Defenses against child abuse cases are wide-ranging (and often complicated), but they are generally founded on the same basis: “I didn’t do it.”
Child abuse cases evoke intense emotions, and a charge directly inhibits a defendant’s inclusion in his or her own community. Accordingly, a rare number of individuals plead guilty to child abuse. This is especially true judging against those who admit guilt in murder cases—“I did it, but…” being a most familiar justification. Self-defense, “heat of passion,” “it was an accident” and many other admit-then-explain arguments are all unconvincing, if not useless, defenses for child abuse. It follows that nearly every individual accused of a sexual offense against a child denies it. As a result, prosecutors, law enforcement, and most juries typically interpret the token denial statement as disingenuous.
If an individual believes he or she has been falsely accused, there are several integral elements that warrant explication. In particular, it must be determined if the child was actually abused, and if so, it needs to be established with certainty if it was or wasn’t the person who has been accused. The State attempts to establish these facts with forensic experts and DNA evidence. Many of the State’s experts adjust their testimony to the set of facts to identify how they know the abuse actually occurred. This can be done through damaged tissues or through child behavior. The State will then try and place DNA on items of the child. Paul’s approach is to fight these assumptions and identify the numerous problems with the State’s blanket approach to identifying whether or not sexual abuse occurred and how misleading it can be to find DNA. Paul often engages the assistance of elite experts to further this argument or point out the flaws in the State’s collection of DNA evidence.
Even if there is a reason to believe that the child was not sexually abused, jurors generally want to understand a reason or motivation that the child has for fabricating the false event(s). The identification of why a child would lie can be the most mitigating factor to a case. This key ingredient often comes through communication between Paul and the accused or from other people close to the child.
Another approach Paul takes to child abuse cases is consistency. In these cases, the child will make outcries to several different people and repeat them again and again. By collecting as many stories from the child as possible, Paul can uncover key discrepancies in the story or possibly reveal whether or not the child is being coached by an adult.
Merely denying the act and claiming innocence is not enough to fight the accusation of a sexual offense against a child. If you are falsely accused, it must be clearly outlined why and how the child invented a false allegation. Further, the evidentiary issues will prove to be principally significant for the defense of many cases.
Paul Doyle believes that a sexual assault to a child case requires an extensive review and extensive discovery. Paul will seek to find every relevant evidence and use it for your defense.