Man accused of soliciting sex from undercover officer posing as 14-year-old girl gets probation
Note: The headline and description of who was posing as the underage girl has been corrected.
The Ann Arbor man who was accused of soliciting an undercover officer for sex while the officer posed as a 14-year-old girl was sentenced to two years of probation this week.
Eric Skulsky, 28, pleaded no contest in April to one charge of use of the Internet or a computer system for prohibited communication, according to court records. Washtenaw County Trial Court Judge Melinda Morris on Monday sentenced him to two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, records show.
Skulsky was charged in the case in June 2009 and had at least two trials with hung juries. Officials say he was caught in a sting operation run by the Michigan Attorney General’s Office in January 2008. It was alleged that Skulsky solicited an officer who posed as a 14-year-old girl for sex during the sting operation.
Skulsky maintained his innocence throughout those trials, and his plea of no contest to using the Internet or a computer system for prohibited communication is not an admission of guilt. A plea of no contest means the defendant did not wish to fight the charges, but was sentenced by the judge as if he or she was guilty.
In exchange for his plea to the using the Internet or a computer system for prohibited communication charge, two charges of using the Internet to commit a crime were dropped, according to court records.
The 28-year-old still faces one more charge in the Washtenaw County Trial Court, records show.
Skulsky was charged with one count of possessing child sexually abusive material in 2011, according to court records. He had a final pretrial hearing in that case on Monday as well, but court records did not show when his next hearing is scheduled.
If convicted of that charge, Skulsky faces a maximum penalty of four years in prison.
Kyle Feldscher covers cops and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at kylefeldscher@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
RJA
Sat, Jun 23, 2012 : 1:50 a.m.
Thats it?? For REAL??
Basic Bob
Sat, Jun 23, 2012 : 4:07 p.m.
He was not charged with soliciting sex from a 40-year-old man. This charge might have stuck. The jury did not agree that a crime against a minor was committed.
justcurious
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 9:06 p.m.
"Skulsky was charged with one count of possessing child sexually abusive material in 2011, according to court records. He had a final pretrial hearing in that case on Monday as well, but court records did not show when his next hearing is scheduled." And he is still walking around.
Terrin
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 11:17 p.m.
Yes, last I checked he hasn't been found guilty of anything.
Tonya
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 9:02 p.m.
Unbelievable! Probation? Our justice system is so screwed up! Why are people like this allowed back on the streets putting our children in danger! Why even go through the trouble of setting up these sting operations when all thats gonna happen is a slap on the wrist! Pedophiles dont care about probation! They see a kid and thats all they see! Hopefully the charge of the child sexually abusive material will get this dirtbag off the street!
djm12652
Mon, Jun 25, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.
Pedophiles that have been incarcerated spend the months and years, counting down to when they are released and can find another child...the interview I saw with child molesters said that is how they get through their sentence...imagining when they are free again.
Tonya
Sun, Jun 24, 2012 : 4:04 a.m.
Children ARE put in danger when a pedophile is allowed to walk the streets! Nobody was saying the undercover was in danger!
Basic Bob
Sat, Jun 23, 2012 : 4:13 p.m.
No children were put in danger. I'm sure the 40-year-old undercover officer can take care of himself, albeit with some therapy.
M.
Sat, Jun 23, 2012 : 5:56 a.m.
Terrin obviously knows the guy, she's been saying the same defense about his "stress" level in response to other comments. I really don't care about someone's "stress level" when they were trying to have sex with who they thought was a young minor. What about a minor's "stress level" for the REST OF THEIR LIVES after they get molested by a pedophile? That's the kind of thing that messes people up for life.
Tonya
Sat, Jun 23, 2012 : 5:18 a.m.
I don't think the penalty is more than appropriate when I have a 4 yr old son,13 month old baby girl and many small family members! Whats appropriate is not having people like this walking free! It's because of stuff like this that cause so many parents to take the law into their own hands!
Terrin
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 11:17 p.m.
The City tried the guy twice and couldn't win. Being tried for a crime regardless of culpability is stressful and consumes your life. If you are paying to defend yourself, it is also expensive. The guy had to experience that twice. The City likely threatened to try the guy a third time, which he didn't want to have to continue with that stress. So the City and him agreed to a plea bargain. The penalty is more than appropriate considering the guy was tried twice. The more interesting question is why can the City just continue to try somebody when it can't win the after two tries?
Johnny
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 10:01 p.m.
Probation....yea, I'm sure he won't be using a computer anymore. What a joke. Way to set a precedent for these types of crimes against our children!
xmo
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 8:13 p.m.
I remember when a President was involved in a sex scandal and since it did not affect his job it was alright! No Victim, No crime!
nickcarraweigh
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 8:07 p.m.
I make it 10 to 1 this guy had no court-appointed attorney.
Anna
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 7:04 p.m.
