Maurice Wolin

Maurice Wolin graduated from Phi Beta Kappa and with honors from Oberlin College.[1] He also obtained his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine.[1] He completed a hematological residency at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and a fellowship at the UCLA Medical Center in leukemia and cancer research.[1] He worked as the international director of medical affairs for the Chiron Medical Systems in San Francisco.[1] He also worked as a pediatric oncologist for Northern California Children's Hematology Oncology Group in Sacramento, California.[1] On October 27, 1996, Wolin married fellow doctor Lisa Ann Goodman, a graduate of the University of California in Los Angeles, where she also completed fellowships in pediatric hematology-oncology and pediatric residency.[1]

Wolin contacted a decoy by the name of "willowfilipino" with the screen name "talldreamy_doc".[2] The decoy told the doctor that she was a 13-year-old girl.[2] On the second day, the internet chat turned sexually graphic and Wolin stated that he'd like to come over.[2] He lied to the girl and said he was only 29.[3] Wolin questioned the decoy about her bra size, what made her aroused, if she liked "deep tongues," and asked her about giving and receiving oral sex.[3][4] In parts of the chat, Wolin said, "I'm horny for you" and "You're under 18 and I'm over. We would have to be sooo careful."[3][2][5] The "girl" was actually Xavier Von Erck, founder of Perverted Justice.[6][7]

On August 26, 2006,[8] Wolin drove more than 50 miles to a sting house.[4] Wolin was seen entering the homes backyard to speak with the girl who was played by an 18-year-old actress.[9] After being there for only 49 seconds before and allegedly discovering television cameras from Dateline NBC that were hidden behind a screen, Wolin said "I can't" when the decoy asked him to join her in a hot tub and he swiftly fled.[9][10] Later, during a police interrogation, he asserts that he didn't mean to have sex with the minor he had driven from Piedmont to meet.[10] He attempted to persuade the detective that he was only "curious" about seeing the little girl who claimed to be 13 years old.[11] Additionally, he can be seen calling his wife and pleading with her to come with bail but avoid from bringing their daughters.[4][11] Wolin was charged with one felony count of attempted lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age and was released on bail.[8][12] His medical license was also suspended on November 29, 2006.[13][14] If Wolin was found guilty, he could have gotten a term of up to four years in prison, lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender, and an increase of the revocation of his medical license.[12]

Wolin's attorney, Blair Berk, who worked for Mel Gibson and Lindsay Lohan,[15] maintained in court that some of the episode shouldn't be aired yet.[16] She claimed that despite Wolin's plea for legal representation, Dateline secretly videotaped his questioning and continued it.[16] Wolin's right to a fair trial would be "destroy[ed]" if it were made public before the matter was decided, according to Berk.[16] She requested from the court that those details either not be shown or that Wolin's identity be kept secret during the interview up until the case was resolved.[16] Judge Lawrence Antolini allowed NBC to air the episode.[16] A preliminary hearing for Wolin in August 2007 came to an end when Berk alleged that chat logs documenting online messaging exchanges between a Perverted Justice staff and Wolin had been changed and could not be validated.[15] She requested that Judge Raima Ballinger deem them inadmissible.[15] Any mistakes, according to prosecutor Brian Staebell, were small, nothing was added to a separate version of the log, and any issue over admissibility was only a defense strategy to mislead the court's attention.[10] The detective, Steve Nelson, was questioned by Berk over a number of chat logs that the police allegedly used to gather proof that Wolin was attempting to have sex with a young girl.[10] Berk questioned Nelson about where he learned that Perverted Justice was a nonprofit organization that only used well-trained and well vetted volunteers.[10] The detective claimed he didn't check and didn't know who provided the information.[10] Berk also called out the decoys, calling them "vigilante informants" who committed "outrageous police misconduct" and entrapped her client.[17] She made the notion that they received considerable pay for their efforts and had a financial motive to apprehend accused predators.[17]

Wolin's attorney questioned the reliability of many records the police claimed incriminated Wolin and the cooperation between the police and Perverted Justice.[18] She claimed that Wolin had been duped by paid police operatives, the talks had been illegally recorded, and the information in the chat logs couldn't be confirmed.[18] Staebell asked Lieutenant Matt Stapleton to explain his decision of the organization.[19] Stapleton claimed to have personally reviewed and approved Perverted Justice and the manner its volunteers deal with alleged predators.[19] On the third day of the hearing, Stapleton included that Perverted Justice supplied the computer hardware and the undercover decoys.[7] Perverted Justice gave police copies of what they claimed to be accurate transcripts of the conversations after the men had been brought into jail.[7] The conversations touch on sexual topics, the decoy's age, and specifics of the meeting date.[7] Stapleton asserted that he thought Perverted Justice offered exhaustive documents that would be valid in court.[7] Berk contended that there was no law enforcement investigation of the conversation logs before arrests were made and that some of the decoys' online profile pictures appeared to be older than 13.[7] Von Erck briefly testified, but Berk's objections quickly ended his testimony.[20] Ballinger requested Berk to explain her concerns about the accuracy of the chat logs.[20]

