Phoenix man convicted of child sex crimes; victim says he's innocent

Corrections & Clarifications: How five of the charges against Jamaal Pennington were dismissed was incorrect in a previous version of this article. The article includes editing updates and new reporting.

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office successfully prosecuted a man on felony child sex charges, even though the victim claimed he was innocent. Now he's facing sentencing.

Defendant Jamaal Pennington, who ultimately represented himself in the case, watched his previous lawyer lose his license in his defense, called him as a witness, had the victim declare his innocence, and cross-examined the mother of his child, whose testimony helped convict him.

Pennington, 39, of Phoenix, was training to be an electrician before his arrest. He believes multiple elements of the criminal justice system worked to conspire against him, in a scenario he describes as "like something out of a movie."

“I’m innocent. I’m not guilty of having sex with a minor. I feel that the system has failed me,” Pennington told The Arizona Republic in a phone call from a Maricopa County jail.

He faced nine felony charges, ranging from child sex trafficking to aggravated assault to sexual conduct with a minor, after being indicted in 2021. He represented himself at trial this summer. Seven of the charges were dismissed by the judge, five on a motion by prosecutors and two on a motion by Pennington, after a witness refused to testify.

A jury convicted Pennington on Aug. 30 on the two remaining charges, accusing him of having sex with a minor and causing another adult to have sex with a minor in March 2018.

A mitigation and sentencing hearing was rescheduled for Nov. 9. Pennington faces 37 years in prison if a judge agrees with the prosecutors' recommendation, which is also the presumptive sentence for the two charges. State law requires that he face a minimum of 23 and a maximum of 51 years.

On the second day of the trial, the girl, now an adult, wrote an email to Deputy County Attorney Kaleigh Jenkins denying that Pennington assaulted her.

The woman, who prosecutors said is the girl Pennington assaulted as a child, wrote, "Jamaal never touched me, OK?"

She named somebody else as the one who had sex with her, adding that person "is the one who should be locked up. That's all I have to say."

The full email from the woman stated her reasons for not wanting to testify.

The County Attorney’s Office turned over the email from the woman to Pennington as part of a discovery packet during the trial.

Pennington, representing himself with the assistance of legal counsel Edwin Molina, attempted to include the sentence "Jamaal never touched me” from the email in presenting his defense.

But both prosecutors and defense had to agree on admitting the contents of the email for any portion of it to be considered during the trial.

In an interview, Pennington emphasized submitting the full email was OK with him.

Prosecutors also agreed the full email could be admitted, according to the County Attorney’s Office.

But that did not happen. Maricopa County attorney spokesperson Jeanine L’Ecuyer said court records show the defense did not agree to the prosecution’s conditions for admitting the full email.

Molina did not return a request for comment on the issue.

L’Ecuyer said prosecutors made contact several times with the woman who wrote the email. Prosecutors believe her to be the victim in the case and do not believe what she stated in the email, L’Ecuyer said.

L'Ecuyer said “there was sufficient evidence to suggest a lack of veracity” of the email but did not elaborate further.

Testimony in the case came from a woman who was at the scene of the alleged encounter between Pennington and the minor.

The woman, with whom Pennington has a child, said that she saw Pennington go behind a 14-year-old girl in a hotel room with his shorts down, but did not see him make contact with her or penetrate her. She also claimed Pennington encouraged her to have sex with the girl, which the woman did, not knowing she was underage.

During his cross-examination of the woman, she said Pennington and the girl did not have sex. Pennington said the woman had reason to cooperate with the prosecution. She earlier had been charged and convicted in the incident.

Public defender’s law license suspended

Attorney Vladimir Gagic had his law license suspended while serving as Pennington’s public defender, after 20 years as an Arizona lawyer. The former Marine believes Pennington was innocent of all charges.

He spent years investigating the case, which he said was more complex than the jury was led to believe.

