Falsely Accused of Criminal Sexual Conduct: A Case Study

Most people cannot imagine being falsely accused of criminal sexual conduct. In this real world case study provided by our criminal defense attorneys, we detail a real life example of a young man who was falsely accused of criminal sexual conduct. It is our hope that this case study will help people understand how false accusations are sometimes made against innocent people. Our case study describes:

The details of the false accusations.
How the false allegations were made.
The criminal charges that were filed as a result.
The criminal justice process that ensued.
Details from the trial.
The outcome of the case.

At the conclusion of this case study, our lawyers provide issues to consider when confronting false accusations of criminal sexual conduct and strategies that have proved successful in defending our clients against false accusations.

Details of the False Criminal Sexual Conduct Allegations

The alleged victim, referred to in this article as the complaining witness, was an acquaintance of our client. She worked at a local club and our client was a member of that club. Over time, the two became friends and would hang out with one another on occasion. They knew each other for approximately six months.

The complaining witness reached out to our client one evening to see if he would go out drinking with her. Our client agreed, and the complaining witness drove to our client’s home so he could drive her to the various drinking establishments. Then they went out to some bars and nightclubs with our client’s friends.

As the night went on, our client told the complaining witness when he intended to go to the next establishment, and the two eventually split up. At the time, the complaining witness preferred to stay at the bar that she was at because she was dancing with a man that she was interested in. However, the complaining witness eventually wanted to rejoin our client and his friends, so she texted him, found out where he was, and met him at the new club.

The complaining witness previously made arrangements with her sister to pick her up from one of the nightclubs, however, she became so intoxicated that she had difficulty walking and staying awake. Given her intoxication, our client drove her to his home so that she could sleep in a safe location and then drive her vehicle home. She slept in his bed that night, awoke in the morning, and then drove herself home.

On her drive home, the complaining witness called her close friend and told her that she thought something bad happened the night before. She told her friend that she thought she may have been sexually assaulted. As part of her explanation, she told her friend that she didn’t remember much, but that when she woke up her underwear and spandex shorts were on the floor of the bedroom. She also said that she thought our client knew that he did something wrong because he wouldn’t return her text messages. Her friend encouraged her to report the incident to the police immediately and obtain a sexual assault nurse examination (SANE).

When she got home, she told her sister that she thought she was raped. She also said the she didn’t remember much because she was asleep. Her sister also told her to report it to the police and to obtain a sexual assault nurse examination.

The complaining witness did not report the incident or obtain an examination that day. Or the next. Instead, she wanted to leave early from work two days later because she did not want to potentially see our client at her work. She told her manager and other coworkers the same things that she told her friend and sister, and her manager told her that she would need to report the incident to law enforcement so that they could take appropriate action and provide her with leave from work. So the complaining witness made a report that day.

How the Complaining Witness Falsely Accused our Client

The complaining witness went to a local hospital for a sexual assault nurse examination that day. She told the SANE nurse and the responding police officer far more details than she had told anyone else to to that point in time. She no longer claimed to not have remembered much of the incident, but rather, that she remembered our client pulling off her underwear and spandex. She also reported that she remembered two distinct sexual assaults. She told the nurse and the police officer that she remembered waking up to our client digitally penetrating her, telling him no, and then she went back to sleep. She said that she then woke up again, still in the middle of the night, to our client having sex with her. She told the nurse and the officer that she pushed our client off of her, put on her underwear and spandex, and drove herself home, calling her friend along the way and telling her sister what happened once she got there. She thought it would have been around the 5 a.m. hour that she left, but she also said that the sun was rising when she got to her home that was 20 minutes away. This portion of her statement in relation to the sunrise becomes important because the date of the alleged assault was in late October.

In response to the report, law enforcement collected the swabs from the SANE examination, the SANE report which indicated there were no physical injuries to the complaining witness, all of her clothing that she wore on the night in question combined within a single bag, and text messages shared between the complaining witness and her friend and sister.

An assigned detective to the case conducted a follow-up interview with the complaining witness, in which the complaining witness maintained her core version of events, but changed some details slightly. Notably, the complaining witness no longer claimed to remember our client removing her underwear and spandex. She told the detective that she assumed that is what happened because she could not remember the details from that portion of her night.

