Washtenaw County prosecutors review case against sex offender Matthew Freeman
Washtenaw County prosecutors are reviewing the case against a man accused of living near a school after being convicted of having sex with a high school girlfriend one year below the legal age of consent.
Matthew Freeman, 23, of Pittsfield Township, who is required to register as a sex offender, is charged with a school safety zone residency violation.
Matthew Freeman shuffles through items on a shelf in the basement bedroom where he was living in December at his mother's house.
Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com
County Assistant Prosecutor John Reiser said during a court hearing for Freeman this morning that prosecutors are reviewing the case after speaking with Freeman's attorney, David Goldstein.
The case was adjourned until Jan. 25. Reiser told 14A District Court Judge J. Cedric Simpson that if prosecutors decide to drop the case, they'd ask that Freeman's presence at the next court hearing be waived.
Reached by phone this morning, County Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller declined to discuss specifics of the case because it's pending.
"We agreed to adjourn the case to have a chance to do whatever legal research is needed," Hiller said.
Goldstein said during an interview last week that he asked prosecutors to review whether the charge is appropriate.Â
"In this particular case, my position is there is no violation here," Goldstein said. "I presented that to the prosecutor's office, and they're looking into it."
Goldstein declined to be more specific.
Freeman is accused of illegally living within 1,000 feet of Carpenter Elementary School. If convicted of the misdemeanor charge, he faces up to a year in jail.
Freeman has registered at the address of a family friend while the case is pending.
Freeman was playing basketball in his driveway Aug. 3 when a state trooper pulled up and determined Freeman was living 326 feet from the school, a police report said. Freeman had registered with Pittsfield Township police using his family's Dalton Avenue address 27 days earlier.
Freeman was sentenced to probation in 2003 after being convicted of having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend when he was 17. He pleaded guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct with force or coercion. In Michigan, the legal age of consent is 16.
As a result of Freeman’s conviction, he is required to register as a sex offender for 25 years.
The girl's mother, Evelyn Scott, who pressed charges against Freeman in the 2003 case, recently wrote a letter on his behalf and said she wants him removed from the registry.
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. You can reach him at (734) 623-2527 or by email at leehiggins@annarbor.com.
Comments
Lokalisierung
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 2:16 p.m.
"if you are a police officer surely you have arrested someone like Freeman for violating this same law." Well that's a little bit of a leap right there. But look, I already brought up everything you are bringing up, and i realized that there are a lot of things we may not know about the case. We only know what he was convicted of, we do not know what he was charged with, if it went to trial, if he plead...etc. So maybe you should calm down just a tad. I'm not a lover of the court system but I do think it would be pretty strange for him to be convicted of a crime that isn't illegal.
mrcleanisin
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 1:51 p.m.
Tim, if you are a police officer surely you have arrested someone like Freeman for violating this same law. Strange that no-one has bothered to verify that Freeman even committed a crime in 2003. If he had done it today it would not be a crime pursuant to the cited statute above. Shame on the ignorance of Michigan residents.
treetowncartel
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 1:44 p.m.
Mrclean, they are not hidden, go to a law library and you can find the changes over time, or alternatively, you can go up to lansing and even read the legislative history of any act. Tghis typically incudes discusasions on the floor, which in turn can result in understanding the intent of the legislature at the time.
mrcleanisin
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 1:33 p.m.
Tim, if you are in fact a police officer in the same county as Freeman, then provide a few cases like Freeman's that I can look up on your Michigan SEX offender registry. I want to verify that there are others prosecuted for consensual sex with a victim 13-16 and the actor being less than 5 years older than the victim. Remember, this happened in 2003 and I am assuming the law read the same in 2003 as it does today as posted above by mrcleanisin.
Tim
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 11:49 a.m.
