Opinion ID: 184117
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exoneration

Text: On August 27, 1997, Rachael provided a sworn statement and testified under oath that she had told Schwartz that the allegations against Cleary were not true; that Cleary never touched her in any improper or sexual manner; that Schwartz had put the idea into her head and that she had seen images in magazines that helped her concoct the story; that Cleary had never threatened her; and that she was scared of Schwartz and Simon. Cleary filed a motion for a new trial, which was granted on December 14, 2004, on the basis of Rachael’s statement; Barone’s testimony at Cleary’s trial that there was no conclusive physical evidence of sexual abuse; the existence of the custody dispute between Schwartz and Cleary; the appearance of a hostile motive by Schwartz; prior false allegations made by Schwartz; the mock trials conducted by Schwartz and Simon with Rachael; the use of suggestive interviewing techniques with Rachael that were “contrary to accepted forensic interviewing protocol”; Wolf’s “therapeutic relationship” with Rachael, which was also contrary to forensic protocol; and Schwartz and Simon’s animosity towards Cleary. However, before a new trial could take place, the government requested that the court dismiss the charges against Cleary, which the court did on February 2, 2005. -9- No. 09-1441 Cleary v. County of Macomb, et al.