Court adjourns case against young Pittsfield Township sex offender until February
An attorney for a young man accused of living near a school after being convicted of having sex with an underage high school girlfriend plans to review video of his client’s 2003 guilty plea.
That's the latest step as the attorney investigates a school safety zone residency violation levied against Matthew Freeman, 23, of Pittsfield Township.
Matthew Freeman is fighting against a charge of living too close to a school as a registered sex offender.
Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com
Freeman is accused of illegally living within 1,000 feet of Carpenter Elementary School in Pittsfield Township in violation of Michigan Sex Offender Registry rules. He faces up to a year in jail if convicted of the misdemeanor charge.
Freeman's attorney, David Goldstein, made a request today to adjourn the case until Feb. 12. The request was approved by 14A District Court Judge J. Cedric Simpson.
It will give Goldstein time to review video of the 2003 hearing during which Freeman pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct with force or coercion.
By pleading guilty, Freeman admitted to having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend when he was 17. In Michigan, the legal age of consent is 16.
Why Goldstein is interested in the video is unclear. Goldstein said today the matter is "under further investigation," but did not elaborate.
Freeman entered the 2003 plea in front of 22nd Circuit Judge Donald Shelton in exchange for dismissal of a felony third-degree criminal sexual conduct charge. As a result of Freeman’s plea, he has to register as a sex offender for 25 years.
The police report says the victim was “not forced to commit any act” nor did she ask Freeman “not to commit any act.”
Asked by a reporter whether Freeman's fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct with "force or coercion" conviction is consistent with the facts in the police report, Washtenaw County Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller offered an explanation.
Hiller said under Michigan law, a defendant can admit to facts of a more serious offense during a plea to a lesser offense. He said the facts of the higher offense may not necessarily coincide with the lesser charge.
Freeman was originally charged after his former girlfriend's mother, Evelyn Scott, filed a complaint with Pittsfield Township police, seeking to end Freeman’s relationship with her daughter. She filed the report 12 days after Freeman's 17th birthday. She has since written a letter on Freeman's behalf and wants him removed from the registry.
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached by phone at (734) 623-2527 or email at leehiggins@annarbor.com.
Comments
ronaldduck
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 7:18 p.m.
By the way I forget to mention this in my earlier posting. The girl also commited a crime but the courts normally treat the underage person as a victim.
Lokalisierung
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 12:40 p.m.
"the people in office) are doing something to protect the public. These are what we used to call feel good laws." Couldn't agree more with everything you're saying.
Tim
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 12:27 p.m.
As a retired police officer I have a different problem with this. Study after study has shown that were a sex offender lives has nothing to do with how the victim is picked unless they live in the same house. Given that most sex crimes are done by a person well known and trusted by the victim with over 50% of them being a family member. So what does the 1,000 ft do to protect anyone? Nothing at all. It is just anouther law that those in office have past to make the public think they (the people in office) are doing something to protect the public. These are what we used to call feel good laws. They feel good to those who pass them and the public, but they protect no one. It is time to get smart on crime and criminals not hard on crime and criminals. But in Michigan we keep spending money, with no thought on the return on is it doing any good at all. Keep it up and we will be broke, oh we are and they keep spending anyway.
ffej440
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 12:15 p.m.
The offender list is mandated by FEDERAL law not Michigan-Jacob Wetterling & Adam Walsh Acts."States must register persons convicted of a criminal offense agaisnt a victim who is a minor" When this story first showed I checked some facts- 36% registerd nationally are minors themselves. We need a number system to seperate the high risk from the low risk.Then the police can monitor the real threats and we can assign resident restrictions based on the threat level.
tracyann
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 10:19 a.m.
Some are saying he just made bad decisions. Well, doesn't everyone who commits a crime making a bad decision? But, actually, I do think there should be some differentiation when it comes to who is put on the registry. No one can deny that having sex with your 15 year old girlfriend when you're 17 isn't the same as molesting a 6 year old or raping someone.
News Watcher
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 9:15 a.m.
What a waste of taxpayers' money. Seriously, it's not like he was 17 and having sex with a 6 year old! He was 16 and in a relationship with his then-15 year old girlfriend, and Mama didn't like that her baby was sleeping around. Instead of grounding or otherwise punishing the daughter, she waits until a few days after he turns 17 and then ruins this kid's life? Chances are the girl was going to turn 16 soon and would be the legal age of consent, so Mama had to act fast. Let this be a warning for all teens out there -- the law (and ticked-off parents) will get you for following your basic human instincts.
KeepingItReal
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.
Hiller admits " a defendant can admit to facts of a more serious offense during a plea to a lesser offense" and "said the facts of the higher offense may not necessarily coincide with the lesser charge." The police says the victim "was not forced to commit any act" nor did she ask Freeman to "not Commit any act." The only real element of this case is the fact that according to the law this young lady was "underage". However, because of lack of funds, poor legal representation by the Public Defenders Office that gave up part of its budget to the prosecutor's office, a mother who decided to use the law enforcement system to perform parenting responsibilities and a judge who could have cared less about this young man, Freeman was forced to cop a plea to a sexual crime to avoid spending time in prison. This is a good example of how our system of laws criminalize poor, black males and create situations for them that will keep them involved in the criminal justice system for most of their adult lives. For those of you who are so insistence that Freeman broke the law, let's get real and begin to arrest every young man in this community who have sex with girls who are under age. And, if you do not believe that these young ladies are willingly engaging in sexual activity, please visit planned parenthood for a day and observe the number of underage girls who are accompanied by their mothers seeking birth control pills. This corporate correction system provides financial supports to entire communities, allow those in charge to buy homes, recreational vehicles, send their children to colleges, and give politicians the appearance of begin "tough on crime" while destroying the lives of the very people it is support to serve.
kayty
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 8:49 a.m.