As a retired Police Officer and having worked with these laws and sex offenders let me give my slant on it. First of all these laws as writen now lump all sex offenders together. That is wrong, Michigan needs to change to a testing system of each sex offender to see how much danger they are to reoffend. Place only those on the sex offender registry that are a danger to reoffend. Law Enforcement resources are being used up checking on these offenders when if we used a risk based system and only checked on the highest risk offenders Michigan Law Enforcement and your tax money could be better spent. As for the 1,000 foot rule it does NOTHING to protect anyone. Study after study showes that were the sex offender lives has nothing to do with how the victim is picked unless they live in the same house. With over 90% of sexual assaults commited by a person well known and trusted by the victim and over 50% of them being a family member. Also anouther fact is that over 95% of sexual assaults are commited by a person with NO prior arrest record. Sex offender registrys are not providing the protection that people seem to think they are. Do not trust that knowing who is on the sex offender registry is going to protect your family from a sexual assault.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 10:25 a.m.
As stated elsewhere and in previous posts, you don't get to pick and choose which laws you wish to follow nor is ignorance of the law or the fact other people do it an excuse to break the law. The proper recourse is to get active and change to laws. In the meantime you live with the laws you have or you pay the price if caught.
wuttha
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 9:23 a.m.
I agree with Sandy Castle. It's ridiculous that underage consentual sex results in a criminal record but murder/manslaughter doesn't. I'm not saying that Mr. Freeman is a saint, because he isn't, but there also isn't any evidence that he is a sex offender.
Sandy Castle
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 8:18 a.m.
It's interesting to consider that this young man who had consensual sex with someone whose mother did not approve is being punished more severely than the young man who just plead guilty to killing a bicyclist will be when he's sentenced to no jail time and expungement of the crime off of his record in two years.
breadman
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 7:16 a.m.
Sex Offenders have no place too live because of the law and the way it was written. That is why so many are registered to the homeless shelter in Ann Arbor and on the street!!! Think about it?
Graz
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 7:03 a.m.
It's nice to know that there are individuals like some of the posters here who have lived a perfect life and have never made a mistake. Most of you are missing the point. This young man is on a sexual offenders list. He may be guilty of theft and vandalism, but his sexual offense was one that many school age kids are guilty of committing. Is every one of these kids a true danger to other children or are offenses such as these a misuse of the reporting system? I feel they are a misuse as they dilute the registry to where a parent can't know when there is a truly dangerous person in their neighborhood. Just because this young man made some other mistakes doesn't preclude the fact that he doesn't belong on the registry and the system that put him on it isn't serving the public as it should.
livingstontramp
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 9:52 p.m.
well this outstanding individual could have gotten his name off of the registry if he had stayed out of trouble for ten years but he had to go stealing and vandalizing stuff. It is also very interesting that ha registered at a family friends house but it does not state he lives there!!! So is he still a violator. and the picture of the basement has no egress, needs to be 5.7 square feet for a window less than 40" from the floor.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 9:31 p.m.
I love that argument! We were all (insert your affiliation) once.... We were all young and reckless once, we were all drunk once, we were all texting while driving once etc etc. That makes it all right, does it? Hmmm... I was young once, but never reckless, or drunk, or any of the myriad other things that I witnessed others do that weren't very bright. Personal choices and personal responsibility, at what point do we own them, right or wrong?
goldenbear
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 8:57 p.m.
We where all teenagers once. We all disobeyed other peoples requests to stay away fromm someone. When kids think they are in love and people say they can't be together they rebel!!!. I was a teenager, I had sex at a young age and it was my choice. This now grown man should not be charged as an offender. He didn't stalk her, rape her, or force her. THEY BOTH DID THE ACT TOGETHER!!!. Why is she not being punished as well????. We people in this community and else where want to point fingers and blame but they where KIDS not ADULTS. The next question is where was the parental SUPERVISION???.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 7:13 p.m.
]It was illegal and immoral, period. I can't help but respond with "if all of your friends jumped off a bridge..."] Well we can all agree it was illegal...but "immoral?" That's a little much I think.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 7:05 p.m.
