SEXUAL ASSAULT of Adult / Rape
Case No.1514882 – Jorge D.


Complainant tested positive on a rape kit after alleging Jorge forced her when she was drunk at a house party. She had invited several men, including Jorge, to meet her upstairs. When she was caught in the room with Jorge she feigned being drunk. To save her marriage Complainant then told police she thought it was her husband. We proved using witnesses and other logistical evidence she knew exactly who it was and that it was consensual but the State was confident in their voluminous medical and legal documents plus several of their own witnesses that they could get a jury to convict. Just before trial another defense witness came forward. We let the DA know we were ready for trial with now a 4th witness which was the breaking point for the State’s confidence in their ability to obtain a Guilty verdict.

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.

Case No. 752352 – Richard A.


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)