The logs, according to Berk, were unreliable because she thought they were changed.[20] Berk stated that the chat logs differ in at least "17 substantive" ways.[20] In addition, Berk suggested that she would question Von Erck's intentions, potential financial incentives, and techniques for capturing accused child predators.[20] In his testimony, Von Erck insisted that Wolin's instant message chat history could not have been altered.[21] Ballinger requested Berk to explain her concerns about the accuracy of the chat logs.[21] Wolin continued by contesting the claim that Von Erck offered a thorough and accurate account of his purported online conversations.[21][22] Von Erck was questioned by Berk regarding the variations in the three copies of the instant messages that the prosecution had presented as evidence.[21] Von Erck said that Perverted Justice employed a "proxy server" computer at a location in Kentucky, and nobody in the organization had the authority to review the original messages saved there.[21] He claimed that explaining the difference between an earlier printed copy of the chat log and the one he presented this week in archived electronic form for prosecutors to print out was "fairly simple."[21] He testified that  the prior copy of the chat log was printed off by a different Perverted Justice member using a program that occasionally distorted from how they were displayed on the computer screen.[21] Von Erck remained steadfast in his statements despite Berk's pointed questions about how he could be certain such a computer program was employed.[21] Without referring to the chat logs that the prosecution wishes to present, Staebell tried to question Von Erck about his remembrance of the instant messages.[21] Judge Ballinger disagreed with Staebell's argument, and told him to start a case on how to presenting the materials.[21]

Berk claimed that the state's privacy rules were broken by the police and Perverted Justice in recording the conversations.[8] Without the approval of all parties, it is against the law to record a discussion in California.[8] Staebell stated that police had the right to record the discussions, just as they do when citizen informants wear wires to record illicit activities for law enforcement.[8] Berk contended that Wolin's intent for having sex was far from apparent, citing multiple instances in their chats when Wolin hesitatingly offered meeting in a public place or appeared uncertain with interacting in person.[23] She compared it to attempted murder, asking if it would qualify as such if someone had threatened to kill someone, set up a meeting but failed to show up, then did show up but departed.[23] Judge Ballinger set a date for October 15, 2007, to her rule whether Wolin's sexually graphic chat could be used against him.[24] Wolin's chat logs were allowed into evidence by Judge Ballinger.[25] The judge ruled that the chat logs were essential to confirming that Wolin committed a crime.[25] The judge also decided that Wolin had no reasonable expectation of privacy that his online messaging chats wouldn't be overheard or otherwise recorded and that she agreed with Staebell that police had lawfully permitted the group to record internet communications.[25] Judge Ballinger sided with the prosecutor that the chat logs that were presented were legally authentic.[25] After eight days of testimony, Judge Ballinger said she believed Wolin drove to the house in Petaluma to have sex with a child and ordered him to stand trial.[13][26]

In January 2008, Wolin requested that a court's order to stand trial be reversed.[23] Berk maintained that Judge Ballinger failed in dismissing claims that Wolin was unlawfully tricked into committing a crime by a paid, unskilled decoy.[23] Berk requested that the felony charge against Wolin be dropped before Judge Andy Wick.[23] Judge Wick set a hearing for January 31, 2008.[23] He ruled that that prosecutors had enough evidence to prosecute Wolin and ordered him to stand trial.[27][28] Berk requested that Judge Wick's decision be overturned and the case against Wolin be dismissed by the state's 1st District Court of Appeal.[29] His appeal was rejected in a one-sentence order that was posted on the court's website in April 2008.[30] Superior Court Judge Frank Passalaqua made a hearing on September 5, 2008 to determine when Wolin's trial date would start.[31][32] Berk submitted a motion for evidence discovery and mentioned the possibility of another motion for a venue change.[31] His trial date was set for February 6, 2009.[33]