Criminal Sexual Conduct Charges Filed as a Result of the False Allegations

As a result of the complaining witness’s report, the county attorney’s office charged our client with two counts of third degree criminal sexual conduct. The prosecutor alleged that our client sexually penetrated the complaining witness while she was physically helpless due to her intoxication and that she was asleep when the conduct supposedly happened.

Our client faced presumptive sentences of 48 months in prison for each count that could be run consecutive, for a total of 96 months in prison. Additionally, if convicted he faced a lifetime conditional release period, essentially placing him under the supervision and control of the State of Minnesota for the rest of his life. Additionally, he faced a lifetime predatory offender registration requirement.

Lengthy Court Proceedings After Being Falsely Accused

Once the charges were filed, one of our experienced criminal defense lawyers, David Lundgren, took over the case. He worked to get our client released so that he could continue to work and fight his case while being out of custody. Then, we started coordinating the various pieces of his defense. Relying upon his extensive experience fighting serious criminal charges for his clients, including serious criminal sexual conduct matters, Mr. Lundgren was aware of the difficulties posed by he-said, she-said cases. Instead of leaving the case essentially up to chance based upon what the complaining witness had said and whether the jury would believe she was credible or not, Mr. Lundgren started putting the pieces of the case together to start chipping away at the allegations based upon things that could be verified or disproved from objective evidence.

David Lundgren obtained all of the evidence that the prosecutor had in his possession, including the police reports, SANE examination, DNA forensic reports, and witness statements. Notably missing from these materials was the text messages between the complaining witness and her friend and sister. Mr. Lundgren demanded that the prosecutor provide those messages, and they were eventually disclosed. The contents of the messages supported our client’s defense, because they further indicated that the complaining witness may not have actually remembered any assault at all, but rather made assumptions about what happened.

In the background of all of this, Mr. Lundgren started coordinating our client’s defense. He hired a forensic scientist to conduct an independent review of the DNA evidence. According to the expert for the prosecutor, a lead scientist from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, our client’s DNA was on the spandex of the complaining witness. This evidence, according to the prosecutor, seemed to point towards our client’s guilt. However, our independent DNA expert explained that the DNA that was found on the complaining witness’s spandex was not from semen or sperm, but rather non-sperm DNA cells associated from our client. This type of DNA is commonly referred to as “touch DNA.”

What is touch DNA? “Touch DNA,” is DNA that is found on all of our bodies, from our skin cells, hair cells, saliva, sweat, etc. It can be transferred through direct touching of our body onto another object, or indirectly from an object that already has our DNA on it onto another object that the first object touches. The latter is called tertiary transfer of DNA. Our expert explained that our client’s DNA could have been transferred to the complaining witness’s underwear in any number of ways, including direct contact, transfer from our client’s bed sheets onto the complaining witness’s underwear, the complaining witness transferring our client’s DNA from her own hands onto the garment, or from all of the clothing, including her sweater and skirt, being commingled together in the same bag. Essentially, our DNA expert explained that it was entirely reasonable to conclude that our client did not touch her underwear at all and still have his non-sperm DNA present on the item.

Additionally, Mr. Lundgren independently obtained the policies and procedures for the law enforcement agency that was involved related to sexual assault investigations. In reviewing what the police officers did and did not do in comparison to their policies and procedures, Mr. Lundgren learned that the investigation was deficient in many ways. Mr. Lundgren noted those deficiencies and prepared questions for the law enforcement officers involved to be asked at trial to expose their lack of diligence.

Mr. Lundgren also retained an expert to review the SANE examination that was done. The evidence from the SANE examination largely supported our client’s defense because his DNA was not found on the complaining witness and there were no physical injuries involved. However, due to the time that had passed between the alleged assault and the examination, and the complaining witness being on her monthly cycle during the examination, it was necessary to have our own expert explain in detail how those issues impact the results of the examination.

Also, Mr. Lundgren looked into historical sunrise records to see when the sunrise occurred on the morning in question. Those records revealed that the sun would have risen nearly one hour later than the complaining witness’s timeline and version of events.

