Ex-Psychologist Had Sex in Front of Teen Girl

A one-time psychologist in South Florida. is soon going to be going to prison. after a jury convicted her of sexual. contact with a teenager, but she was. acquitted of the most serious charge. We're going to take a look at the. disturbing details of [music] this case. and speaking with the disgraced. counselor's defense attorney. [music]. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and. Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. So, we first told you about 45-year-old. Maria Dwarte back in 2024. This is when.

she was arrested in the Miami area. And. the allegations against her were. shocking because police believed that. Dwarte used her experience as a. psychologist to lure a teenage girl to a. hotel room where she was sexually. assaulted. And now, more than two years. later, a jury has convicted Dwarte of. lewd and lascivious behavior with a. child. and we've learned that at least. one of her alleged co-conspirators. agreed to testify against her. So, let's. quickly go back to August 2024.

According to police, the 15-year-old. victim was walking her dog in the pool. area of the Aloft Hotel in Kendall, Florida, when Dwarte started talking to. her, telling her she was a psychologist, gaining her trust, even offering her. alcohol and marijuana. The victim. reportedly agreed to come back to the. hotel later that night. She later told. police that she met two different men. who came to Dwartese's hotel room. And. authorities have now identified those. men as then 46-year-old Jason Moa,

Dwarte's boyfriend, and a man named. Hermes Mahia. Now, the victim was told. that the 29-year-old Mahia was named. Pablo. That's how the affidavit refers. to him. I'm going to read it directly. Quote, "The defendant on Wednesday, August 14th, 2024, began to take. pictures of the victim and send them to. Pablo and advised that the victim was 21. years old and willing to have sex with. him." The victim told the defendant she. was not like that and did not want to. engage in sex. The defendant would. ignore the victim and continue to. insist. Shortly after, Pablo would.

arrive to the defendant's hotel room. where the defendant would have sex with. Pablo in front of the victim. Jason, who. the victim knows is the defendant's. boyfriend, arrived and entered the hotel. room. The defendant began to exit the. room in an attempt to leave the victim. in the room alone with Jason. The victim. advised the defendant that she felt. uncomfortable being in the room alone. with Jason. The defendant then pushed. the victim back inside of the room, told. her to stay and make Jason feel good, and closed the hotel or closed the door. as she exited. Now, according to the.

victim, she played on her phone in the. bathroom for a while, but when she came. out, she claims Moa forced her to. perform a sex act on him. Quote, "The. defendant has knowledge that the victim. is a minor. The victim overheard the. defendant state to Jason, "She's 15. Can. you believe that?" In her statement to. law enforcement, the victim described. the defendant by first, middle, and last. name, age, and provided photographs and. video of the defendant. And according to. a police report, the victim believes. that Dwarte was willing to exchange sex.

for drugs to satisfy her addiction. So. Dwarte, Moika, Mahia, they were all. arrested and Dwarte was slapped with. serious charges. Human trafficking, LWD. and lascivious exhibition on a child, LWD and lascivious battery, and. custodial interference. At her initial. bail hearing, Dwarte was distraught. >> Psychologist, [clears throat]. I'm a PhD. I will lose my license and my. life. I need help. >> According to NBC Miami, Dwarte was on.

house arrest until her trial got. underway this month. And it was during. that trial when her boyfriend Moika as. well as Mahia testified against her. Both had apparently taken plea deals. Moika pleaded guilty to having sex with. a minor, was sentenced to seven years in. prison followed by probation. Mahia also. entered a guilty plea after being. charged with lude and lascivious. behavior. But according to reporting. from Telmundo 51, he reached a deal. where he entered a guilty plea to a. child abuse charge and he received. probation. Dwarte has always maintained.

that she did nothing wrong. But the. prosecution told the jury at trial that. she used her experience as a mental. health counselor to make her victim feel. comfortable before sending her into the. lion's den. She felt like she wasn't. alone, that someone cared about her, someone. was going to help her put on clothes and. do her makeup and do her hair. The. defendant. used that 15year-old girl.

to lure men to the hotel where they had. sex. and did drugs. Now, her defense. attorney, Robert Bar, challenged the. prosecution story as well as the. victims. >> Could ever happened at that hotel. was not a result of Maria doing anything. to this child, this young lady, other. than that, giving her a shoulder to cry. In the. end, the jury found Dwarte guilty of.

lewd and lascivious exhibition and an. unnatural and lascivious act. It's one a. felony, one's a misdemeanor. This is for. having sex in front of the teen and for. encouraging her to have sex with other. men. However, Dwarte was acquitted of. human trafficking, the top charge. So, a. lot of questions as to what happened. here. So, I am joined right now by. Dart's criminal defense attorney, uh, Robert Bar. Thank you so much for taking.

the time. I have a lot of questions for. you. First of all, how's your client. doing at this point? >> Well, she's doing okay under the. circumstances. Um, it was a long, not quite two weeks, but. uh, I believe she's doing okay. >> Do you have an idea about what her. potential sentence could be? I know she. faces up to 15 years in prison, but in. terms of what you're going to be pushing. for and for what the prosecution's going. to be pushing for, can do you have an.

