Sex Crimes / Sex Offender Registry

The following cases are recited to illustrate a cross-section of the types of dispositions achieved. It is not intended to represent a total or complete list of all of the case successes or favorable dispositions in the past 30 years. Salvatore C. Miglore has had many, many more NOT GUILTY findings for clients and/or findings of lesser offenses; and many may more favorable dispositions then stated below.

People vs. J.B.

- The Defendant was a 38 year old man, twice divorced, and, remarried for a third time, where his two children, a 6 year old girl and an 8 year old boy, resided with him and his new wife, plus his new wife’s 9 year old daughter. Thus, the two girls went to school and told their teacher that their dad, the Defendant, was “touching them inappropriately”. As such, the matter was reported to “DCFS” and the police. A “victim sensitive” interview took place with the children, by an alleged qualified child advocate, where it was alleged that over a period of several months, the Defendant had oral, vaginal and anal sexual contact with all three children, where penetration occurred. The girls described the sexual acts with significant detail, and told the police that sex toys were used on them to penetrate their vaginal and anal areas, and a blue gel was used in the acts. Accordingly, the sex toys and blue gel were found exactly where the girls indicated, after a search by the police in the parent’s bedroom. A sexual assault examination by a doctor of the two girls showed no signs of injury or trauma to either girl. However, penetration, under Illinois law, does not require injury, or scarring, or a sign of trauma, and the act can be “penetration” “if ever so slight”. Moreover, the scientific medical literature indicates that you can have penetration in these cases without any signs of trauma, in order to satisfy the legal requirement. But, Defendant’s experts disputed the application of the scientific literature in this particular case, because of the manor of how the children described the acts. As a result, the Defendant was arrested and charged, amongst other things, with two counts of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault, each a Class X Felony, punishable each consecutively by 30 years in prison. However, the Defendant without a criminal history, faced mandatory life in prison, if convicted, of each Class X Felony, by law. No charges were ever filed regarding the alleged assault on the boy. Accordingly, after a complete investigation and analysis by Salvatore C. Miglore, in retaining a child psychologist to review the victim sensitive interviews and protocol used, a DNA expert, Forensic Adolescent Gynecologist to review the physical examination, a sex offender clinical psychologist, and a forensic psychiatrist on false memory of a child, plus research and analysis of all the legal issues; in fact, the State withdrew their demand for life in prison, and offered 30 years, then 25 years, then 18 years, and then 15 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. But, after a pre-trial conference the trial Judge recommended 25 years for a plea to one count, and a dismissal of all the other charges. The Defendant rejected each offer and the courts recommendation. However, after several pre-trial hearings took place regarding what evidence could be presented at trial over several months, including one prior, earlier allegation of sexual abuse between this Defendant and one of the same daughters, which was uncharged, but reported to the police, the State was allowed by the trial Judge to admit this allegation at trial, over the objection of Salvatore C. Miglore. This type of “other bad acts” is called Modus Opperandi or method of operation; which, generally is not allowed at trial to show that Defendant had the propensity to commit these types of crimes, except in sexual abuse cases, where it is called a People vs. Donoho hearing. However, Salvatore C. Miglore disclosed all of his experts with their opinion(s), to the State and the case was set for jury trial. Thereafter, the State approached Salvatore C. Miglore shortly before trial and offered to dismiss 4 of the 6 charges, in exchange for 13 years in prison, at 85% time, to be served (which is called Truth and Sentencing). If accepted, the Defendant would serve about 9.5 years. The average sentence in Illinois for one count of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault is 27.5 years in the Department of Corrections with one victim, and here we had two charges with 2 victims of “predatory” assault, plus the State had the one other Act admissible at trial, which could be harmful if heard by the jury. In any event, Salvatore C. Miglore advised the Defendant of his options, risks and potential benefits of the trial, and/or plea agreement. Salvatore C. Miglore recommended that the matter proceeded to trial because he argued that with the proper experts, as he had, he felt that he could convince a jury to acquit the Defendant of the most serious charges, and possibly all 6 charges. But, after carful consideration by the client and his family, the Defendant choose to accept the plea agreement; where he would serve 9.5 years in prison; and, where it was possible to be released even earlier than 9.5 years, if he participated in treatment and other programs. As such, the Defendant reasoned that that the 9.5 years where he is 38 years of age, provides him the potential to start his life over at 47 years old, when released from prison; as opposed, to risking the remainder of his life in prison, without parole. In conclusion, the point is that this agreement could not have been reached without intense litigation, investigation, consultation with experts, a thorough evaluation of the law, tenacious advocacy, plus retaining and disclosing the correct experts; and, in short letting the State know they were in for a fight. Although, Salvatore C. Miglore desired to proceed to trial, the ultimate decision was left to the client, after all of the options were completely investigated and pursued, so that the client reached a knowing and fully informed decision, as to what is the correct course for him or her to follow. This was all based upon the individual risk tolerance of the Defendant, and, the quality of the admissible evidence, balanced against the probabilities of creating reasonable doubt at trial by the defense, in order to acquit the Defendant of all of the charges.

PEOPLE V. J. V.

- The Defendant was convicted of a sex offense before Salvatore C. Miglore. The conviction required that he register as a sex offender with the local police in the City where he resided. The problem was that every time the police attempted to locate the Defendant at his registered address, he was not present. So, the police set up surveillance and discovered that he spent most of his time staying overnight at his girlfriend’s house in another city or overnight at his disabled mothers, also in a third city. The law required the Defendant to register at all three police departments in each city, but he only registered at one, where he was never home. The police arrested the Defendant and charged him with a Class 4 felony, alleging failure to register as a sex offender. The matter proceeded to trial where the Defendant was found not guilty, because, Salvatore C. Miglore was able to convince the trial judge that he was only required to register where he “resided”, of which he did. Further, he did not reside at the addresses, but was a guest and/or an invitee, of which the Statute did not require him to register because his driver’s license and base of operations was all within the city he registered within.

NOTE: Fields with a * indicate a required field.