Lastly, Mr. Lundgren worked to obtain a continuance of the initial trial setting at a critical time. The day before the first scheduled trial, the prosecutor provided expert witness disclosures that violated the criminal procedural rules. More importantly, the disclosures made bold proclamations about the prevalence of lack of injuries in sexual assault matters that did not align with his experience and scholarly literature on the topic. In sum, the expert was prepared to testify that she only sees injuries in sexual assault cases in 19% of cases. It was necessary to conduct an independent investigation with regard to the State’s expert, and despite scrutiny from the assigned judicial officer and the prosecutor, a continuance was granted because it was the correct remedy for the prosecutor’s misstep. This continuance turned out to be crucial, because Mr. Lundgren’s independent investigation into the prosecutor’s expert revealed that she had testified only a year prior that the prevalence of injuries was closer to 1/3 of cases. Additionally, scholarly research on the topic provides numbers at least twice as high as the state’s expert provided, especially when allegations of digital penetration are involved such as this case.

Our Client’s Trial

Our client’s case proceeded to trial well over a year from when it began. The jury panel was comprised of members from the community, many of which suffered sexual assault in their past or knew someone close to them who was the victim of a sexual assault. However, all of them committed to keeping an open mind about the allegations in this case, and agreed that people are falsely accused of crimes. Importantly, all of them agreed that they could presume that our client was innocent and hold the prosecutor to his burden of proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

At trial, the prosecutor called the complaining witness, her friend, her sister, the SANE nurse, the initial responding officer, the assigned detective, and the forensic scientist from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension that conducted the DNA testing in the matter.

The prosecutor’s theory of the case, as presented through his witnesses, was that the complaining witness was sexually assaulted just as she said. He claimed that her inconsistent statements were reasonable because people who are assaulted are not that forthcoming and do not provide many details to those around them. He further claimed that the DNA evidence was strong evidence in support of her claims, because it was unlikely that our client’s DNA could be indirectly transferred to the complaining witness’s spandex. He claimed that it was evidence that our client took the complaining witness’s spandex off himself. He argued that the SANE examination didn’t show injuries because sexual assaults often don’t result in injuries, and when they do, those injuries heal quickly. And since two days had past before she was examined, any injuries she would have had would likely have been healed. He further explained that because the complaining witness started her monthly cycle and she showered prior to the examination, it is understandable why there would be none of our client’s DNA on her person during the examination. He further argued that the noticeable changes detailed by her friends, including the complaining witness becoming withdrawn and depressed following the date in question, supported the conclusion that she was sexually assaulted. The prosecutor further claimed that our client took the complaining witness to his home instead of to her home because he planned to take advantage of her. He stated that our client had made advances toward the complaining witness in the past that were rebuffed, and he took advantage of her impaired state to commit the acts that she claimed. He further told the jury that he stopped going to the club immediately after the incident due to his guilty conscience and wanting to avoid the complaining witness. The prosecutor argued our client would have to be one of the unluckiest people in the world to be falsely accused under the circumstances of the case.

The defense relied primarily upon lengthy and extensive cross examinations of the prosecutor’s witnesses to highlight the reasonable doubt that was present in the case. The complaining witness was cross examined about the inconsistencies in her statements, all of the times that she stated she could not remember what happened, and the lie that she told the initial responding officer about our client taking off her spandex and underwear. The complaining witness also admitted that the spandex she was wearing that night was her safety net to make sure no one would grab her while she was dancing at the clubs. As seen below, this was a critical admission in conjunction with her assumption that our client took them off even though she did not remember that being the case. The complaining witness was also confronted with her text messages where she stated she did not remember much from the evening. The complaining witness also admitted that since she had passed out in our client’s vehicle on the way home, and our client did not know where she lived, there was no way he could have brought her to her home that night. She further conceded that her timeline did not add up with regard to the sunrise and when she claimed to have left our client’s home. And, she conceded that our client did nothing to prevent her from leaving at any point during the night or morning. She had access to her keys and phone and could have left or called the police at any point, but did not.