idea? >> Well, I can't exactly speak for the. prosecution, of course. >> Sure. >> But, uh, under the sentencing. guidelines, I believe she's eligible for. what's called non-state prison. sanctions, which means um the judge has. the discretion not to sentence her to a. state penitentiary sentence. I believe. she'll have some kind of supervision. and possibly some mental health. treatment. >> Why do you think that that's the.

appropriate punishment for her after. what she was uh convicted of? >> Well, first of all, she was acquitted of. the most serious charge, which is the. human trafficking charge. Another charge. was dismissed before the jury was even. permitted to consider it because there. was no evidence really to even support. the possibility of a guilty verdict. Then as to the two remaining counts, one. of which obviously she was found guilty. of which is a seconddegree felony and.

the other count she was charged with a. secondderee felony but but was convicted. only of a secondderee misdemeanor. And. the difference is a potential sentence. for violation of the law for a. seconddegree felony is a maximum. sentence of 15 years where the. conviction for a seconddegree. misdemeanor the maximum penalty on that. is only 60 days. So it's a drastic. difference. >> So explain to us how the jury at the end.

what they decided in the sense what do. they think is true? What do they think. is not true regarding your client? Finding her not guilty of human. trafficking, but do finding her guilty. of that felony, the lud lascivious. conduct. What exactly do are they saying. that they believe she did and that they. believe she did not do? >> Well, clearly they believe she did not. human traffic this young girl because. human trafficking typically requires.

transporting, abducting, uh holding someone against their will. And this young lady freely went to and. from the hotel. She came when she went, she left when she went. She was able to. do whatever she wanted in so far as. being there, so to speak. Um, so at. least I believe the jury. made their finding based upon that. because human trafficking.

effectively requires a great element of. coercion and force. And none of that was. there in so far as the count which they. found her guilty of the secondderee. misdemeanor. That was what's called a lesser included. offense, which gives the jury the option. to find the defendant guilty of the main. charge, not guilty, or guilty of a. lesser included offense. In this case, the lesser included offense, as I said, was a secondderee misdemeanor, which.

quite frankly is, as bad as it sounds, and a natural and lascivious act is only. a secondderee misdemeanor, which carries. with it, as I said, a maximum sentence. of 60 days in the county jail. The other. count was uh lascivious behavior, and. I'm paraphrasing, of course, which. carries a maximum sentence of 15 years. But Maria has no prior offenses and so I. think some form of supervision is. appropriate. But that of course is up to. the judge.

>> But but in other words, the jury. believes that she had sex in front of. this teen and that she encouraged this. teen to have sex with other men. >> I can't really speak for what the jury. believes, but the jury clearly found her. guilty of inappropriate behavior. What during the course of the trial was. the explanation for what happened in. that hotel room? Your explanation. >> My explanation? Well, first of all,

under the law, it's not required for the. defendant to give any explanation. whatsoever. As a matter of fact, Maria. didn't testify. Under the law in Florida. and throughout the United States, under. the United States Constitution as well. as the Florida Constitution, the state. has the burden of proving its case. beyond the exclusion of each and every. reasonable doubt. There were a number of. inconsistencies in the young girl's. testimony as well as the fact, as I. previously stated, she came and went as. she pleased. She stayed as long as she. pleased. She left when she wanted. She.

came when she wanted. She's not even the. one that called the police. But there. was those issues and those facts as well. as the fact that the two men involved in. this, as I said in my closing statement. to the jury, basically um avoided. decades in prison by agreeing to testify. in the case. And these two individuals. each had felony records. And the jury instructions allow the jury.

to take into account whether or not an. individual has a prior felony record in. determining whether they're trustworthy. and believable, as well as the fact that. one of them had some prior felony. convictions for dishonesty or false. statement. So when the jury considers. all those things, they decide if the. state has proven its case beyond the. exclusion of each and every reasonable. doubt. And as to two of the charges, two. of the main charges, the jury said no.

One of the felony charges, the jury said. yes. And sometimes juries do compromise. verdicts. And uh in this instance, there. wasn't an opportunity to talk to the. jury specifically about what they. thought. But I will say this, the fact. that she was found not guilty of the. human trafficking was quite frankly a. huge win. >> 100%. and it was the top charge. But the. these men who testified against her and.

um were convicted, pled guilty, they. wouldn't have had contact with this teen. without your client. I mean, was she the. conduit? >> Well, she was certainly the one the. individual that knew them before. the young lady came into contact with. them. But all these individuals. uh were smoking pot and voluntarily. quite frankly. >> And just just big picture, why did your. client even make contact with this. teenager? Like what how did that.

conversation, that relationship even. develop? Well, my client is a licensed. psychologist. and she was at the hotel, a guest of the. hotel and the young girl came to the. hotel to walk her dog and uh she was. rather distraught because of some. personal issues and they struck up a. conversation and they started talking. and uh one thing led to another. They. ended up smoking pot and drinking.

together and uh then whatever happened. happened from there. >> You had the opportunity to cross-examine. her during the course of the trial. Correct. I mean, and what was that? Absolutely. What was that questioning. like? >> Well, the questioning was just like any. other questioning. You're trying to. discredit the witness by demonstrating. the jury prior inconsistencies, motives. to fabricate, and things such as that. What was the motive in your opinion to. for her to make this up to fabricate?

