promptly reported the behavior to the police.
Bizarrely, during the 2020 investigation, the daughter, angered by the conviction and incarceration of her boyfriend, for the first time, accused her father of raping her. David was arrested a year later in 2021 and charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault, offenses that would have mandated life in prison had he been convicted.
During the discovery process the State furnished interviews of his daughter and her sister. There was no corroborating medical or DNA evidence. In fact, there was independent evidence that the daughter had made false claims of pregnancy and abuse by others.
David, his wife, and mother made two weekend trips to Maryland to review and assemble evidence. Days were spent preparing a detailed timeline, identifying potential witnesses and accumulating texts, photographs, cards and letters. Consistent with the defense’s reciprocal discovery obligation, this documentary evidence was provided to the Commonwealth Attorney.
To his credit, the Commonwealth Attorney consequently reviewed the evidence and met with the complainant. After considering all the evidence, the charges against David were entered nolle prosequi (dismissed).
Felony Sexual Abuse Case Placed on the Stet Docket
State: Maryland
Court: Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Trial Judge: Stacy McCormick
Case Name: State v Z.I
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Co-Counsel: Peter T McDowell
Verdict Date: March 06, 2023
All Charges Placed on Stet Docket with No Conditions
Anne Arundel County Jury Finds Client Not Guilty of Sexual Abuse of a Minor
State: Maryland
Court: Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Trial Judge: Pamela Alban
Case Name: State v Z.I
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Co-Counsel: Peter T McDowell
Verdict Date: February 13, 2023
Jury Verdict – Not Guilty on All Counts
Jury Finds Ohio Client Not Guilty of Sexual Abuse of a 5 year-old
State: Ohio
Court: Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas
Trial Judge: Michael J Ernest
Case Name: State v J.M
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Co-Counsel: Christopher P DeLaCruz
Verdict Date: October 04, 2022
Jury Verdict – Not Guilty on All Counts
West Virginia Client Not Guilty of Raping 18-yo College Student
State: West Virginia
Court: Circuit Court for Monongalia County
Trial Judge: Cindy Scott
Case Name: State v D.O.
Lead Counsel: Thomas A. Pavlinic
Co-Counsel: Belinda A. Haynie
Date: August 12, 2022
Jury Verdict – Not Guilty on All Counts
David O. was a nationally recruited high school athlete who had scholarship offers from top universities throughout the country. He accepted one from West Virginia University.
As an African-American, he often had his hair braided in twists. One of the local students (complainant) advertised that she provided this service. She had previously done this for other members of the athletic team.
David made arrangements for an afternoon session at his apartment. During that session, he was communicating with his girlfriend, and the complainant was communicating with her boyfriend. After the hair session, when she dropped him off at a dorm, they engaged in a brief romantic interchange.
At dinner that same evening, she told her girlfriends that David was flirting with and hitting on her, and that he made her feel uncomfortable. She did not mention the romantic exchange to her friends.
Later that evening, David called her to complain that the twists were not done properly and were causing headaches. She declined offers from her friends to accompany her back to his apartment when she went back close to midnight to his apartment to fix the twists. At that time, neither his girlfriend nor her boyfriend was made aware of this engagement.
During that session, they engaged in sexual intercourse. She was concerned that this may be made known to other teammates. David assured her that he would not say anything as it would impact his relationship with his girlfriend. Nonetheless, she told one of her friends that she had been raped.
When the complainant talked to the police, she omitted telling them that there was a romantic interchange after the first session. It was David who brought this to the attention of the investigating police officer, who then confronted her. She said in response: “Oh my gosh, I forgot.”
As a result of the charges, the university initiated an investigation. David lost his scholarship and was expelled from school months before the criminal charges were tried.
The jury trial lasted three days. One of the major points that the defense made in its PowerPoint closing was why would the complainant have gone back to his apartment if she thought that his flirting made her feel uncomfortable. We also stressed the question of why she didn’t bring one of her friends along who had offered to accompany her.
David took the witness stand and testified the sexual encounter was consensual. The jury entered a not guilty verdict after approximately three hours of deliberation.
