Notable Cases - Brian M Worthington

After a six day trial, a Salinas jury brings back not guilty verdicts on all charges against a Carmel Valley contractor falsely accused of rape.

What began as many other Friday nights for this 30 year old single man from Carmel Valley--a night out with some friends--turned out to be a nightmare. After meeting some friends for drinks in Carmel Valley, the accused and his friends went to a bar in Carmel where they met three women--one of whom had been a schoolmate of one of the accused's friends. The men partied and danced with the three women until the bar closed and they were invited back to one of the women's apartment.

At the apartment, one of the women engaged in a strip tease dance and invited all three men to have sex with her. When all the others had either gone home or gone to bed, our client and the woman engaged in sexual activities. But the next morning when they woke up, she immediately started screaming at him pretending not to know who he was and accused him of raping her. She began chasing him around the apartment with two knives that she got from the kitchen. All the while the others in the apartment were telling her who the man was, that they had spent the evening together, and that she did know him. He was asked to leave. He left and within minutes, the cab he was in was stopped by the police and he was arrested for rape.

He was charged by the Monterey County District Attorney with rape and sexual battery of an unconscious woman. The young man steadfastly maintained his innocence. Tom and Brian Worthington along with their defense team, including another Worthington Law Centre associate, Carolyn Keeley, and the firm’s investigator, Richard Lee, were able to prove to the jury that the woman was lying on more than one relevant point: Although four people, testified to the contrary, including her good friend, the woman denied ever having an interest in any of the men at the apartment; denied having stripped down to her bra and panties and performing for the men; denied inviting them to have sex with her. She lied to the jury about what she had told two police officers; she lied to the jury about what she was wearing to bed that evening.

In the three months it took to bring this case to trial, the woman was interviewed by two investigating officers, an examiner at the hospital, an investigator with the Monterey County District Attorney's Office, and a deputy District Attorney. But it was not until she took the stand, under oath, that she told a story of how she was too intoxicated to consent or know what had happened to her. But this testimony was inconsistent with laboratory testing of her blood drawn just hours after the events that showed she had 0% alcohol in her system. After some suggestion that she may have taken Ecstasy, the defense presented additional laboratory tests showing that same blood sample was negative for all common "sex" drugs.

In her two day testimony, the defense completely discredited this witness. The defense argued to the jury that this woman had come to town for a "girls' weekend," leaving her fiancé behind. She engaged in activities that she certainly did not want her fiancé to find out about. And that when waking the next morning in her friend's apartment with a man other than fiancé, she lied to protect her relationship.

After 45 minutes of deliberation, the jury came back with verdicts of not guilty on all counts.

To read more about this case, please see the story published in The Carmel Pine Cone. 

In December, 2009, a Hollister man with no prior record was accused of having molested his niece when she was between the ages of three and eight. The niece is now 14 years old and was claiming she had seizures caused by post-traumatic stress disorder (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/index.shtml ), as a result of repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse (http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/). For at least six weeks she discussed with her mother and neighbor dreams she was having that she had been abused as a young child. After six weeks of these conversations she determined these were not dreams, but memories of true events. She claimed her uncle was the perpetrator.

Despite a report being made to law enforcement in January, 2010, no criminal charges were filed until summer, 2010.

Brian Worthington and Tom Worthington spent nearly two years investigating the case and developing the defense theory. The investigation and defense involved review of the entire family’s background, family court records, child protective services records, medical records, and school records. The man participated in a polygraph examination administered by a former FBI agent. He passed the examination. Preparation of the defense also involved consultation with a number of expert witnesses in the fields of diagnosis and treatment of sex-offenders, repressed memory, suggestibility of child witnesses, misuse of psychiatric diagnoses in court proceedings, and the motivations that can cause an adolescent girl to intentionally fabricate allegations of sexual abuse against a family member.

The defense investigation uncovered a wealth of medical records—none of which documented any seizure or diagnosis of PTSD. At trial Messrs. Worthington presented evidence and argument that these were fabricated medical issues used as an excuse to get out of school, and that the girl had used her “medical situation” and the child abuse story to convince her mother to be less restrictive with her boyfriends. Moreover, she had been inconsistent in her story when talking to friends and family members--with some, she denied it occurred at all; with others, she claimed another person had abused her at a different time in her life. Finally, it was discovered that the girl and her mother had destroyed documentary evidence that the Court had ordered them to maintain.