>> Well, the motive was that she was very. good friends with another lady who had. been involved in some other criminal. activities and she was trying to help. her. >> And you also cross-examined uh Maria's. two co-fendants as well. >> I did. And what was the substance of. that cross-examination for each of them? Other than I I know you said, you know,

they would have an incentive to testify. against her potentially for more lenient. sentence, but what else did you want to. get out of them? What else were you. questioning about them? Well, what was important for me to. establish, I thought, was I was. fortunate that I had a federal. prosecutor, not on the jury panel for. the deliberations, but in the veneer. And questioning the entire panel, I. asked the entire panel, "What's more. important to you, freedom or money?" And.

they all said freedom. So then I turned. to the federal prosecutor and asked him. if it is illegal to take a bribe in. Florida in the United States for that. matter. And of course it is. So then I. asked him why is it illegal to take a. bribe for a witness? And the federal. prosecutor said it makes them. untrustworthy. So when you put those two. things together, I was able to argue to the jury that.

even this federal prosecutor is telling. you that these two men are not. trustworthy. because of the fact that they. got freedom, which is more important and. more valuable than anything else. >> And let me ask you this, it might be. premature because you have to see what. the sentence is. Is there a plan to. appeal this conviction? And if so, what. would be the arguments? >> Well, one of the arguments is, as a. matter of fact, I filed a motion for new.

trial today. >> Okay. >> As to as to the charges that she was. found guilty of because the felony in. which Maria was found guilty of a lesser. included offense, as I told you a few. minutes ago, the maximum exposure is 60. days in the county jail. And I asked for. those lesser included offenses not only. as to count three in which they the jury. found a lesser included offense but also. as to count two. Uh the judge did not.

allow the jury to be instructed with the. lesser included offenses on count two. And I think that was a mistake. Not on. my part. I think the judge uh made the. wrong ruling. And so that's the basis. for the new trial. And that will also be. the main basis for an appeal should it. ever be necessary. >> And and so in other words, do you. believe the jury would have gone that. route? They would have voted in that. way. It's possible. >> It's certainly possible because they. went that route as to count three.

>> That's irrefutable because they did go. that go that way as to count three. Um, but in the end, this this vict this. teenager, she was sexually assaulted by. these two men. Correct. >> Well, that's what they say. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, and in terms of the. jury, um, what did you get a sense of. which way they were leaning during the. course of the trial? I know sometimes. it's really tough to know, but I don't.

know the jury makeup. I don't know their. professions. I don't know their. backgrounds. as you're watching them and. speaking to them and making the. arguments and doing cross-examination, um, did you get a sense of which way. they were leaning or how they were. viewing the evidence? >> Not really. Not really because I'm I'm. I'm too focused on the witnesses to. really look a great deal at the jury. Every once in a while I glance over at. them, but uh the jury is I've been doing. this type of work for a number of years. and I've had many many jury trials and.

it's impossible to read the jury. >> Yeah. >> The only time you really have an. opportunity to read the jury, I think, is in closing argument when. sometimes they nod. And you mentioned before that your. client um there's going to be a. recommendation that she gets the proper. mental health treatment. I know you. might be limited in what you can say, but what is she going through that we. should understand? >> Well, she's going through a great deal. of trauma. and I don't want to get into her.

specific conditions. >> in this setting, but suffice it to say. there is ample reason for her to receive. treatment. >> Got it. And just looking back on the. case, what was the biggest um weakness. of the prosecution's case? Where what. did you attack? What was the other than. the fact that the credibility of those. two codefendants? What was the biggest. problem in their case? Why they couldn't. um why they didn't make meet their. burden for, you know, the highest charge.

uh human trafficking? >> In my opinion, the human trafficking. charge should have never been brought. It wasn't there. the evidence wasn't. there from the start because if you look. at the injury instructions on human. trafficking, the things the state has to. prove just weren't there. >> Listen, um Robert Barard, thank you for. taking the time. Really appreciate it. Um you know, we didn't have an. opportunity to fully uh cover this trial. in depth. So, I appreciate you kind of, you know, giving us an inside baseball. about what happened there and what was.

happening um with the arguments and the. evidence. Um but I really appreciate you. taking the time. Thank you. >> Happy to do it. Now, Florida's. Department of Health, [clears throat]. they granted an emergency order to. suspend Dwarte's license after her. arrest in 2024. We actually double. checked, and her license has been. permanently revoked by the state, and. Dwarte is set to be sentenced in. January, faces up to 15 years in prison. She's been remanded to jail until that. hearing. That's all we have for you. right now here on Sidebar, everybody.

Thank you so much for joining us. I'm. Jesse [music] Weber. I'll speak to you. next time.