Second trial set for former U-M graduate student charged with soliciting minor for sex
(This story was revised to correct information about Eric Skulsky's academic history.)
A second trial for a former University of Michigan graduatel student charged with soliciting a minor for sex over the Internet is set for this fall.
Eric Skulsky, 26, is scheduled to stand trial on two counts of using the Internet or a computer to commit a crime on Nov. 29. He allegedly sent messages to an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl in January 2008.
A jury heard four days of testimony during Skulsky’s June trial, but remained deadlocked after deliberating for several hours. Washtenaw Circuit Judge Melinda Morris declared a hung jury.
Skulsky is free on a personal bond. If convicted, he faces up to four to 10 years in prison on each charge.
Art Aisner is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
rkdgal
Sun, Nov 28, 2010 : 4:01 p.m.
He claimed that he was conducting an "experiment" to see if he could "out" the people posing as minors online (all the girls he had contact with were adults, some law enforcement, some volunteers working with law enforcement). He claimed that he knew from watching Dateline that the girls weren't really minors, and he thought it would be interesting to mess with them and see if they'd slip up. It sounds plausible on the surface, but it was clearly a ridiculous story, and it will all be entered into evidence this time. If he uses the same defense, the prosecution will be prepared this time and be able to tear him up. If he tries to change his defense, they'll be able to use what he said in the first trial against him. He came off as a total arrogant creep, and I hope they get him this time around!
susanp83
Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 8:51 p.m.
rkdgal -- What was the defense he used? Were there plans to meet up with the "girls"? I am just curious, as you say he will have a hard time in the next trial because of what he said in this one. What kind of things did he say?
rkdgal
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 12:22 p.m.
I was on the jury, and in my opinion, the verdict was more a result of the jury makeup and the nature of the law he's charged with breaking. He never tried to dispute that he had the chats. In my mind, the evidence clearly revealed his guilt, but others obviously didn't see it that way. I think he'll have a hard time in his next trial, considering what he said in the first one.
susanp83
Wed, Sep 1, 2010 : 10 a.m.
FYI for everyone: Eric Skulsky is not currently a student at the dental school. He graduated this past spring.
fatoush
Tue, Aug 31, 2010 : 7:03 a.m.
@Edward R Murrows ghost: You misunderstood my comment. What I meant was: This was a sting operation, during which everything is on record and all computers confiscated. Despite all that it took 1.5 years for the trial to start. And why is the jury having a hard time finding a decision? One might have to ask other questions. Who immediately benefits from these operations and who oversees them? Are there similar cases? There are reasons why the jury has doubts, despite the clear digital evidence. I'd like to see somebody who is starting to dig a bit deeper. I would be the last person to hang (or impose other limits) somebody based on accusations or investigations.
Dave66
Mon, Aug 30, 2010 : 9:39 p.m.
a rat ion alone: I don't have kids, but I would let him work on YOUR kids, no problem.
arationalone
Mon, Aug 30, 2010 : 11:57 a.m.
Let's see, someone doesn't agree with the position that a Constitutional soundbite inadequately addresses an issue. Let's take "not every accusation warrants an investigation...warrants a conviction," recast it as "Accusation = Guilt," and cry "lynch mob." This is what makes Ann Arbor great!
Jay Allen
Mon, Aug 30, 2010 : 9:30 a.m.
While Lord knows, along with anyone who reads AA.Com much, that Edward R Murrow's Ghost and I disagree often, he is spot on here. However, to a certain level I agree that his "duties" should be limited just to protect the U from any issues that "could" arise.
arationalone
Mon, Aug 30, 2010 : 7:20 a.m.
Let me ask ya',, would you let this guy work on your kid's teeth today? Didn't think so. There has been more than an accusation. There has been an investigation, and so on, and apparently at least one (and maybe eleven) of our peers (and the defendant's) is convinced he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course not every accusation (let alone dozens of random accusations from someone standing in a lobby) warrants an investigation; nor does every investigation and prosecution warrant a conviction - no system is perfect. Obviously this man has not been convicted, and may never be, but that does not mean an employer, any employer, is prevented from some sort of reasonable response in the meantime. If he is exonerated in the criminal justice system, you can bet the civil justice system will be available to him to redress any injury he's suffered.
