Sheriff Cole: Holding Johnson Accountable

[XLFD]

"Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical."
Blaise Pascal

 

Kim Cole make the following comment in the above Daily News article concerning Todd Johnson being arraigned on a CSC felony:  "It was ongoing for several years and started when the player was 13.  It did not take place at the school or involve any school activities.  It took place in a home in Amber Township."  Ummm, Sheriff Cole, you just referred to the victim as a player, whereby one would have to presume she played on one or more of Johnson's soccer teams.  That further implies that school activities and the school were part and parcel to this

 

But in the second page of this FOIA appeal denial for investigatory records sought by myself on this case just last month, Sheriff Cole states: 

"The release of the contents of this investigation would additionally deprive the supect and the proecutor to the right of a fair trial which would include the dissemination of inadmissable evidence to the jury pool... information is contained in the police report...the release of which would clearly taint the jury pool, perhaps in its entirety.  Evidentiary materials are included in the police report, if released publicly and not in a courtroom, would taint the jury pool and cast certain witnesses in an unfair light."

 

Saying that the alleged illegal activities (oops, Sheriff Cole never used that "alleged" word) was ongoing for several years between Johnson and this young soccer player is not tainting the jury pool by casting the accused in an unfair light?  Sheriff Cole is saying this felonious penetration by Coach Johnson into some parents' 13 year old daughter was happening over a period of years away from school and school activities-- without pointing at a single shred of the evidence that he is hoarding away from the public in the interest of fairness.  Apparently, Sheriff Cole still hasn't read that Fourth Amendment part of the Constitution since his dealing with Martin Schilling.  Time to get out the ducking stool.

[AQUAMAN]

This alleged victim had this happen some 7 years ago, she is 20 now, graduated 2 years ago, and has moved on out of the county elsewhere. What I don't understand is why is this just now coming forward? It's wrong, granted, if allegations are true. But NOW? All this time later? Seems pretty fishy to me anyhow. Statutes of limitations on such cases is 7 years. Also, what info. is inadmissable that a jury pool would ever see? If indeed it is inadmissable, then no one but the prosecutor/police might see that, not any jury pool or the public. Evidentiary evidence in the police report should be FOIA material, and admissable in most cases. Pretty confusing case and actions so far imho. Pretty small bond too, if this is truly a felony crime.

[XLFD]

Good observations, Aquaman, there are several things they could withhold from the public that could needlessly identify the 'victim' in this case.  But using the rationale that he (Cole) doesn't want to taint the jury pool or infer that the main part of the investigation being released would effectively have the public try this case outside of the courtroom-- and then releasing investigatory bias in asserting guilt and omnipotent knowledge of what likely are disputed facts meant for a courtroom to decide on, is contradicting himself. 

 

Unfortunately, this tact is allowed to be used against people who should by our legal system and values be given the presumption of innocence.  Prosecutors and police spokesmen come out to try to make their case stronger, a tactic that has been used often to try to bolster weak cases.  Meanwhile, there may be a bundle of exculpatory evidence, there might not, but will they leak that out to the press?  Not if it damages their chances.

[XLFD]

EyE, I must admit I like your analytical skills being used when we basically agree on an issue.  Your post has a lot of questions, parenthetical, but good ones.  In his position in deciding my original FOIA appeal, Cole did get quasi-judicial powers given through section 10 of that act, but as the holder of those records, there definitely is a conflict and the compulsion to uphold the exemption, without necessarily having the wisdom and knowledge of the appropriate laws/precedents that a judge would have. 

One does have the right to appeal FOIA denials to the Circuit Court, but this is costly in time and money, and I've lost a lot of respect for our Circuit Court to do the right thing in these cases.  One likely wouldn't receive any relief until a year and a half later in Appeals Court, as the County would drag its feet and rely on legal canards to support their decisions. 

I think the last question can best be answered by this observation.  If you are marketing hot dogs, you want to show people enjoying the hot dogs at a festive event, not people making the hot dog in a factory from chicken lips and buttholes.  The investigation is that picture of the movie star caught going out to get their newspaper in the morning in their grungies, the prosecution's case is that same star walking on the red carpet with their expensive outfits and done-up looks.  The defects and imperfections are well covered up.

[masonco]

To answer your question about why is the victim stepping up now? This is a very common situation with those abused by those they trust. If she moved out of the area, it means she was afraid of him. She may have finally gone into counseling and this came up and the counselor brought it to authorities attention. From the silence I've seen on this issue I think she had a right to fear the public shunning in this community if she spoke up when in school or even living here. No one ever gets such a small bond for charges like that. I hope she appeals this to the supreme court when he gets away with this.

It could be the victim learned there was another one he "took under his wings" and finally got the courage to speak up.

I don't think there is a statue of limitations on CSC charges as long as the alleged perpetrator is alive.

[XLFD]

The victim can have a whole host of reasons for coming forward at this point, each of Masonco's points are well-founded, and oft-documented in such cases.  And just because I presume innocence of the accused, I presume also that the accuser has a valid accusation, herself.  The duty of the justice system is to establish what exactly is the truth. 