In December 2008, Judge Wick found that while Wolin requested to communicate with a lawyer during his booking procedure, cops twice inappropriately interrogated him.[34] Wolin requested that a lawyer be present when he was being questioned during the booking procedure.[34] According to Wick, the booking officer had a duty to inform Nelson that Wolin had exercised his right to an attorney, and Nelson should not have opened the questioning.[34] The judge noted  Nelson "immediately proceeded to try to obtain a waiver," even though Wolin didn't make communication with the police again.[34] Judge Wick deemed it to be "improper."[34] Berk requested that Judge Wick issue an order ordering prosecutors to provide an explanation for their failure to produce copies of the hard drives from the computer Von Erck used to communicate with Wolin and the out-of-state proxy service Perverted Justice claimed recorded the discussions remotely.[34] The hard drive from the computer he used to talk with Wolin "experienced a complete failure" in February 2007, according to court documents, and Von Erck allegedly informed authorities it couldn't be copied.[34] Berk said she was not told of the claimed computer crash by either prosecutors or during Von Erck's testimony at Wolin's preliminary hearing.[35][34] Judge Wick ruled that the prosecution could not utilize Wolin's post arrest statements as evidence against him in trial because they were illegally obtained.[36] Prosecutor filed an appeal, mentioning that several incriminating comments made during Wolin's police interview should be used as evidence against him.[36][37] A pre-trial conference was set for March 6, 2009.[36][37] In March 2009, a state appeals court upheld Judge Wick's decision to disregard statements Wolin supplied to police as evidence in his trial.[38][39]

In May 2009, Judge Wick ruled in favor of Berk on why prosecution didn't have an explanation as to why they hadn't produced a computer hard drive that was purportedly used during online conversations with Wolin. The  prosecution claimed he told them the data on the hard disk he used to record the Wolin chats crashed two years ago and couldn't be recovered. The judge stated that he would make a written decision ordering an evidentiary hearing to question Von Erck as to how he was able to copy the contents of the hard drive onto a portable thumb drive and when the hard drive crashed. Berk claimed that the discovery of the hard drive crash reflected badly on the genuineness of the online conversations and called the chain of custody for the evidence prosecutors intend to utilize against Wolin into question. She thought they were an incomplete, inaccurate, and deceptive portrayal of the actual conversation. Staebell said t he defense dramatically exaggerated the impact of the online conversations and the broken hard drive. He claimed Von Erck had copied the key files earlier and that there was no more information available. Staebell revealed that prosecutors were informed by Von Erck that he had a friend who worked as a technician at Radio Shack who analyzed the hard drive and that the friend had deemed it could not be fixed. Wick expressed skepticism regarding the validity of the chat logs. He scheduled a hearing for June 15 so Von Erck could testify under oath about what happened to his computer equipment, when it happened, and where it was.[40][41] Before the hard drive crashed, according to Von Erck's testimony, he downloaded all the documents to an external hard drive. He claimed to have then transferred them once more on a portable thumb drive before giving it to the prosecution. Wick said he didn't need to hear from a defense computer specialist after hearing Von Erck's explanation of how the laptop overheated after its fans stopped working. He scheduled a brand-new trial for October 9, 2009.[42] In October 2009, Judge Wick denied another motion to dimiss the case because he determined that because the evidence was recorded on a proxy server, it did not harm the defense case when the computer hard disk crashed. The prosecutor's failure to disclose that the computer did not breach Wolin's rights during a preliminary hearing, the judge added. The trial was also rescheduled for January 8, 2010.[43][44][45]

In December 2009, Wolin entered a no contest plea to the felony charge that was brought against him. According to the conditions of his plea agreement, which Judge Wick granted, he would be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life and could spend up to 90 days in county jail and three years of probation. Judge Wick stated that Wolin could petition for home confinement or community service as an alternative to serving the county jail sentence. In the event that Wolin was not given these options, the judge ruled that he could not withdraw his no contest plea.[9][46][47] Wolin was supposed to be sentenced in February 2010, but Berk's request for a personal meeting with Judge Wick led to the sentencing being delayed until March 2010.[48]

Wolin was sentenced to a two-month prison term and was told that he would be required to register as a sex offender for life. Judge Wick informed Wolin that he would also mandate three years of probation.[49][50][51][52] Instead of prison, Judge Wick ordered Wolin to serve his two-month sentence in his home with an electronic monitoring device. Wolin had written grants during the last three years for a children's hospital. According to the probation report, incarceration was not necessary. He was deemed to be a "upstanding medical professional" who had received counseling and was at a medium-to-low risk of committing another crime. In an interview, Wolin claimed that his "terrible mistake" destroyed his family and cost him his profession. Wolin claimed he entered a plea deal because NBC intended to make a program about his case and he didn't want to expose his family further. He referred to Perverted Justice as an unrestrained vigilante organization and claimed that the network was profiting "an enormous amount of money off this, off me." During home confinment, Wolin said he had been living apart from his wife, with whom he shared legal custody of their two daughters. He was evicted from their Piedmont home by child protective services and moved to an apartment in Emeryville. Wolin declared that he was "no way interested in anyone underage." He mentioned that he came across online chat rooms at a point in his life when he was grieving and experiencing loss. He stated that the wife of his best friend and his mother had just passed away from cancer, and websites offered a distraction.[53]