Criminal Charges:
The defendant was charged in the Bristol County Superior Court with:
- Rape of a Child Aggravated by Age Difference, in violation of M.G.L. c. 265, § 23A
- Rape of a Child Aggravated by Age Difference, in violation of M.G.L. c. 265, § 23A
- Rape of a Child Aggravated by Mandated Reporter, in violation of M.G.L. c. 265, § 23A
City, State, County, and Court:
- Fall River, Massachusetts, Bristol County
- Bristol County Superior Court
Case Overview:
A freshman math teacher at Durfee High School was accused of having a sexual relationship with a female 9th grade student. The alleged sexual misconduct was reported to school officials, and ultimately law enforcement authorities, by a classmate of the alleged victim. Upon receiving this information, authorities interviewed the alleged victim, who confirmed the illicit relationship. Further investigation yielded information that the two spent time together in the teacher’s classroom after hours, engaged in various forms of sexual intercourse in his chair or on his desk, and exchanged personal text messages outside of school to include late nights and weekends. The Fall River School Department placed the teacher on administrative leave following the allegations and soon after, he resigned. The Bristol County District Attorney’s Office indicted the man with three counts of aggravated rape of a child: two counts because of the 10 or more years in age difference between the parties, and one count because the teacher was a mandated reporter of abuse or neglect to minors. The teacher retained Massachusetts Sex Assault Defense Lawyer, John L. Calcagni III, to defend him in this very serious criminal case.
Case Result: Acquitted or Not Guilty After Trial.
Attorney Calcagni’s first priority was to secure his client’s release on bail. Thereafter, the pretrial phase of the case lasted for years, consisting of discovery, investigation, and motions. The man faced a 10-year mandatory minimum state prison sentence and a potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment on each count. The teacher maintained his innocence to the charged crimes and elected his right to trial. The Commonwealth called multiple witnesses consisting of the alleged victim, her classmate who reported the alleged misconduct, teachers, principals, guidance counselors, the teacher’s ex-wife who divorced him during the alleged relationship, law enforcement officers, and expert witnesses to discuss the semen and DNA collected from the teacher’s desk chair. The Commonwealth also presented text messages exchanged among the teacher, alleged victim, and her classmate, to establish the parties’ personal relations. The teacher also testified in his defense, admitting the two shared an inappropriate, emotional relationship, even falling in love, that exceeded boundaries of an appropriate teacher – student relationship, but they never crossed the line of having sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual contact. Based on Attorney Calcagni’s cross-examinations of these witnesses and closing argument that highlighting the lack of eyewitnesses and physical evidence to support sexual contact as alleged, the implausibility of the complainant’s testimony, and alternative explanations for both the DNA and the teacher’s minimizations and falsehoods when he was interviewed by police, a jury comprised of 8 men and 4 women returned unanimous verdicts of not guilty for all charges.