The police officers were also examined about the inconsistencies in the complaining witness’s statements. They were confronted with the deficiencies in their investigation that could have provided important evidence in the case, including the lack of a suspect exam, not gathering the bed sheets from our client’s home, not gathering our client’s clothing, failing to make any efforts to interview the complaining witness’s coworkers and manager, and not documenting the scene of the alleged assault. Further, the officer’s were confronted about not separating the items of clothing they obtained from the complaining witness, and how that could have led to the tertiary transfer of DNA between the clothing items. That failure meant that DNA could have been transferred from the outside of a sweater onto a pair of underwear while being commingled in the bag, and that is not incriminating at all. Further, the police officers admitted that their policies included directions to interview all potential witnesses, or at least to make an effort, and they did not interview the complaining witness’s coworkers and manager. During the trial, it became apparent that the police officers were not truly investigating the allegations to see where the evidence took them, but rather, took a tunnel vision approach to only gather evidence that would support the complaining witness’s claims.

On cross examination, the prosecutor’s DNA expert agreed with the defense on many of the scientific principles of DNA transfer outlined above. He conceded that DNA can be transferred from one object to another. He further conceded that certain places, such as a bed, can contain large amounts of a person’s DNA ready to be transferred onto other objects. The state’s forensic scientist also agreed the importance of not contaminating one item of evidence by having it touch another, or by touching on part of an item of evidence to another part of the same item. The BCA scientist admitted that he could not say how our client’s DNA came to be placed on the complaining witness’s spandex, and that he could not rule out tertiary transfer. In other words, he could not say that our client touched the complaining witness’s spandex at all.

The prosecutor’s SANE nurse was confronted with her inconsistent testimony on the prevalence of injuries, agreed to questions about the transfer of DNA and the precautions that need to be taken to prevent it, and acknowledged the scholarly research that did not align with her own observations about the prevalence of injuries in sexual assault cases. Additionally, the defense asked her about information provided by the complaining witness that she had been withdrawn and depressed even before the alleged sexual assaults, which undercut the prosecutor’s argument that the complaining witness became depressed because she was assaulted.

Mr. Lundgren also called his forensic nurse as an expert witness to educate the jury about the SANE examination process and the conclusions that can, and cannot, be drawn from it.

In his closing, Mr. Lundgren argued that the complaining witness was sad and upset after moving to Minnesota and was generally unhappy before spending the night with our client. He argued that our client did the right thing that night by taking her to his home so she could be safe, and that there was no credible evidence that a sexual encounter occurred. Mr. Lundgren explained that the complaining witness made several statements that supported the conclusion that she did not remember what happened, but made assumptions about what happened because she woke up with her safety net off, i.e. her spandex. She panicked, tried to piece things together, and eventually came up with the story that she told the police. He explained that the complaining witness’s own timeline did not make sense. If she really left immediately after the alleged assault at 5 a.m., would the sun have been rising 20 minutes later when she got back to her apartment? He explained to the jury that it was more likely that she passed out, woke up later in the morning on her own accord and not as a result of being assaulted, and then left our client’s home. He further explained that not returning someone’s text messages and avoiding going to the club that they work at is not evidence of criminal sexual conduct, and that people avoid acquaintances for a large number of reasons, including being off put by someone being so intoxicated that they cannot control their actions.

Mr. Lundgren argued that the DNA evidence supported a not guilty verdict, and that it was also evidence beyond just being not guilty: actual innocence. Mr. Lundgren argued that if DNA were to be found anywhere, it should have been found on the inside of the complaining witness’s underwear or on her body, but it was not. He argued that his client was falsely accused of criminal sexual conduct. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Lundgren’s closing argument:

You all listened to the testimony of how DNA can be transferred from one person to another, from one person to an object, and from an object to a person. We heard about secondary transfer, touch DNA, picking up and leaving our skin cells in our daily interactions. We heard examples from the handle of a briefcase, and onto someone else’s water bottle. And you heard that even though a person’s DNA might be found on an object, it doesn’t mean they had direct contact with the object. The best example of that might be from this very trial – I doubt that anyone believes that four or more individuals had direct contact with the complaining witness’s underwear. Yet what did we learn? We learned just how easily DNA can be deposited and transferred. It started to feel like our DNA is everywhere. Quite frankly, it is.

