Cyber sex (cybersex) is a common outlet in today's world. As a result, cyber sex crimes are being charged more frequently in federal and state courts. Joint and individual "sting" operations are in place by the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspectors, Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other state and local law enforcement agencies.  Many of these crimes are prosecuted in the federal courts because of the multi-jurisdictional issues and the federal government's resources devoted to these issues. We defend those charged with sex crimes nationwide in federal courts or in state courts in Oklahoma.

Recent & Noteworthy Investigations & Results

Bob Wyatt was recently interviewed by the National Law Journal for his expertise in the area of sex crimes and cybercrimes.  The article was published on February 18, 2008.

14 month sentence for Federal Child Porn.  In 2007, the U.S. District Court sentenced Wyatt's client to only 14 months for possession.  Client faced up to 10 years.  The sentence was a significant departure from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

Not Guilty Verdict for Possession of Child Porn.  October 2008. Client charged with 5 counts of possession of child pornography.  The law enforcement agent testified that my client had confessed to accidentally accessing a child porn web site on two or more occasions and the feds had strong circumstantial evidence guilt because the only time there was child porn (or any porn) on the computer was when the client was recovering from cancer surgeries at his 80 year old mother’s house.  The defense presented expert testimony of other “non-porn” searches (which indicated the searches were not my client) on the computer within the times that the Gov’t claims my client was surfing kiddie porn, and we presented evidence of an imperfect alibi (that he was in another city earlier in the day – even though no proof that he was in the second city at the “time” the porn was searched).  Client testified. *

Rape Case Dismissed.  Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed a ruling of the Magistrate and the District Judge “barring” a second prosecution for statutory rape.  A sailor in the U.S. Navy stationed at Tinker was charged with rape and tried in a military court martial.  The defendant was acquitted.  A year or so later, the County D.A. filed charges for the exact same crime – same elements, etc.  I challenged the second prosecution on the grounds of “statutory” double jeopardy under 22 O.S. §§ 14, 130 and/or 522.  The D.A. countered with the “dual sovereign” argument, which I conceded.  Yet we stuck to our guns that the Legislature expanded the State citizen’s rights beyond that granted by the U.S. or Oklahoma Constitutions.  The Court of Criminal Appeals (4-0) agreed with the defendant’s position and forever barred further prosecution.*

Child Porn (Second Offense) Charge Dismissed. February 2007.  Client was charged with downloading and viewing child pornography after a former arrest for similar accusations. After a full hearing, the court declined to "accelerate" the previous deferred sentence for possession of obscene materials and the new charge of possession of child porn was dismissed.*

Rape Charge Dismissed.   October 2006, the District Attorney dismissed allegations of second degree rape lodged against a medical student and avoided a November jury trial. This decision was based on information discovered by Wyatt in his investigation and challenge of the rape charge. After presentation of the new evidence, the Office of the District Attorney elected to dismiss.*   

14-Count Federal Child Porn Indictment Dismissed.  October 2006, Wyatt and McCoy investigated, researched, briefed, argued and convinced the federal court to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant in the FBI's nationwide OPERATION CRYING EYES investigation. After the federal judge's ruling, the U.S. Attorneys' Office dismissed the 14-count indictment.*  

Forcible Sodomy Charge Dismissed.  July 2006, Wyatt secured a dismissal of a college student's charge of forcible oral sodomy based on Wyatt's investigation. There was no plea agreement -- simply a dismissal.*

Statutory Rape Charge Dismissed.   Early 2006, a charge of statutory rape was dismissed as a result of Wyatt's representation. No other charges were filed. No plea was entered.*

Child Porn Charges against Professor Dismissed.  July 2004, after more than a year of hotly contested litigation, the District Attorney dismissed charges against Wyatt's client for possession of child porn and for using an employer's computer to access child pornography. Client pled no contest to a reduced charge.  No jail time ordered.* 

Not Guilty Verdict in Rape Trial.  May 2004, Mr. Wyatt defended a mentally challenged young man who was accused of raping his 15-year-old niece. The jury who heard a purported jailhouse confession and the 15-year-old's version of the rape rejected the allegations and returned a verdict of not guilty.* 

Internet Child Solicitation & Traveling for Sex -- Not Guilty. June 2003, the Wyatt Law Office tried an Innocent Images case to a federal jury in Oklahoma City winning a "not guilty" verdict on both counts of using the Internet to entice a minor for sex and for traveling across state lines to engage in sex with a minor.* 

 *Note: Results may vary because each case must be decided
 on its own unique facts and the law applicable to that given case.
You should not infer the likelihood of success on a given case
 based on past cases handled by this firm.

 

Knowledge of Federal & State Sex Offender Laws &
Computer Technology

Knowledge of the federal and state obscenity and pornography laws, the  Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, the "Electronic Communications Privacy Act," the "Privacy Protection Act, " the "Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998," Title III wiretap laws, search and seizure laws, entrapment and other defenses, and pending legislation such as the "Cyber-Molesters Enforcement Act of 2000," the "Internet Crimes Against Children Prevention Act of 2000," and the "Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 1999" is a must for lawyers representing those charged. Additionally, knowledge of the application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is required, particularly Sections 2G (related to sexual exploitation of minors and obscenity) and 4B1.5 (related to repeat sex offenders). Moreover, it is important to understand that the definitions of "obscenity" and of "pornography" (lewd or sexually explicit images) are unique, particularly in regard to child pornography. Some courts have ruled that even photographs of clothed children can be pornographic if the child's genitals are the focus of the images; conversely, "nudity alone" is not tantamount to "pornography." Therefore, knowledge of the legal standards as well as the prurient interests of the community must be examined.

See the FBI's national sex offender registry.

Office Locations