As a result of the investigative findings and the favorable polygraph examination, the Worthingtons demanded the case should be dismissed. When the District Attorney initially refused, the defense team produced a pretrial brief, complete with summaries of medical records and declarations from proposed expert witnesses, that was hundreds of pages long and renewed the demand to dismiss. After the District Attorney again refused, the case was set for trial.

The trial began October 31, 2011 and lasted nine days. During this time, the defense presented three expert witnesses and a number of character witnesses. Among the character witnesses were school teachers and a well known pediatrician in San Benito County. Each of the character witnesses testified the defendant was a good, honest man who would never harm a child. It took the jury less than three hours to deliberate before the man was found not guilty of all nine charges.

As a result of a domestic dispute on New Year’s Day, a 24 year old prison guard stabbed her husband in the chest in front of his two young children. The man later died. The woman faced life in prison. Tom and Brian Worthington teamed up to defend this young woman.

With the assistance of experts in the field of forensic pathology, biomechanics and Intimate Partner Battering (more commonly known as "battered woman syndrome”), Messrs Worthington developed a defense based on Intimate Partner Battering (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/effects-of-sexual-assault/battered-woman-syndrome) and argued to the Monterey County District Attorney's Office that the history of abuse in the relationship caused the woman to arm herself during an argument, in hopes that the presence of a weapon would make her husband stop abusing her. They also argued that the kinetics of the event showed the stabbing could not have been intentional and premeditated, but was instead reflexive and a product of her fear of abuse.

Days before the case was to go to trial, the Monterey County District Attorney agreed to reduce the charge of first degree murder to a charge of voluntary manslaughter. The woman was sentenced to seven years in prison.

In May, 2010, a 20-year-old Hispanic male from San Juan Bautista with no prior record was alleged to have been involved in a shooting at a golf course in Monterey County. It was alleged that the shooting was gang motivated and that shots were fired at three to four people in a vehicle. The young man was
facing numerous strikes, registration as a gang member, and substantial prison time. Two codefendants were also represented by well-known local attorneys. After nearly a year of motions and argument made by Mr. Worthington and the two co-counsels specifically directed at the allegations of gang involvement, the young man was offered a plea to only a single felony for probation. All gang charges were dismissed, he was not registered as a gang member--he received a sentence of only 220 days in county jail.

In San Benito County a 17-year-old with no prior record was charged with substantial sexual conduct with his eight-year-old cousin. After one hearing in juvenile court, the case was moved to adult court where the charges carried a potential life sentence. Mr. Worthington brought a motion to dismiss because the District Attorney had exceeded its authority to file the case in adult court without such filing being approved by a judge. Mr. Worthington’s motion was granted and the case was returned to juvenile court. The District Attorney then made a second request to transfer the matter to adult court.

Mr. Worthington enlisted the services of a well-known local psychologist to evaluate the minor’s competency to stand trial as an adult. The psychologist found that the minor lacked the emotional maturity and intellectual capacity to be charged as an adult and that his lack of a prior record along with the odd nature of the alleged incident showed he was in need of the rehabilitation that could be done through the juvenile court as opposed to the punishment that is imposed in adult court. The judge agreed and denied the District Attorney’s request to have the case moved back to adult court and dismissed half of the charges.

In juvenile court he was still facing confinement until the age of 25 and lifetime sex offender registration. On the day of jurisdictional hearing, the matter settled for a lower-level offense and the minor received 90 days in custody and was not required to register as a sex offender.

A Salinas man charged with molesting his two minor daughters over a period of years was granted probation and was not required to register under the sex offender registration statute.

Mr. Worthington advised the client that an early acceptance of responsibility with strong denials of any sexual intent was the best possible course for a favorable outcome. Mr. Worthington argued to the judge and the District Attorney that because the defendant had his family’s support (his wife and his daughters, the victims in this case), the Court needed to give the victims’ wishes the same deference as given when victims wish for extended prison sentences.

Mr. Worthington retained the services of a well known local psychologist to evaluate the man’s background, criminal history, psychological disposition and likelihood of reoffending. She opined that the man’s behavior while boorish and inappropriate was the product of a narcissistic need for attention more akin to sexual harassment than sexual molestation.

Relying upon the opinion of the expert witness and the positions asserted by the victims, through their own attorneys, Mr. Worthington argued that a prison sentence was not appropriate in this case nor was there sufficient evidence of sexual compulsion or sexual gratification to warrant sex offender registration. Ultimately, the judge agreed and sentenced the man to felony probation with 180 days in county jail and no sex offender registration.