You heard undisputed testimony that the complaining witness rode in our client’s car. You heard undisputed testimony that the complaining witness wore our client’s hooded sweatshirt – an item with a “textured” surface. Remember that word? The forensic scientist stated that DNA loves textured surfaces. It is also undisputed that the complaining witness slept for a period of time in our client’s bed. The forensic scientist agreed that a person’s bed – depending on the schedule of washing the sheets – is a place rife with its owner’s DNA.

So what are we left with? With all the ease with which DNA is transferred, you are left with a small amount of non-sperm DNA from our client on the interior or exterior or a combination of both on the waistband of the complaining witness’s shorts after she spent the night out with him, rode in his car, wore his hoodie, and slept in his bed.

In addition, the complaining witness’s hands would likely have had DNA from our client’s bed on them when she went to grab her underwear and spandex to put them back on before she left. If that’s not enough, all of the clothing items, including the outer clothing items, were placed together for a period of two and a half days before being separated by law enforcement.

Under these circumstances, I propose to you that it is not surprising in the least that our client’s DNA would exist on an article of the complaining witness’s clothing. What is surprising is that our client’s DNA was not located anywhere on the complaining witness’s underwear after separate alleged acts of penile and digital penetration, and where she immediately pulled her underwear snug to her intimate parts, and left his house. If he had sexually assaulted her with his penis and his fingers, it is highly likely that she would have carried his DNA away with her in her underwear. She did not. The DNA testing of the underwear speaks volumes.

Lastly, I want to talk about the tampon. You heard testimony from the SANE nurse that it was collected in a sterile cup by her on October 25, 2021. What happened to it? Well, the short answer is, it sat. It sat from October 25, 2021, when it was collected, until September 5, 2023, when it was decided it should be tested. That is almost two years after it was collected, and about one month before this trial was scheduled to begin. What does that tell you about the State’s case? It says a lot.

I encourage you not to lose yourself in the minutiae of conjecture, but focus on the facts proved. Focus on what is known, not on what the State suggests may merely be possible. The DNA evidence in this trial is not only consistent with the premise that our client is not guilty, it is consistent with innocence.

Mr. Lundgren argued that the totality of the circumstances of the case supported a not guilty verdict, and the evidence just didn’t add up. The following is an excerpt of the conclusion from his closing argument:

I’d like you to consider and assess whether the following provides you with a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant put his penis or his fingers inside of the complaining witness on October 23, 2021:

The complaining witness’s admitted lack of memory concerning significant portions of the evening due to her intoxication. Does this convince you the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?

The complaining witness’s inconsistent details she provided concerning who took off her underwear and spandex, making an assumption, and then reporting that assumption to law enforcement without qualification. Are you convinced that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt yet?

The complaining witness’s lack of details provided to the first people she told about the alleged incident, including no mention of penetration, the defendant’s penis in her vagina, or the defendant’s fingers in her vagina. Are you convinced that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt yet?

The complaining witness’s equivocal statements, such as being “pretty sure” something bad happened, wishing she remembered something critical about the alleged incidents, and being “pretty sure” the defendant knew he did something wrong. Are you convinced that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt yet?

The complaining witness’s delay in leaving the defendant’s home, staying in the same bed as him after the initial assault, her delay in reporting the incident despite being encouraged to do so, and her ultimate reason for reporting the incident related to getting time off of work. Are you convinced that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt yet?

The total absence of bodily injury, anogenital injury, or symptoms of pain and discomfort related to the alleged assault. Are you convinced that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt yet?

The lack of DNA forensic evidence where one would expect to find it if penetration occurred in this case. Are you convinced that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt yet?

The unanswered questions that we’ll never have answers to due to law enforcement’s failure in not processing and documenting the defendant’s home for evidence and law enforcement’s failure in not pursuing and completing a suspect exam. Do you have a reasonable doubt yet?

Now consider this. In light of all of the evidence in this case, do you think there is a reasonable possibility that the complaining witness woke up after a long night of drinking, with a lack of memory of what occurred the night before, in a home she had never been to, next to a man she was not interested romantically in, with her spandex and underwear on the floor, and then assumed the worst about what may have happened, could have happened, might have happened? You’ll remember that the complaining witness testified that she wore the spandex as a safety and security measure to protect herself from being assaulted while dancing. Did waking up with no memory and seeing them on the floor cause her to assume the worst about the situation? The complaining witness demonstrated her willingness to make assumptions and share them without qualification. Do you happen to have this particular reasonable doubt? This reasonable doubt, and many others, are supported by the evidence.

