Criminal Defense Attorney Nearby in New York | Defense against a False Reporting Charge

The client stated that after working late with a coworker, they shared drinks and later went to a nearby motel. 

She believed they would rest in separate rooms, but the coworker entered her room, overpowered her, and forced intercourse.

She reported that she resisted but feared escalating violence when he struck her, and after the assault, she felt trapped until morning, further intensifying her trauma.

The coworker later claimed the encounter was consensual, relying on the fact that they remained in the same room afterward. Police declined to pursue charges, which led him to file a false report complaint.

The original complainant experienced severe emotional distress following the incident. 

She began psychiatric treatment for depression, anxiety, panic symptoms, and sleep disturbance.

A criminal defense attorney nearby incorporated this treatment evidence to counter the claim that she had casually or maliciously fabricated the accusation

These records supported the core element that she lacked intent to deceive.

The defense analyzed statutory elements and focused on the critical requirement of intentional falsification.

The client consistently described non consensual contact, fear based compliance, and physical resistance, all of which were incompatible with deliberate fabrication.

The attorney highlighted that differing recollections between parties in sexual assault cases are common and do not in themselves indicate intentional deception.

The defense gathered medical records, communications logs, and witness statements about the client’s emotional state immediately after the event.

These materials undermined the counter accuser’s claim that she had fabricated a police report for revenge or manipulation.

The attorney presented documentation from the client’s psychiatrist and therapist showing ongoing trauma response triggered by references to the assault.

These records demonstrated both the client's credibility and the impossibility of the prosecution proving intentional deceit.

The defense analyzed inconsistencies in the counter accuser’s version, including timing gaps, room access patterns, and the nature of physical interactions that contradicted his consensual narrative.

Prosecutors were shown that the coworker’s claim of voluntary intimacy ignored the client’s fear based compliance and failed to refute her account.

The dismissal spared the client from criminal prosecution and further emotional harm.

The case reaffirmed that reporting an assault even when unprosecuted does not expose victims to automatic false reporting liability.

It underscored the importance of obtaining a criminal defense attorney nearbyearly when facing retaliatory accusations.