Aggravated Sexual Assault Charges Attorney San Antonio
Accusations of rape (or sexual assault, as it is formally called in the Texas penal code) are among the most serious Texans' face, with punishment up to life in prison. If you are facing such charges, please understand that a defendant gets just one chance to properly present a defense. Once tried, it is much more expensive and difficult to get another trial. Make your day in court count by having a highly experienced attorney who has been defending these cases for 40 years.
Board Certified in Criminal Law With 40 Years Experience
You can find such an attorney at our San Antonio law firm, the Law Offices of Ray Taylor & Associates, P.C.. You will find that the credentials of attorney Ray Taylor are second to none in the San Antonio - South Texas area. He truly has the "experience" that many law firms claim to have.
In addition to having authored seven books, including a book on defending accused sex offenders (Representing Sex Offenders, Volume 34 in the "Model Trial Series") and being profiled on "60 Minutes,” for his successful defense in controversial sex cases, he is one of the very few lawyers in Texas Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Criminal Law. He is also one of only 36 lawyers (out of 87,000) in Texas to be Board Certified in Criminal Trial Advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.
Contact Ray Taylor at (210) 807-9916 to arrange a free initial in-office consultation and case analysis. Remember, the key to successful representation is the earliest possible intervention. Do not give a statement to law enforcement! Demand to first talk to your lawyer. Ask for a sexual assault charges attorney immediately and then remain silent.
Aggravated Sexual Assault and Rape Charges
- Attempted rape
- Rape
- Statutory rape
- Sexual assault of a minor
- Child sexual assault
- Aggravated sexual assault/ aggravated sexual assault of a minor
You Get One Shot: Innocent People Have Gone to Jail in Texas
Texas has more prisoners than any other state, even though several states have a much larger population. Texas even has more prisoners than the Federal Government. Like heart transplants, a person gets one chance to timely complete the trial preparation and have his lawyer try the case competently. There are no retrials because one discovers his lawyer is not prepared on the trial date, or lacks experience. The judge will not warn you that your attorney is under qualified; it is your job to pick an experienced and seasoned criminal courtroom veteran. Ask to see a Certificate of Board Certification and other credentials. If you do not, you may be the next innocent Texas to face as much as lifelong imprisonment because of an inexperienced attorney.
See our qualifications check list to check out who is best qualified to defend you.
Recently there have been cases in the news right here in Texas, involving people who were convicted and later exonerated after spending years in jail. These stories include:
CASE STUDY - ADULT ON ADULT SEXUAL ASSAULT (RAPE) COLLEGE STUDENTS
The defendant was a handsome college senior at a central Texas co-educational college. He was of average height and build, and an honors student. The alleged victim was a strikingly pretty Asian girl of slight build. She was a freshman. Both were students at the same college, where they met.
The defendant asked her out and she accepted.
She had moved away immediately after the alleged attack.
Jury selection is the key to most successful criminal defenses, and the jury selection went well. Since the college is mostly female, we attempted to avoid as jurors young women who might identify with the complainant. We sought to disqualify women who had been or knew someone who had been sexually assaulted, and women who had been in violent or abusive relationships.
We sought as ideal jurors the mothers of sons in their teens upwards; next men without daughters, and church going folk who might be critical of a girl easily going alone to a boy's apartment.
Jury selection went well; for one reason or another, 28 potential jurors admitted they could not be fair jurors. Those jurors were removed, and each side exercised over 10 peremptory strikes, ending up with a good jury inclined, I believed, to acquit.
She testified she told the defendant she wanted to go eat at Denny's restaurant, a well known national chain.
Her testimony was poised, emotional, and believable. She testified he had picked her up at the dormitory, and taken her straight to his small apartment, where he lived alone. They had talked for a short time, then he started "making out" with her. She testified she reluctantly went along for a brief time, but then insisted they go to get something to eat at Denny's.
Instead, he took her to get sandwiches to go at a national chain close to campus, and returned to his apartment.
According to her testimony, his sandwich went down in a hurry, and he apparently had similar hopes for the complainant. After she finally finished eating, and according to her, slowly and reluctantly finished, he started kissing her. She said she reluctantly went along, but resisted when he attempted to touch her breasts. She said she was overpowered, her panties were removed, and she was entered without her consent.
The cross examination was lengthy. I went through the entire sequence of events, pointing out she met him in the lobby and introduced him to several of her friends. She had admitted he made no attempt to conceal his name, what classes he took, who his friends were, or certainly where he lived. She admitted he chatted pleasantly with her friends briefly. She knew precisely where his apartment was, in relation to the dorm.
She admitted he took her to a very public sandwich shop near campus, and so others identifying him with her would have been simple. She did not object when he ordered the sandwiches "to go.”
She did not deny she knew he was driving back to his apartment with the sandwiches, but maintained throughout her testimony that she really wanted to go to Denny's and told him so many times.
