Taliaferro said in her client's case, he was convicted based solely on an Internet chat he claims was purely sexual fantasy.
At some point, Gallegos said he was convinced the person was a gay man posing as a girl because in the past he had arranged meetings with supposed females only to meet a man.The reason he showed up at the meeting site, was out of curiosity about this person.Justice Matthew Durrant said he wondered if the case depended on whether or not Gallegos believed this was a minor."If a person tells you they're a minor you'd better log off," Durham said.Typically, state agents will try to get the suspect to show up at a pre-arranged location and time in order to prove legal intent.
Gallegos is also taking issue with a judge's denial of an expert witness, a doctor who would testify that Gallegos was not attracted to minor girls and was therefore not a pedophile.
Durham pointed out that Gallegos went beyond sexual talk and into soliciting someone who claimed they were a minor. She added if a man walked up to a 13-year-old on the street and solicited sex, what would be the difference?
"It is the solicitation, the inducement, the allure.
According to court documents, Gallegos chatted with the agent on two occasions in 2006.
During those chats, Gallegos expressed that the girl was possibly too young but then went on to suggest how he would like to sexually touch her.
Ultimately, the agent and Gallegos arranged a meeting outside a school in Sandy.