But speculating without all the facts is what the public winds up doing whenever a case like this comes up and the information is withheld from the public.  The CVRA (Crime Victims Right Act) Cole mentions protects just about everything that would identify the victim, when I made the request that was the authority for disclosure.  At the end of last year, that law was strengthened by Act 457 of 2012, which includes more protection for the victim so they are not victimized twice.  I support both, but I will bet that over 80% of the information of this investigation can be released without violating these protections and give us some idea of what the problem and its extent may be. 

What our local agencies fear, particularly MCC Schools which I believe historically has been a quality school system (I learnt most of what I know there), is the public asking how the school wound up missing this over the years when all the facts get made available.  And I think that becomes clear when Superintendent Mount certifies that there was not one record made concerning their own internal investigation of this. 

[AQUAMAN]

Well, I guess EyE did his homework today, thanks for the links/updates on this matter. These apparently are some newer laws I was not aware of, (4/2012)?, as my Law studies of recent have been deferred. The usual statute of limitations, both criminal and civil, except for murder and other high court felonies, was 7 years. However, in such cases as this, and several others, it has been modified. I too believe Masonco made some very valid points in this discussion. Probably not good to speculate too much on scant info. and the age of this alleged crime right now.

[XLFD]

That's always something you can count on with a full-time legislature:  laws, laws, and yes, more laws.  I think that's what ultimately start revolutions, there becomes too many laws to even attempt to figure out and understand that the people rise up and try to simplify the laws down to a manageable few pages again. 

Our original Constitution was four pages long, Obamacare, with doubtlessly many references to other laws/regulations not included in its pages, is nearly 700 times that number!

[AQUAMAN]

Looks like this case just got dismissed this past week, 2/13/13, the main witness  "no showed" the preliminary hearing. So, what now? Well, the local Prosecutor says it will be refiled, and a later PE will be forthcoming. Strange, why didn't the defense attorney ask for a dismissal "with prejudice" instead of "without prejudice"? This alone would set the stage for a refiling. Courtesy reporting of Mason County Press, doing their job on time, and with professionalism.

[XLFD]

Witch hunt ended: 

Case dismissed against Johnson

February 20, 2013

LUDINGTON — The criminal sexual conduct case against Todd Lane Johnson of Amber Township was dismissed today by 79th District Court Judge Peter Wadel.

The accuser apparently gave conflicting reports to the police, originally stating that alleged sexual relations with the now 39-year-old man started when she was 13. In court today, she testified the alleged relationship didn’t begin until she was 18.

Johnson is a local businessman and was a Mason County Central girls soccer coach. The accuser is a 2011 graduate of MCC. Johnson was arraigned earlier this month on charges of criminal sexual conduct third degree.

Johnson’s preliminary court examination was scheduled for last Wednesday, but the alleged victim did not show up to testify. At that time the charges against him were dropped but then re-instated, with the court date scheduled for today.

http://www.masoncountypress.com/2013/02/20/case-dismissed-against-j...

In the 2-2-2013  COLDNews, new Sheriff Kim Cole somehow knew, and passed to the press that quote:  "It (CSC 3rd degree) was ongoing for several years and started when the player was 13.  It did not take place at the school or involve any school activities.  It took place in a home in Amber Township" 

I know if I was Todd Lane Johnson I would be a might upset with this slander by our County's Sheriff, without the benefit of any court process.  I hope the young lady someday understands the consequences of what she's done here to this poor man's reputation.  Keep both in your prayers.

[Willy]

The Sheriff would not have proceeded with the case if he had known the girl was 18 at the time so who, besides the girl, told authorities that she was 13 when the incident happened. Also the time line would be different because of the 5 year difference. The prosecutor has a duty to get to the bottom of this and find out what happened so either Johnson's name can be cleared or charges can be brought against whomever gave false information. In my opinion, this is no small matter. Even if the girl was 18 at the time the incident happened the fact that an adult had sex with a student should raise concerns with all parents as to "who" is coming in contact with their kids. And the fact that this situation made it all the way into the court system before the "truth" was revealed should raise another red flag. No matter how this turns out it appears that Johnson made the wrong decision and will be paying dearly for the choices he made. The girl should be prosecuted for her role in this mess unless she really was 13 and has had a change of heart and is now trying to protect Johnson.

[XLFD]

Willy, Michigan laws do create special rules for teachers and those employed by schools as regards CSC and rape, as seen in the varying degrees of CSC MCL 750.520, et. al. being more strict on crimes committed by them, but if a student is 18 years or older, and the action is consensual, there is no crime involved.  If any activity actually took place betwixt the two (which has not been shown; this could all have been fantasy), we should not automatically determine that he used his position to do so, or that it was his fault.  Jane Eighteen was at the legal age of consent, the alleged activity took place away from school, and she has a libido too.  He actually could have been victimized twice.  I've resubmitted my FOIA request to learn more about the situation, expressly stating for them to protect the name of the young 'victim' (which I have learned over the course of this farce, anyway), because in one way or another, she was victimized here.

[Willy]

I have yet to read anywhere that Johnson denied the charges or made any statement that he had been falsely accused. If I were him and did not have sex with the girl I would be telling everyone who would listen that I was being framed.