If you are being charged with sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault in Houston, Harris County, or surrounding areas it is important to retain an experienced defense lawyer. Carl Haggard – of The Haggard Law Firm – has over 30 years of experience and a verified winning record defending clients against sexual assault charges in Texas. Call or use the short email form to get a confidential free consultation regarding your charges.

Sexual Assault Recent Case Results


Case No. 884107 – Angel H.


This case involved false allegations by Angel’s girlfriend & included a State’s Motion for AIDS testing. We subpoenaed several witnesses and were preparing them for Trial but obtained our Dismissal prior to that, having sufficiently disproved the allegations.

Aggravated Sexual Assault LawyerATTEMPTED SEXUAL ASSAULT

Case No.1345992 – Johnny L.


This bogus case made TV and internet news – and no doubt damaged ADT’s alarm sales. Client was a devoted family man charged with attempting to sexually assault a customer inside her home during the course of door-to-door alarm system sales for ADT. Complainant went to police with her drama: That she let defendant into her home to look at her pre-existing alarm system and that after she decided against an upgrade he refused to leave, blocked the front door, grabbed her indecently and tried to force her upstairs with him but that … finally… she was able to escape from his grasp and force him out the door. (Indeed police found him a couple of streets over, calmly continuing his sales after this “crime attempt”.) We gathered and compiled background witness and character evidence and then methodically showed for the Grand Jury the sheer preposterousness of her story – that a happily married man with a 15-month track record as top producer and top salesman , while fully identified with his name badge and in ADT uniform, would try such a stunt. We successfully overcame police statements in the Offense Report that client lied to them about not having been on her street – he had left her a brochure as proof he had been in her home. Next, based on our research, we were able to piece together a compelling and plausible motive on the part of Complainant for her outrageous libel and slander of our client: We learned she was going through a divorce, losing custody of her children and was strapped for money. Then, subsequent to the allegations she – or a relative posing as her – called ADT demanding a high sum of money “to make it right”. We followed up with character reference letters, including two compelling ones from client’s wife proving she was standing behind him and from a Retired USMC Special Forces veteran with 3 Purple Hearts, to testify to our client’s good character and credibility.

Thank you, Mr. Haggard for helping me get my life back. God will give you many blessings. ~Johnny L.


Case No.720091 – Charles O.


This was a one-witness rape case, but the relationship was consensual. A very difficult decision was in waiving a jury trial and trying the case to the Judge. Mr. Haggard in his cross-examination brought a number of important discrepancies in the Complainant’s story to light and our client did not have to testify.

During a time when my legal issues placed me in an all or none situation, Carl Haggard was there for me. He guided me through and represented me in a professional and personal way, always being honest and informative with me. Thanks to Mr. Haggard I got 15-20 years — with my family! ~ Charles O.


Case No. 1300842 – Franklin N.


Franklin was dealing with a lying, conniving ex-wife in this case. At the time of the incident, they were still going through a divorce (for a marriage that she had conned him into by pregnancies which always seemed to “miscarry”). Motivated by jealousy over a new woman on the scene, she went to police with an allegation of rape and then to the hospital for the necessary medical forensics testing. Franklin submitted to a DNA sample which was found to match. Moreover, the Prosecutors and Grand Jury had access to a half-hour recorded audio conversation between Franklin and the Complainant in which he admitted to forcing himself on her. We exploited several factors to secure this early No-Bill to prevent an Indictment: Although the tape had incriminating evidence against Franklin, it also held – for the careful listener [which we were] – other statements of Complainant which tended to exculpate Franklin and which we carefully pointed out to the Prosecutors and the Grand Jury; we secured umpteen pages of texts showing a non-hostile relationship in the weeks and days preceding the alleged assault; we obtained and presented many financial records showing Franklin had paid many bills on her behalf even after the alleged assault – and yet she was obviously not afraid to accept his help. Our biggest stumbling block was without a doubt the recorded audio tape of Franklin admitting to using violence. Mr. Haggard carefully and ethically advised Franklin, in writing, as to how exactly to testify before the Grand Jury without perjuring himself or telling any lies. Our persuasive presentation of our evidence and our meticulous preparation of Franklin for this all-important testimony succeeded and we obtained our desired outcome – a No-Bill by the Grand Jury in this case.


Case No. 1119360, 1119361 – Daniel H.


The DA’s were confident in their evidence of violence and physical force in these two rape cases but we were able to prove otherwise, although a prior consenting relationship between Dan and Complainant complicated matters. Eyewitness evidence, two impregnable alibis, plus incriminating impeachment evidence showing Complainant to be a mentally-ill and jealous individual [Dan had reconciled with an old girlfriend just prior to these allegations] were among some of the legal maneuvers we used to clear Dan of these false accusations.


If a victim of sexual assault tells the examining physician who did it, this hearsay testimony can be admitted [into evidence at Trial]. How? Under a little-known rule called “the diagnosis and treatment hearsay exception“. In some cases, the ID of the alleged assailant is construed as “a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment” and therefore, in these cases, falls under this exception. Guzman v. State, _S.W.3d_, 2008 WL 383438 (Tex. App. No. 10-06-00315-CR–Waco Feb 13, 2008)