A known gang member with two prior strikes was found in enemy gang territory fleeing from police with a loaded, stolen handgun. Because of his prior record, the defendant faced a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life in prison. While the defendant was awaiting trial at the Monterey County Jail, he was accused and charged with an additional gang related felony, making his possible sentence 50 years to life.

Mr. Worthington prepared a motion to dismiss the prior strike allegations(commonly referred to as a Romero motion) arguing that the defendant should not be subject to the 3 strikes law because his prior crimes had been committed at a young age and at the direction of older, established gang members; that because he was young enough and had enough support from his family rehabilitation in the future was possible; and because the conduct in his current offenses was not egregious enough to warrant a life sentence. Ultimately, one of the prior strikes was dismissed and the case settled for a stipulated prison sentence of 10 years, 8 months.

A multi-time felon with previous weapons offenses and a history of substance abuse was arrested for running a chop shop, vehicle theft and cultivation of marijuana. If convicted, the man faced prison time and mandatory deportation. Mr. Worthington argued to the District Attorney that the evidence of cultivation was so tenuous that the charge should be dismissed. The District Attorney ultimately agreed and dismissed which eliminated the possibility of mandatory deportation. The District Attorney also agreed to dismiss the chop shop allegation in exchange for a plea to the charge of vehicle theft which left open the possibility of deportation were the judge to pass down an aggravated sentence.

Mr. Worthington argued that because of the defendant’s efforts to overcome past substance abuse issues, the many years between prior offenses and the current offense, his family ties to the area (which included a citizen wife and two citizen children), and the more active role in the scheme played by his co-defendant, the man’s sentence should be lenient. The judge agreed and sentenced the man to home confinement.

Defendant, 19 years old at the time of the offense, was arrested for having sexual intercourse with his 14 year old classmate. Although the girl initially said the sex act was consentual, while the case was pending she changed her story and said it was forcible. The case resolved for probation but depending upon the sentence handed down by the judge, there was still a possibility of deportation and sex offender registration. Mr. Worthington argued that the girl’s inconsistent story should not be relied upon for the basis of sex offender registration and further that the defendant’s good background, promising future in the nursing field, and early acceptance of responsibility should qualify him for a reduced sentence. Ultimately the young man was sentenced to fewer than two months of home confinement; he was not deported and was not ordered to register as a sex offender.

Shortly after admission to the California State Bar, Mr. Worthington was assigned the case of a Salinas man accused of molesting two girls at a daycare facility. The man faced a potential sentence of 60 years to life in prison and was held in the Monterey County Jail on an extremely high bail. Mr. Worthington reviewed a position paper originally drafted by the Monterey County Defense Bar, updated the case law, and modified the position paper into a motion arguing that Monterey County’s Bail schedule is set so high as to violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive bail. The bail was reduced significantly and the man was able to post bail and return to his family as the case progressed. The case ultimately settled for one felony and one misdemeanor. The man was granted probation and sentenced to less than one year of home confinement.

Mr. Worthington handled the case of an elderly man in Hollister who was accused of threatening to kill his wife, threatening her with a shotgun, resisting arrest, and discharge of a firearm in front of law enforcement officers. The man faced a prison sentence and numerous “strike” offenses. Through months of pretrial work, Mr. Worthington assisted the man in enrolling in Alcoholics Anonymous as well as individual and family counseling. The man and his wife reunited. The case ultimately settled for a single felony which was not a “strike.” The man was sentenced to four months of home confinement.

Brian Worthington represented a 22 year old Castroville man who was accused of burglarizing a neighborhood home. He was seen prying open the screen of a neighboring residence and fled when one of the residents confronted him. Under California law, this conduct is a completed burglary and, because a person was present, a “violent felony.” Burglary carries a “mandatory” state prison sentence, with up to 6 years in prison. The young man was also on two grants of probation and was arrested on a new misdemeanor offense just days before sentencing.

While representing the young man, Mr. Worthington obtained school and medical records showing the young man was in special education classes from a very young age. He had a “specific learning disability” with his cognitive abilities being “low average to borderline.” The records also showed the young man had suffered led poisoning as a child which could have lowered his IQ anywhere from 10-72 points.

Based on the young man’s cognitive abilities and lack of any violence during the burglary, Mr. Worthington was able to convince the District Attorney not to file a “person present” allegation, so the burglary was not a “violent felony.” Mr. Worthington also convinced both the judge and DA that there were unusual circumstances present that gave the judge discretion to grant probation.

At sentencing, the judge agreed she could grant probation, and did. No “violent felony” was charged, and the misdemeanor for which the young man was arrested days before sentencing was dismissed. All told, the young man received only 120 days of home confinement.