U-M child porn case: Judge refuses to accept Stephen Jenson's plea agreement
Stephen Jenson
But United States District Court Judge Avern Cohn refused to accept a plea agreement that would not have allowed Jenson to appeal his sentence.
Jenson, 37, was read his rights and told Cohn he wanted to plead to the second count of possession of child pornography in exchange for a charge of receipt of child pornography being dropped. When Cohn asked him what made him believe he was guilty, Jenson admitted to having the images and videos on his computer.
“On my computer, I had images of children of an illegal nature,” Jenson said.
“Pornographic?” Cohn asked.
“Yes,” Jenson replied, adding later that the images showed children in various illicit sexual acts and poses.
Despite that admission, Cohn refused to accept the guilty plea. Cohn appeared frustrated with United States Attorney Matthew Roth’s agreement, which specified that Jenson would not be able to appeal Cohn's sentence. The plea agreement called for Jenson to serve between six years and seven-and-a-quarter years in prison, with an absolute minimum of three years in prison.
However, Cohn did not want his to be the final judgment.
“I don’t want non-reviewable authority,” he said. “I could make a mistake. I could be wrong. I could be wrong.”
Cohn took the plea agreement under advisement and told the parties to continue working on the deal. No court date was set during the hearing on Thursday.
Jenson was fired from U-M Hospital in December after he was arraigned on state charges of possession child sexually abusive material. In May 2011, a hospital employee discovered the alleged pornographic images on a thumb drive. That employee notified U-M Hospital Security, but no one reported the incident to the University of Michigan Department of Public Safety until November, a gap of six months.
Records show at least eight people knew about the alleged child porn by June 2011.
State child porn charges brought by Washtenaw County prosecutors were dropped in February in favor of the federal charges.
After the reporting gap was discovered, several investigations were launched. A university internal review resulted in a report released in February. The university’s Board of Regents also ordered an external review, and the U.S. Department of Education did its own review into the reporting gap.
Outside the courtroom on Thursday, Jenson declined to comment on the case. He spent most of the hearing standing stoically in front of Cohn, between his attorney Raymond Cassar and Roth. Wearing a suit and holding his hands in front of his waist, Jenson gave short answers to Cohn’s questions, occasionally asking for clarification on his rights.
Cassar said he and Roth would continue their discussions.
“We’re trying to resolve this case and he’s (Jenson) trying to put this matter behind him,” Cassar said.
Kyle Feldscher covers cops and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at kylefeldscher@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
15crown00
Sat, Sep 15, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.
judges are funny.hope he made the right decision.
Arborcomment
Fri, Sep 14, 2012 : 10:36 p.m.
If the plea deal is ultimately successful, then testimony on the evidence (who knew what and when) will not take place. We will then have to rely solely on the Regents' inquiry and sponsored investigation results. Ripe for burial...
Kyle Feldscher
Fri, Sep 14, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.
trespass and nickcarraweigh: You are both, of course, correct. He did say "non-reviewable" not "non-renewable." I've corrected that and I apologize for the confusion.
trespass
Fri, Sep 14, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.
Thanks. The comment community is always here to catch what spellchecker misses.
music to my ear
Fri, Sep 14, 2012 : 11:40 a.m.
and what are the charges, for those who knew and did nothing
quetzalcoatl
Fri, Sep 14, 2012 : 3:47 a.m.
So the gist of the story is we got a U.S. District Court judge who mumbles, which can be a pesky problem indeed with these lifetime appointments and stuff. Let's hope the switchman at the death house is not hard of hearing.
PineyWoodsGuy
Fri, Sep 14, 2012 : 3 a.m.
Criminal Docket in the 20th Century: Defense Attorney: "Your Honor, defendant admits his guilt and plans to become a useful member of society." Criminal Docket in the 21st Century: Defense Attorney: "Your Honor, my client concedes he made a mistake and would like to put this behind him."
Kai Petainen
Thu, Sep 13, 2012 : 10:59 p.m.
interesting.... Avern Cohn... out of full disclosure... a judge from University of Michigan
craigjjs
Fri, Sep 14, 2012 : 1:05 p.m.
And your point is?
trespass
Thu, Sep 13, 2012 : 10:53 p.m.
"I don't want non-renewable authority," Kyle- he said non-reviewable authority not non-renewable. He said that Jensen should be able to appeal the application of the sentencing guidelines to his sentence but not guilt or innocence. The sentencing guidelines are based upon things such as how many images he had in his possession. I also think he said 2 videos not 4. Roth said that each video counts a 75 images with regard to the sentencing guidelines. He also disagreed in priniciple to a plea agreement limiting a judge to a minimum sentence. I think the judge was objecting on technical grounds to what he thought might set precedent for future plea agreements. He went ahead and ordered a pre-sentencing report, which would seem to indicate that he will accept the guilty plea but he wants Roth and Cassar to fix those issues.
Mick52
Sat, Sep 15, 2012 : 4:25 a.m.
Nope. Trial courts do not set precedent.
ahi
Fri, Sep 14, 2012 : 2:38 a.m.
Thanks. The article makes sense now.
Mick52
Thu, Sep 13, 2012 : 10:22 p.m.
Odd. Never heard of a judge doing this before. The suspect is willing to plea and agree to waive his right to appeal. Heard of that and it makes sense if both sides agree. Can't understand why this went federal, it should have stayed in the state court system. And this is why.
Mick52
Sat, Sep 15, 2012 : 4:24 a.m.
A2 Possessing child porn is a state case too Trespass- a few years ago there was a case out of South Quad involving a large amount of distribution. The case was prosecuted in the state courts. If you know of a law that makes "delay" a crime, lets see a cite for it. The judge did say something about an issue, however precedent is not made at the trial level, only at the appellate level. Basic Bob, there is no law requiring people to report crimes other than a law that specifically notes that particular positions, teachers, police, medical, etc have to report suspected child abuse if they see a child who appears abused. I know of no other law that requires a citizen to report a crime. Matt makes a good point, I have heard that too, but the federal courts are slower and odd stuff happens as shown here. I think in a state prosecution they could have gotten the exact same sentence agreement, or a stricter one, weeks ago.
Basic Bob
Fri, Sep 14, 2012 : 2 a.m.
State courts will never prosecute the people who failed to report the incident. Every single one of them is an employee of the state.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Sep 14, 2012 : 12:21 a.m.
I would have a very difficult time believing this case went to the federal courts so that prosecutors could bring charges against "...those responsible for the delay." They don't need federal courts to do that when state laws cover any areas of negligence quite well. As I remember reading it several months ago, this case went to the federal level only because federal sentences call for longer prison sentences than do state law for this and simlilar crimes.
trespass
Thu, Sep 13, 2012 : 11 p.m.
Mick- I think the refusal by the judge was on technical grounds. Judges don't like to set bad precedent by accepting a flawed agreement.
trespass
Thu, Sep 13, 2012 : 10:57 p.m.
When there is no manufacture or distribution of child pornography, the US Attorneys will usually let the case be prosecuted under state law, particularly when the investigation was done by local law enforcement agencies. What is different about this case is the six month delay in reporting to police. I think the federal prosecutors want to look at the delay for other potential charges for those responsible for the delay.
a2citizen
Thu, Sep 13, 2012 : 10:49 p.m.
The case went federal because possessing child porn is a federal offense (18 U.S.C. ยง2256).