“In fact, I found evidence that leads me to believe that the alleged victim in this case was part of a larger sex-trafficking network,” Gagic said, “and Jamaal Pennington was not connected to it at all.”

Gagic, reflecting after the trial ended, claimed multiple elements of the criminal justice system worked together to keep out potentially exculpatory evidence and railroad Pennington.

Gagic said Pennington had tried to introduce material from the email and prosecutors had objected. Gagic said it was unconscionable for the prosecution to deny Pennington the opportunity to present the email from the victim to the jury.

“He deserves the right to prove he didn’t do it,” Gagic said. “It’s that simple.”

Gagic accused the previous judge overseeing the case of conspiring with the prosecution to convict Pennington.

“I am concerned Judge (Laura) Reckart is trying to sanitize the case file and deny as many defense motions as she can before another eventually (sic) judge takes over, making denials of defense motions law of the case," Gagic wrote in a motion for change of judge while defending Pennington. "It is a cover up.”

Reckart retired last December after seven years on the bench.

In response to Gagic’s statements, L’Ecuyer said, “The notion that the courts somehow conspired with prosecutors to ‘railroad’ this defendant is absurd. The defendant is a convicted sex offender who is now in prison where he belongs.”

The State Bar and the Arizona State Supreme Court found Gagic's claims to be baseless and suspended his law license for a year for making repeated disparaging remarks in his filings on Pennington’s behalf.

"The heat of litigation may foment anger and result in an occasional poorly worded epithet," Chief Justice Robert Brutinel wrote in an administrative order suspending Gagic's license. "However, a relentless campaign to malign and embarrass opposing counsel and the judiciary is clearly prohibited conduct."

"We believe the nature of the unfounded allegations — implicating several judges in imaginary schemes in concert with the prosecutors and the Bar — are inherently damaging to public confidence in the fairness of the court system," Brutinel wrote.

Gagic had no previous record of complaints or disciplinary actions taken against him.

Gagic even went so far as to testify as a witness for Pennington at the trial.

But Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder limited what he was able to speak on, and objections from the prosecution kept his time on the stand limited to a few statements.

Gagic says the experience has left him disappointed in a system he once believed in. He says he refuses to admit any wrongdoing during his defense of Pennington.

Even though that stance could prevent him from getting his law license reinstated, Gagic said it was more important to provide a court record that he hopes federal public defenders can use to get the conviction overturned on review.

Defendant’s mother: ‘He had a whole system against him’

With the dismissal of seven charges, Pennington did successfully represent himself against most of the charges he faced.

His mother, Carol Pennington, who was present in the courtroom for the whole trial, said it was like watching David battle Goliath.

“He had a whole system against him,” Pennington said. “We all have issues, and I’m not trying to paint Jamaal as a saint, but who they’re trying to paint him to be — he's not."

She believes Gagic was taken off her son’s case “because he fought for him, he went to bat for him, and he wouldn’t back down.”

Pennington said he has filed several motions since the trial, but the judge has denied them.

According to Arizona State University Associate Professor of Law Esther Hong, self-representation, known as a "pro se" defense, is very seldom seen in a serious felony case with prison time on the line. She called Pennington's case "very unusual."

"When defendants go pro se, they've often gone through different appointed counsel and public defenders with whom they've had disagreements," Hong said. "They have a constitutional right to represent themselves."

She said a judge will often appoint an advisory or "standby" counsel to be there to give advice and offer guidance, but ultimately pro se defendants should have the final say over tactical decisions and the objective of their case.

Hong says a pro se defense is generally not recommended.

"There's a reason that there's a constitutional right to have an attorney in criminal cases because so much is at stake," Hong said. "It takes a lot of guts, but obviously he's very passionate about his innocence."

Pennington said he planned to appeal the conviction.

Have a news tip? Reach the reporter at jjenkins@arizonarepublic.com or at 812-243-5582. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter: @JimmyJenkins.

Support local journalism. Subscribe to azcentral.com today.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Jamaal Pennington prosecuted despite victim claiming his innocence