Just probation? Really? Obviously if a grown adult is soliciting sex from a child, their behavior will not be corrected by putting them on a long leash of probation. Unbelievable. When are we going to start holding child molesters - or potential child molesters with evidence they intended to molest, as is the case here - accountable? But, no, no, let's continue to waste state and taxpayer's time, money, and jail space on petty marijuana offenses.
M.
Sat, Jun 23, 2012 : 5:53 a.m.
IMO, the hung juries came from the fact this was not a "real" 14 year old, but was an officer. Many people believe this sort of operation is entrapment and would not vote guilty because it wasn't a "real" 14 year old. ...but I agree with Anna.
Terrin
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 11:23 p.m.
Shaun: You are speculating. The opposite could be true. There could have been eleven people voting not guilty. Moreover, it happened twice. The reality is it is hard for people to win on sex charges because jurors are generally biased in favor of the prosecution. The fact the jury was hung twice is pretty telling. Yet the City wanted to waste more money and charge him again when there already is another case pending against him.
Terrin
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 11:12 p.m.
Anna: Your comments about the No Contest Plea aren't realistic. Going through a trial whether you are innocent or not is stressful. Further, the process takes a long time. The guy already experienced two trials, which resulted in mistrials. I find it more interesting that the City would continue to go after somebody after it couldn't win its case twice. That wastes the resources of both the guy who has already had to defend himself twice, and the taxpayers who have already had pay for the trials twice. There should be a rule if the City, which has the advantage to begin with, can't win after the second try, it can't try again.
Shaun Alexander
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 10:39 p.m.
@Dennis - A hung jury can occur by a single person being unwilling to vote guilty. That doesn't prove innocence. In fact, it goes to show that several of the jurors found him guilty, and couldn't be persuaded to vote not guilty. @Anna - I agree with you that anyone charged and then found guilty, whether by jury or plea, should get more than probation and community service, particularly when one of the charges is, in essence, possession of child porn. This guy is a pervert, through and through, and is a serious risk to the the community he'll soon be "servicing."
Johnny
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 9:59 p.m.
To make it even worse, in one article it stated he was a student in the UM Dental School. If the school knew about this and still allowed him to practice on children or minors, that is terrible on their part. I believe is has already graduated, so he is out there working on children!!! Just a lesson to research your health care providers. I wouldn't want my child to be seeing a pedophile dentist!
Anna
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 7:57 p.m.
Dennis, I did read the entire article - as well as the web link - but thanks for your concern. My comment is meant to be pertinent to the child sex crime offenders in general, not exclusive to - though, inclusive of - this particular offender. Also, when you say he "might not be guilty," I'm sure you've taken into account his plea of no contest. As described above, while his plea does not admit guilt, he certainly didn't feel confident enough to just plead not guilty. In fact, his justification was that he was "researching the issue for a friend caught in a similar sting operation." ... Riiight.
Dennis
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 7:27 p.m.
If you read the article you would know that they tried him twice, both times resulted in a hung jury. Did you ever think that if 12 of his peers could not come to an agreement about his guilt, he might not be guilty. All the facts of the situation are not in the article, maybe you shouldn't assume guilt just because the police and the paper have named and shamed him.
kmgeb2000
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 7:27 p.m.
Interesting that your comment was +2 and now its "O". So two down votes for stating reality on both issue.
trespass
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 6:03 p.m.
When one of the AG's investigators proposes to the Ave Maria Law School chaplain to examine a priest's computer, on his own time, and not as an agent of the AG's office, it calls into question the honesty of his investigations (the investigator admitted to doing this in his deposition, which is in the public record). I wonder if the defense attorney knew this when defending this client?
Shaun Alexander
Sat, Jun 23, 2012 : 9:18 p.m.
I'm confused as to how any of this is relevant. You haven't stated which investigator you're referring to, and the investigator in this case hasn't been mentioned, so you can't assume that one has anything to do with the other.
trespass
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 11:51 p.m.
@Billy- What I am saying is that the AG's investigator who specializes in catching child predators and in performing forensic examinations of computers for child porn, offerred to take the hard drive from the priest's computer and with his own equipment and on his own time he would look for any evidence of child porn and report it back to the Ave Maria chaplain. He never reported this conversation to his colleagues in the AG's office. Judging from the time frame of the case reported in this story, he was one of three investigators working on this type of case at that time in the AG's office, so I am not sure if he was involved in this case or not but if he was, I would not have put a lot of stock in his testimony.
Billy
Fri, Jun 22, 2012 : 8:03 p.m.
So is what you're saying.....is that the "official investigator" took the laptop in question home with him to investigate it as opposed to investigating it in a forensic lab....thus not guaranteeing that the "evidence" couldn't have been adulterated. I supposed it should also be pointed out that someone who does computer forensics investigations....would probably have access to said pictures that were found in other investigations.