"One of the things I would like to point out is that Matthew was charged with a crime that many young men in our community commit every single day and if these young men were reported to the police our local jail, prisons and the sex registry would be full of names from our community." The "other people do it" argument doesn't make it right. Doesn't work with parents let alone the law. It was illegal and immoral, period. I can't help but respond with "if all of your friends jumped off a bridge..." "Matthew is the victim of a parent who could not find any other way to keep two young people from seeing each other and decided to use the law enforcement system to provide that parental authority. For that, a young man's life has been turned upside down." He was told by the mother of his e-girlfriend to no longer see her. HE CHOSE to disregard her wishes and she chose to file charges. The State then prosecuted under the law. BUT FOR HIS CHOICE he would not be in this predicament. Not only that be he had a recourse in that he could've eventually had this expunged. BUT FOR HIS CHOICE to commit other crimes that option is no longer available. Matthew is only the "victim" of his own poor choices, not circumstances, not other people.
KeepingItReal
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 5:18 p.m.
Lokalisierung: I do not know if the mother will be at the meeting but you and anyone interested is welcome to attend.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 5:06 p.m.
Zulu - Do you know if the parent who pressed charges is going to be there? I'd liek to hear her side of it.
KeepingItReal
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 4:56 p.m.
One of the things I would like to point out is that Matthew was charged with a crime that many young men in our community commit every single day and if these young men were reported to the police our local jail, prisons and the sex registry would be full of names from our community. Being the father of two grown daughters, I don't condone underage sex, but Matthew is the victim of a parent who could not find any other way to keep two young people from seeing each other and decided to use the law enforcement system to provide that parental authority. For that, a young man's life has been turned upside down. Since this story first broke, I knew very little about this subject matter but I have since read quite a bit about it and it seems to me that if we as concerned citizens across this country do not challenge this law, we are going to allow our system of laws to criminalize young people who otherwise have done nothing but engage in behavior that many of us engaged in at their particular age. For anyone who is interested in engaging in this subject more directly, there will be a meeting tomorrow night 01/05/10 at the a2.com community room 301 E. Liberty at 7-8 P.M. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss raising funds to help defray some of the cost of the private attorney who stepped forth to assist Matthew through this but we can certainly use this time to talk about this matter as well.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 4:19 p.m.
Sure and I think i just read the State must then pass a law (or something) that actually take that into account in a person's crime. My point isn't with limitations, it's maybe he is guilty of a crime that isn't a crime. of course this is all just talk becasue we have no idea the particulars of the case or even what he was charged with/pled to etc... Pleading would give up many rights.
treetowncartel
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 4:04 p.m.
You get charged with the statute in place at the time, and sentenced by the guidelines in place at that time. One prime example is the sentencing disparities between crak and powder cocaine. So, the elements of a crime and the punishment can change over time. You also need to take into account if there is a statute of limitations. For instance, when bloggin ten years ago there wan no need to worry about communicating with someone under the age of thirteen. Now, thanks to your federal government, you can go to prison for that.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 3:54 p.m.
Yeah I know see there are a lot of amendments to the law...doesn't go into any detail. So if something was illegal then and now his quilty of no crime? Ex post facto? (facto post ex?)
ypsiman
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 3:42 p.m.
Bottom Line he broke the law, Now he is paying the price,Regardlees if he knew better or not, saying he was 17 is stupid, He knew better.Iam sorry I feel he should be on the list, he broke the law, what next clean up all his record cause he needs another chance? when is enough! and yes if he got in trouble after that shows his charcater
treetowncartel
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 3:23 p.m.
Loka- Are you looking at the current version of the law, or the one in place when Mr. Freeman was charged? A lot of stautes are amended over time.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 3:11 p.m.
Having read this article, the article before it, and the legal definition of his crime, I still do not see how he was charged with it unless he plead down from something else, or the law has changed. But obviously I must be missing something. "(a) That other person is at least 13 years of age but less than 16 years of age, and the actor is 5 or more years older than that other person." So that isn't what happened here, and I didn't see anywhere in either article where they say he "coereced" her. What am i missing?
cinnabar7071
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 3:10 p.m.
"Well Pete Townsend only looked at porn online...I put that in a different catagory than criminal sexual misconduct, or sex between 2 consulting people as in this case." Lokalisierung Thats my point, Peter Townsend was never charged because of Who he is, whereas Matthew Freeman is paying a very high price for just being a kid, a stupid kid, but just a kid. Peter Townsend should be in prison, and Matthew Freeman should be getting out of his mother basement!
treetowncartel
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:58 p.m.
