Ann Arbor man faces third trial on charges of soliciting sex over the Internet
(This story has been revised to remove incorrect information about Eric Skulsky's employment history.)
A third jury trial for an Ann Arbor man charged with soliciting an undercover investigator over the Internet for sex is set for this fall.
Eric Skulsky will again face multiple counts of using the Internet or a computer to commit a crime. His trial is set for Sept. 26 in Washtenaw County Circuit Court, court records show.
Different juries remained deadlocked after hours of deliberations following trials in February and last June. Circuit Judge Melinda Morris declared mistrials after both proceedings.
Skulsky, 26, was charged in June 2009 after a special unit organized by the Michigan Attorney General’s Office said it caught him sending messages to an undercover officer posing as a 14-year-old girl.
Skulsky maintained his innocence at both trials, and testified that he was researching the issue for a friend caught in a similar sting operation, investigators said.
The incidents date back to January 2008. Skulsky has declined repeated requests to comment on the case or either trial. He remains free on a personal bond.
Art Aisner is a freelance reporter for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at 734-623-2530 or news@annarbor.com.
Comments
actionjackson
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 12:45 p.m.
These sting operations may have their place in ridding the streets of real predators however if 24 jury members have been convinced that there is "reasonable" doubt why is the prosecutor going to such lengths. Is this to show that the hours involved in the sting operation are valuable? Do they have evidence that is tainted? What's up?
15crown00
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 4:03 a.m.
how long is this dog and pony show going to go on.two attempts to convict have failed.why would the third one succeed.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 4:46 p.m.
And clearly the prosecution doesn't have a very strong case. How many bites at the apple does he get?
Roadman
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 5:07 p.m.
The U.S. Supreme Court once reviewed a murder case with at least four retrials. Technically, there is no Double Jeopardy Clause violation for a retrial of a mistrial absent prosecutorial or judicial misconduct.
RJA
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 3:56 a.m.
A dental student yet? If he gets through school, remember his name and go else where!
Roadman
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 3:24 a.m.
The salient feature I see of this prosecution is that there was no victim; it was an alleged "sting". This seems a waste of prosecutorial resources to have a third jury trial.
Greggy_D
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 2:40 a.m.
Two words: Jury Nullification
quetzalcoatl
Sun, Apr 3, 2011 : 10:25 p.m.
I wasn't on either jury. I haven't heard any testimony. I have no idea if this man is guilty as charged or not. I do, however, know what a rat smells like, which is a lot like what prosecutors' motives smell like in this case. The state has taken its best shot at this guy twice, and has twice failed to convince a jury that this guy is the evil malefactor they have done their best to prove he is. Since he is not already rotting away at a $50,000 a year clip in some state hellhole, I presume he hasn't relied on the tender mercies of a fresh-faced (and overtaxed) public defender but is paying out of private funds for his defense. At some point, perhaps the prosecutors will finally know some shame and throw in the towel. Enough is enough.
jjc155
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 1:23 p.m.
@trespass-it very well could be the Michigan Attorney Generals Office that is prosecuting this case as it was an Attorney Generals Office Special Unit that "caught" him and completed the investigation. Just because he is on trial in Washtenaw County (location of crime) does not mean that the Washtenaw County Prosecutors Office is the prosecuting agency. The article does not say who the prosecuting agency is.
trespass
Sun, Apr 3, 2011 : 11:54 p.m.
This is Brian Mackie'decision. He is an elected official. Perhaps he needs a challenger the next time he is up for election.
halflight
Sun, Apr 3, 2011 : 9:42 p.m.
The headline and lede for this article miss the crucial piece of information-- the defendant is charged with soliciting A MINOR for sex. Why is this fact buried in the 4th paragraph? Soliciting for sex on the internet isn't illegal, unless it involves prostitution or minors.
Marshall Applewhite
Sun, Apr 3, 2011 : 9:27 p.m.
What was wrong with that comment? It was as respective as possible to both the anonymous victim and the accused. It would be nice to see the moderators actually following the moderation guidelines for once.
trespass
Sun, Apr 3, 2011 : 11:50 p.m.
The anonymous victim is not a victim at all. It was a "sting" by an adult posing as a 14 year old. That may be part of the problem in convicting this person because the "victim" was lying so the jurors may look at the whole situation with some skepticism.
Marshall Applewhite
Sun, Apr 3, 2011 : 9:28 p.m.
"respectful" not "respective"