Outcome of the Case

The jury deliberated the case for a day and a half. At the end, the jury indicated that they were deadlocked, 6 in favor of guilt and 6 in favor of not guilty. A mistrial was declared and the case was scheduled for a retrial. While we would have preferred a not guilty verdict, we were pleased that our client’s freedom was preserved and he had another opportunity to receive a favorable jury verdict. At the conclusion of the first trial, the prosecutor complimented Mr. Lundgren and Mr. Johnson on the meticulous attention to detail and thoroughness of the defense they presented on behalf of their client.

The case was scheduled for retrial, however, the prosecutor elected to dismiss the case prior to commencement of the second trial. The dismissal is a vindication of our client’s cause, and was the correct decision in light of all of the evidence. The case took over a year and a half from start to finish, and our attorneys were happy to fight their client’s case for as long as it took in order to reach the right outcome for a man that was falsely accused.

Issues and Strategies in Defending People Falsely Accused of Crimes

If you are a person that is falsely accused of a crime, or if you are a lawyer defending someone who is falsely accused of a crime, it is important to not take any aspect of the case for granted. You know the case, the facts, and the science the best, but you need to ensure that all of that information will find its way to the jury in a way that the jury can understand. Over the last 30 plus years of combined criminal defense experience, David Lundgren and Adam Johnson have developed proven strategies for defending people against the most serious crimes in Minnesota.

First and foremost, as this case shows and the prosecutor recognized, it is important to have the highest level of attention to detail in the case. A meticulous, thorough, and relentless approach to defending against false accusations is a must.

It is necessary to obtain every piece of evidence in the prosecutor’s file and in the possession of the police. Often times a prosecutor is unaware of evidence in their possession or in law enforcement’s possession. In order to successfully defend someone falsely accused of a crime, a criminal defense lawyer has to ensure a level playing field.

Next, every piece of scientific evidence must be reviewed through several different lenses. First, the lawyer needs to make sure that the science being used is accepted science within the community and that the testing done in their specific case was reliable. Second, the lawyer must have a strong understanding of the science to know the implications that can or cannot be drawn from the evidence.

Then, an additional investigation is often necessary to prove or disprove important pieces of evidence. Does the complaining witness’s version of events align with verifiable facts? Is it inconsistent with evidence outside of his or her statement? Was there evidence available, or potentially available, that was not gathered? These additional investigative steps can include requesting the policies and procedures of the law enforcement agencies involved, obtaining witness statements, collecting evidence such as digital records or physical items, conducting background checks on witnesses, and obtaining opinions from experts in scientific fields.

The investigation can also include considering what motivations or biases the witnesses may have in the case to say something that is untrue. Do they stand to gain anything by making the claims? Do they stand to lose anything if they don’t make the false allegations? Do they harbor ill will or negative feelings towards the person for reasons other than what they are claiming happened? These are all important factors to consider and can be important and persuasive evidence for the jury to hear.

Lastly, it requires careful consideration of how to best present the information to the jury so that they understand the evidence and can come to the conclusion that the person was falsely accused. Sometimes that means the lawyer presents the information through cross examination of the prosecutor’s witnesses. Other times it means affirmatively calling your own witnesses, experts, and submitting exhibits. Each case calls for it’s own unique approach, but as long as the jury can easily understand the defense’s theory of the case and it is optimized for persuasiveness, then the approach is a sound one.

Being falsely accused of a crime, especially in a he-said, she-said case with no other witnesses present, can be a daunting experience. But with the right approach, what otherwise might be a decision that is left up to chance for the jury depending on whether they think complaining witness is believable or not, can turn into a much broader, reasoned decision based on logic and common sense. People are not human lie detectors, and by broadening the focus beyond just what the complaining witness claims to be true, those allegations can be meaningfully tested by the totality of the circumstances. When a person is falsely accused of a crime, it is smart to tip the scales in their favor by looking beyond the complaining witness’s statement in an effort to show the jury the truth.

If you or someone you know has been falsely accused of a crime, give us a call today to discuss your case.