She testified under cross examination that she liked Denny's for all the reasons most people go time and again: good food, good service, she liked to meet her friends there, and hoped to see other friends at Denny's that very night.
I asked her if Denny's was her favorite San Marcos eating establishment, and she tearfully agreed that it was, but that the defendant would not take her there.
She claimed to have screamed and yelled all during the attack, and claimed to have prayed someone would break in and rescue her.
She testified as to a medical examination after the attack.
After the usual assortment of police officers and to an outcry witness, the state offered the medical report, which indicated no injuries or sexual damages, such as a ruptured hymen, or bruising or inflammation.
The hospital report referred to the complainant as the "survivor.” I objected, arguing the document itself indicated no need for medical care, showed nothing, and was argumentative by use of the word "survivor" and that the document was prejudicial and prepared solely for the litigation in progress.
The trial judge agreed, and excluded the document.
In cross examination - the medical witness unintentionally hurt the prosecution by admitting in cross examination that there was none of the typical tell-tale signs of rape, such as vaginal or labial inflammation, swelling, or bruising, or any signs of violence.
The state rested, and made the colossal mistake of saying the complainant had to leave San Marcos for her new home. Of course, we agreed. She would not be there to refute any of the testimony of the defense witness.
At this point, the jury could have gone either way. It became necessary to put on our rather detailed defense.
The first witnesses were neighbors, but no more than acquaintances of the defendant. Those on either side of his apartment testified that the apartment building was poorly built and very poorly sound proofed, and they were home at the time of the alleged assault. They would have easily heard her cries for help, had there been any.
They only heard soft conversation and occasional giggling.
The defendant was fortunate to get the attendance of a female neighbor who had graduated and was living in Houston. She was a pretty girl, and every minute of nine months pregnant. She did not wear a wedding ring.
She testified she knew the defendant by his first name only and only knew him gradually. She testified that she saw the couple go into, and later out of his apartment, and the complainant had her arms wrapped around the defendant affectionately, and she got up on her tip toes to kiss him.
She was unsure of whether this was the first or the second visit to the defendant’s apartment.
She noticed nothing but clinging affection from the complainant.
She further confirmed the lack of sound proofing.
The assistant manager of the sandwich shop testified he knew the defendant slightly, as an occasional customer, and had a class with him. Before being approached by our investigator, he did not know the defendant's name.
The witness, frankly, was difficult to work with. He was from New York City, and had a grating accent and unpleasant and had a confrontational personality.
Nonetheless, he was responsive to suggestions, and we decided to use him, but in brief, abbreviated testimony.
He gave the impression of not wanting to be there at the trial, and testified he was there only under subpoena.
He testified he remembered the defendant and "the Asian girl.” She was "all over" the defendant, and had no objection to sandwiches to go. He saw her kiss the defendant two or three times while waiting in line.
Almost always, the defendant testifies last. In this case, he was next to last.
He testified he worked summers in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and had a "security clearance.” He wanted to go to law school after graduation. He offered his many honors on a school transcript. His employment goal was to be an FBI agent.
He testified he had met the girl on campus and stopped to talk to her because she gave him an inviting smile. He said she made no mention of Denny's at all. He said if she had, he would have been glad to take her there, though he was on a "thin budget.”
He agreed with her that he took her straight to his apartment, explaining he had little money left that late in the semester.
He said when she said "no" at the first attempt, he stopped, and they agreed on the sandwich shop because of his budgetary constraints.
He said she was of typical affectionate toward him, at slight variance to what the other witnesses said, who stated she was downright clinging.
He said he was sure the pregnant witness had seen them leaving his apartment. They finished their sandwiches and then, consensually, made love.
He testified she insisted he use a condom; he testified he repeatedly asked her if she would dispense with the use of the condom, but she insisted. He said he "begged her,” but she insisted. He said he "begged her" because he did not like the feel of a condom, but she insisted and he relented, and he wore the condom, but only because she insisted.
He denied any force, made no attempt to hide or resist when arrested.
A motion in limine (motion to limit disclosure) had been filed among the many pretrial motions, and the prosecution was banned from brining out that he had refused to give a statement regarding the events of the evening.
The last witness for the defense was a police officer who did not know the defendant. Through him we introduced the phone book in effect at the time of the alleged assault.
The officer testified there was not at the time of the alleged assault, nor ever, a Denny's restaurant in San Marcos. And there was no ad for one in the phone book. After a five day trial the jury acquitted in 25 minutes.
Attempted Rape (Attempted Sexual Assault)
If have been charged with attempted sexual assault or any related sex crime, contact an experienced sexual assault charges lawyer with the experience and resources to build the strongest possible defense. Call the San Antonio, Texas, Law Offices of Ray Taylor & Associates, P.C., at (210) 807-9916 to schedule a free initial in-office consultation and case analysis.
Hablamos Español