This is not a sex offender. The law needs changed. When I was 15 (I'm 26 now) I had sex with my 17 y/o boyfriend consensually. Honestly, most 15 y/o girls are more mature than 17 y/o boys anyway. I'm from PA and like their law better--it has a little bit of common sense in it. "...a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant under the age of 16 years and that person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other."
ronaldduck
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 7:15 a.m.
By the way I do not know Matt and I am not on the regestry so this is not personal. I just think it's wrong.
ronaldduck
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 7:13 a.m.
By the way I do not know Matt and I am not on the regestry so this is not personal. I just think it's wrong.
ronaldduck
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 6:42 a.m.
A2JetGuy You state that "this is not the police's fault, this is not "the man's" fault... it's Matt's fault" for living too close to the school. But you are wrong. In the first article on this it say's that he registered the address he is living at with the Michigan Sex Offender Registry. They allowed him to live there so that would make it "the man's" fault because he did what he was supposed to. We don't know how far past her 15th birthday the girl was when the sex acts took place but the article states that her mother called the police 12 days after Matt turned 17. I would assume that they were having sex while he was still 16. That would make the age difference 1 year. They were BOTH still children at the time. You seem to believe that the law is cut and dried and there is no room for common sense. Based on your reasoning if the girl was 15 years and 364 day's old and the boy was 16 years old exactly he should go to prison. There could be less than 24 hour's difference in age and he would technically be in violation of the law. How about some common sense.
chapmaja
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 12:18 a.m.
One other question. How far exactly was he living from the school? 100 feet. 500 feet? 995 feet? How is the distance measured? All of that matters when a law requires someone to do something or not do something within a certain distance.
chapmaja
Tue, Jan 26, 2010 : 12:15 a.m.
I personally have a huge huge problem with the entire sex offender registry system in Michigan. Did this individual committ a crime several years ago? It sure appears as if he did. Did he do something stupid when he committed the crime? Yep. So far I think he made bad decisions. My problem is the state requires anyone convicted of criminal sexual conduct in any degree to register. The system does not take into account the specifics of each individual case. Should he have kept it in his pants when he was 17? Yep. Does the fact he had a sexual relationship with his 15 year old girlfriend mean he is a threat to society as an adult? I highly doubt it. The sex offender registry needs to be about keeping those who are legitimate threats to our children and general population accounted for. It should not be about dragging someone who made a stupid decision through the ringer. I think each individual case should be up to the judge and not a requirment on every sentence. Also, I know it is illegal to have sex with someone under 16, however at the same time, the young lady is old enough to know what she is doing. She may not be bright enough to recognize the potential risks in her actions, but she is old enough to know what she's doing. That is why the CSC laws in Michigan have 2 different age groupings. 16 and 13. Someone under the age of 13 is much less likely to know the risks of their actions than someone who is 13-15 years old. I think he made stupid decisions, but I have as much of a problem with the fact the laws can basically ruin someones life for something they did which honestly wasn't as bad as it seems. I do know of one "registered sex offender" who was beaten so bad by a neighbor he is permantently disabled. The crime that got him on the registry? He was 17 and had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend when her parents caught them. The neighbor became enraged when he saw he was living next to a sex offender that he beat him nearly to death. The problem was he didn't look to see what the individual was registered for, just that he was on the registry. Now one man is behind bars for assult with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder and another is never going to be able to live a normal life. All because of a registry that doesn't take into account all the facts and doesn't allow judges to determine who needs to be registered.
A2JetGuy
Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 10:54 p.m.
The fact that the child was not forced to commit any act is irrelevant. He had sex with a child and a child cannot legally give consent. It sounds like a few of you think it was okay that Matt had sex with this child since she didn't ask him "not to". So what age do you think is okay? What if she was 14, or 10, or how about five? You may all have differing opinions, however the law does not; legally it's 16 years of age, therefore Matt had sex with a child (15)... Guilty. Now Matt is legally a Sex Offender and must abide by the Michigan Sex Offender Registry rules, one of which is that he cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school. So what does he do? He moves within 1,000 feet of a school! People... this is not the Police's fault, this is not "the Man's" fault... It's Matt's fault! Rather than treating him like a victim, encourage him to man-up and take responsibility for his own actions!
darknyt
Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 8:26 p.m.
The police report says the victim was not forced to commit any act How can this Kid get dragged through the dirt for so long. Michigan law is about as spread out as a game of chinese checkers. Nothing consistent about it at all. Lets raise property taxes some more, so we can catch people that are not running.
trs80
Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 6:13 p.m.
Such a BS way to get labled as a Sex Offender. I think it was the parents who turned him in. Good luck Matt. Better use a tape measure next time cuz the man is always looking for a way to get you caught up in the system.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 6 p.m.
Well it's good to see the info that he plead down becasue a lot of us were wondering about that.