Dave66
Mon, Aug 30, 2010 : 7:01 a.m.
"My point is merely that spouting off "innocent until proven guilty" adds little, and can easily detract from, the issues." Ummm... Innocent until proven guilty IS the issue. Oh, and you've got an extra comma there, too. In the world you want to live in, I could shut down the entire school just by hanging out in the front lobby and accusing each person who walks by. Remember, in your world, all you need to throw someone out of school is an accusation.
fatoush
Mon, Aug 30, 2010 : 6:15 a.m.
I agree with Susan. In times of digital fingerprints everywhere, automated chat protocols, IP addresses that can be traced back, such trials should be a no brainer and a verdict reached within a day. Why is nobody asking the obvious question? What role does the prosecution have in this case? Why is a jury deadlocked if everything is on record?
stunhsif
Sun, Aug 29, 2010 : 9:09 p.m.
"The university is a governmental agency" Totally agree with you ghost! I would have thought you would call it a "public research university". But you called it right, I am very proud of you!
arationalone
Sun, Aug 29, 2010 : 9:04 p.m.
But can the U suspend a student? Limit the patients s/he can see? Does a patient/customer of the U have a due process right to not get molested by a U employee/student if the U has some reason to believe (well below criminal beyond a reasonable doubt) that its representative is indeed a molester? I do not know the answer to these questions (and am glad not to work at risk management for the U). My point is merely that spouting off "innocent until proven guilty" adds little, and can easily detract from, the issues. You characterized it as a narrow point; perhaps that is accurate. I think it also a fundamental point that almost always gets ignored. For those who can't get the narrow stuff right, there is little hope that they are offering useful insights to the broader stuff. That's my (narrow) opinion, anyway.
arationalone
Sun, Aug 29, 2010 : 8:33 p.m.
"...it could easily be argued..." If only so much in the world did not turn on what merely needed to be easily argued. I think it could easily be argued that the other commenter (and most who read her comment and thought "right on!") did not have the potential due process rights about which you speculate in mind, eh? Maybe the dental school has an "innocent until proven guilty" morals clause. Maybe not. There is a difference between a criminal and civil (or other non-criminal) standard of proof, by the way, and the process people are due in any non-criminal setting need not match the "innocent until proven guilty" canard so casually tossed out by the earlier commenter. That commenter seems to have no problem restricting access to minors even absent a criminal conviction - is the defendant due more process than that? Again, I don't know enough about this case to state anything with certainty, but I do know that the "innocent until proven guilty" comment is immaterial, regardless how easily it is cast about.
Susan Montgomery
Sun, Aug 29, 2010 : 6:47 p.m.
Keep in mind, that as the article states, the first trial ended in a deadlocked jury... http://www.annarbor.com/news/trial-ends-in-hung-jury-for-university-of-michigan-student-charged-in-computer-sex-crime/
arationalone
Sun, Aug 29, 2010 : 1:30 p.m.
Fortunately, the right to be presumed innocent before one's liberty is constrained IS a Constitutional right. Unfortunately, many of us think we have all sorts of Constitutional rights that we really don't have. For example, no one has a Constitutional right to be admitted to a dental school. Whether it is right or wrong (or good or bad) that this defendant is still in dental school is an issue that is independent from Constitutional rights.
Amy Lesemann
Sun, Aug 29, 2010 : 11:15 a.m.
He's still enrolled because in this country, fortunately, you're innocent until proven guilty. Once he's found guilty, he should definitely be kicked out. Although I will say, he should probably be kept from interacting with minors as a precaution.
Sallyxyz
Sun, Aug 29, 2010 : 10:54 a.m.
Why is this guy still enrolled as a student at the University of Michigan??? He's on trial for two counts of using the Internet or a computer to commit a crime on Nov. 29--the crime of soliciting a minor for sex. Isn't this grounds for expulsion from the school?