GC, a 42-year-old professional and married father of two, was caught soliciting a prostitute (of age) in a “sting operation.” GC had no criminal record and had never been in trouble before. He responded to an online ad, which sought men who were “looking for a date.” When he arrived at the predetermined meeting place he was placed under arrest by the police. His cell phone was confiscated. Scared and nervous, he hired attorney Henry Fasoldt.
GC’s primary concern was the impact this would have on his family. At the initial court appearance Henry was able to continue the “arraignment,” thereby delaying any existence of a crime on GC’s record. Between the first court date and the second Henry drafted, on behalf of GC, a letter “requesting pre-arraignment diversion” of the case. He proposed that, instead of arraigning GC, the prosecutors agree to allow GC to attend “john school” and perform significant community service. The prosecutors declined. They believed that GC should be arraigned, regardless of what impact this case could have on GC’s family and life.
At the next court date the judge converted the criminal case to a civil infraction, thereby preventing GC from being arraigned, and, from having any sort of criminal record.
Note: there was a very live legal issue in this case – whether GC’s conduct actually met the definition of “sex for a fee” – however, in order to litigate the merits GC’s case would had to have been arraigned, which would have greatly increased the chances of his family finding out.