Sex Offense Lawyer • Engel & Martin, LLC
The consequences of a sex crime conviction are severe. Prison is a major concern, but often an even bigger concerns are the onerous mandatory sex offender registration requirements imposed on those convicted of sex offenses. This registration requirement can cause embarrassment and negative impact for years.
The attorneys at Engel & Martin, LLC are former prosecutors who have significant experience handling misdemeanor defense and felony sex offenses, including rape, statutory rape, sexual battery, and gross sexual imposition. Their goal is to reach the best possible solution for each case.
Engel & Martin, LLC is often retained before criminal charges for sex offenses have been filed. In those situations, a prosecution may be avoided entirely through aggressive investigation, negotiations with police and the prosecutors, and, in many instances, the use of a polygraph.
Joshua Adam Engel has unique experience prosecuting and defending Internet sex offenses and child pornography cases. In 2005, Engel was asked to present to the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association on the “Virtual Pornography” Defense in Child Pornography Prosecutions. Later, Engel helped establish a task force to weed out Internet sex predators. This prosecutorial experience has helped Engel evaluate sex offense prosecution from a 360-degree perspective; in other words, he is able to effectively evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a sex offense prosecution from both a criminal defense AND a prosecutorial perspective.
Engel and Martin have argued before the Ohio Supreme Court in a case concerning juvenile sex offenses. In In re D.S., 111 Ohio St.3d 361, 856 N.E.2d 921 (2006), the Ohio Supreme Court considered the case of a juvenile who had been adjudicated delinquent for committing rape and gross sexual imposition. The Court considered whether a polygraph can be considered to be a reasonable probationary condition for a juvenile.
In another case, State v. Stamper, 2013-Ohio-5669, Engel was appointed by the court to challenge whether a maximum sentence for a sex offense was proper. In that case, the question was whether the trial court properly considered the principles and purposes of sentencing and balanced the statutory seriousness and recidivism factors. Earlier, in State v. Hughes, 2003 WL 21497235, Engel argued a case where a convicted sex offender appealed the finding that he has violated the conditions of his community control (probation).