The thing to remember here is he had been doing something that was legal, and then all of a sudden he reached an age that made it illegal. One question, maybe the parents should be charged as accessories to the crime, put on the list too.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:55 p.m.
Hmmm....but for several poor choices this young man would not be in the position he is in. Even without this particular charge, he is a criminal. Theft and Vandalism may not be much of a criminal record but it is still a criminal record. I'm sure he'd have engendered much more sympathy if his only "offense" was to his ex-girlfriend's mother. I'll stay home and apply my monies to more worthy causes, thanks anyway.
KeepingItReal
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:36 p.m.
For those of you who are interested, a private lawyer has agreed to take Matthew case at this stage and will be setting up a payment for Matthew to reimburse him for his legal services. There is a meeting Tuesday night January 5, 2010 at the a2.com community room at 301 E. Liberty from 7-8 P.M. The purpose of the meeting is to explore the possibility of raising funds to help Matthew and his Mom cover some of his legal fees for the private attorney. If anyone is interested, you are welcome to attend. Couple of comments: The fact that Matthew got into trouble with the law outside of this original charge of criminal sexual conduct has been settled with the court. If he is living in a basement of a house may not be a violation of any law. Let's not try to make this young man into a criminal beyond what has already occurred. I guarantee you, he regrets his involvement in these other activities while on probation but that is no reason to punish him for the rest of his life. Hope to see you a the meeting.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:31 p.m.
"The problem with flexible laws is the connected get off scot free, Peter Townsend from the Who comes to mind" Well Pete Townsend only looked at porn online...I put that in a different catagory than criminal sexual misconduct, or sex between 2 consulting people as in this case.
cinnabar7071
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:25 p.m.
Skeet wrote:"can the laws be made flexible enough for each case to be looked at without a generic punishment for all of them?" The problem with flexible laws is the connected get off scot free, Peter Townsend from the Who comes to mind
Sarah
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:23 p.m.
I understand that underage sex needs to be seen as a problem, but I'm not sure that irresponsible/impulsive teens need to be lumped in with REAL sex offenders. Let's face it, MANY 15 year olds are having sex and not getting caught or prosecuted. I think that maybe we need to look at each case separately and not assign a general title of sex offender to these kids.
johnnya2
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:20 p.m.
Regardless of his other offenses, he should not be considered a sex offender.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:17 p.m.
Living in a basement bedroom is legal if it has an egress. Theft and Vandalism...that isn't much of a criminal record.
Larry
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.
For those of you that didn't read the origional story. This kid was no angel he also has a criminal history of theft and vandalism. Lets not use him as a poster child of laws gone wrong. Does the Building inspector know he is living in a basement bedroom. also illegal in Ann Arbor.
jreed205
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:01 p.m.
The other problem with this story is now the girlfriends mother who originaly pressed the charges (probably out of anger towards the young man) writes a letter saying she feels he should be removed from the registry. Mrs. Scott you are partialy to blame for the hardship in this young mans life also then. Keep a better eye on what your children are doing and you won't ruin another childs life.
ERIC MEYERS
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:01 p.m.
Hey grinch I did read the whole story try stop insulting people.Most people know how to read genius.
Sheila
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 1:12 p.m.
These laws are so messed up and they're ruining the lives of young people. This kid should never have been required to register and shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place. They put kids like him on a list with perverts and murderers and there is no categorization at all......it's ridiculous. Meyers, you're messed up!
Skeet
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 12:58 p.m.
can the laws be made flexible enough for each case to be looked at without a generic punishment for all of them? it seems that is what they aim to do here. they were both children, and we all know kids do the darndest things.
The Grinch
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 12:53 p.m.
Mr. Meyers, Just in case you didn't read the story carefully, this was a 17 year-old KID who had sex with his 15 year-old KID girlfriend. Whatever else might be true of this young man now, the scarlet letter he re3ceived as a 17 year-old is a great example of the problems (they are many and manifest) with Michigan's sex offender laws.
ERIC MEYERS
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 12:43 p.m.
Oh that is nice.Nice Judical system we have. I am sure the guy will wriggle out the case just like most sex offenders do.