Trial ends in hung jury for former University of Michigan student charged in computer sex crime
(This story was revised to correct information about Eric Skulsky's academic history.)
The trial for a former University of Michigan graduate student charged with soliciting a minor for sex over the Internet ended with a hung jury Friday, court records show.
Eric Skulsky, 26, is charged with two counts of using the Internet or a computer to commit a crime for allegedly sending messages to an undercover police officer in January 2008.
Jurors deliberated until 6 p.m. Thursday after four days of witness testimony concluded, records show.
Still deadlocked, Circuit Judge Melinda Morris ordered them back for deliberations Friday morning. After nearly three hours of discussions, they told Morris they were unable to reach a verdict, court officials said. A new trial date was set for November.
Skulsky, of Ann Arbor, was charged by the Michigan Attorney General’s office in June 2009. Authorities claimed he solicited an investigator whom he thought was a 14-year-old girl during a sting operation. Skulsky argued he was doing research for a friend mired in a similar sting operation, officials said.
Neither he nor his attorney, John English, returned messages Friday. Further details about the case weren't immediately available.
Skulsky completed his undergraduate degree at U-M and entered graduate school in 2006, records show.
If convicted, he faces between four and 10 years in prison on each count.
Art Aisner is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
Carl Duncan
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 12:30 p.m.
I don't approve of this Skulsky guys behavior. After racking the brain, the story I remember was in the Detroit News. It happened in a township close to Midland, Michigan; I stand corrected. The DNR wasn't the agency involved. I believe it was the sheriff's department, and the year doesn't leap out. later than 2001--no later than 2007. No denying similarity between decoys whether it be a fake deer or fake teen ager.
Jim
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 3:21 p.m.
He claims that this was not research, but was his way of "investigating" Perverted Justice. No one bought that at all. He also claimed that he knew all along that these were stings. No jury nullification occured either, the crux of the matter was whether or not the jury believed that the prosecution met the burden of proof - that Skulsky believed he was actually talking to a 14 year old. I personally agree with the law, but not the punishment.
Carl Duncan
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 1:37 p.m.
Jury nullification? How about this? Years ago the DNR set out styrofoam decoys of deer in a city up north, the name escapes me, with the hope of catching a deer poacher in action. Sure enough some one rides up and shoots the deer decoy with a gun. The person is arrested and charged with shooting a deer. The same person is found innocent because he didn't shoot a real deer. But, he is found guilty of discharging a gun within city limits. For the life of me, I can't remember the year, the city, or the name of the guilty person. With regard to Skulsky, doesn't it stand to reason, the undercover officer isn't a real under age person as advertised and Skulsky should get off on a technicality of some kind? I don't know.
5c0++ H4d13y
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 1:10 p.m.
To be clear this is not university sponsored research and has nothing to do with his role at UofM.
MyOpinion
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 12:14 p.m.
It sounds like the prosecution was not real aware of research with human subjects. At UM (and other universities), researchers have to have institutional review board (IRB) approval to do research/collect data. Ask him to show his IRB approval letter. At the very least, UM ought to slap him with bad conduct for "collecting data" without an IRB.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 11:51 a.m.
"A jury member may not agree with a law that allows an imaginary victim " That's a fair point.
Mick52
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 11:11 a.m.
Interesting article. Its somewhat unusual for people caught like this to contest it. Many plea to avoid the excess publicity. What I would like to know here is if the supposed defense is true, does he have an acquaintance charged similarly. Then how did he meet this person, it may have been during online luring. Who would be stupid enough to do something that a friend did who got caught? That said, back in my computer investigation days, in a comp crime school we did an exercise, going online and all of us, about 20 cops, went into online chats and pretended to be youngsters. Its was alarming how quickly the perverts started conversing. One guy explained to me how to set up an email account through hotmail after I told him my Mom would not let me use email.
Greggy_D
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 9:03 a.m.
I also wonder if the concept of "Jury Nullification" came into play. A jury member may not agree with a law that allows an imaginary victim (the 14-year-old).
sellers
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 8:20 a.m.
While I support research, and it's often best to not have anyone know that you are doing research as it will skew your results (or at least you have to list that as a factor which can cause peer review issues), you would think that he would have said to someone or drawn up something with the school to have it on record and notarized that he was doing this? That way, when it came down to it a character witness could testify and have the signed document saying he was doing this. I' have not followed the case, so that may have occurred, but a smart person would consider the perceived behavior and the risks, and should have done due diligence to protect all involved. It's part of the researches ethical code. Did the research go through subject review?
mac
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 7:19 a.m.
who does research by cyber sexual behavior with minors? thats like researching a murder by commiting one!
Hmm
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 6:56 a.m.
The old Pete Townsend defense eh?