« "Disquieting Discretion: Race, Geography & the Colorado Death Penalty in the First Decade of the Twenty-First Century" | Main | "What We Learned From German Prisons" »

August 6, 2015

Teen placed on sex offender registries after encounter with girl claiming to be 17 to be resentenced

According to this new CNN piece, there seems to be a notable new legal development in a notable case of a teen facing extreme sex offender restrictions after a seemingly not-so-extreme sex offense.  The piece is headlined "Judge reconsidering case of teen on sex offender registry," and here are the details:

A 19-year-old Indiana man convicted of a sex offense after a teenaged girl lied about her age on a hookup app may get a new sentence. The judge in the case, Dennis Wiley, did not make a decision Wednesday, but he agreed to consider Zach Anderson's request to be resentenced, meaning that Anderson could potentially be taken off the sex offender registry.

Anderson met the girl on the dating app "Hot Or Not." The 14-year-old girl lied about her age, claiming she was 17, which made having sex with her a crime.  She lived in southern Michigan, close to Anderson's parents' home in Elkhart, Indiana.  Anderson was given a 90-day jail sentence, five years probation and placed on both Indiana's and Michigan's sex offender registry for the next 25 years -- the same registry as child rapists, pedophiles and predators.

Anderson and his lawyer, Scott Grabel, had asked a court in Niles, Michigan, to vacate Anderson's sentence, alleging that prosecutors broke the plea agreement, the defense attorney said.  Grabel, who accuses the prosecution of not staying neutral during the sentencing of Anderson as required under the agreement, described the judge's decision Wednesday as a "significant step."  Wiley is expected to make a further ruling in about a week.

"In the long run, I'm confident we're gonna get this thing fixed," the attorney told CNN. Both the girl's mother and the girl herself had earlier appeared in court, to say they didn't believe Anderson belonged on the sex offender registry....

"Our goal is to get this case resentenced in front of a different judge, because the law mandates if the prosecutor violates their plea agreement, then it should be sent to a different judge for possible resentencing, or if we want to withdraw the plea and go to retrial that may be an option, as well," Grabel told CNN before the court action Wednesday.

Anderson's attorney is also striving to get the entire case dismissed. "I don't certainly speak for the public in general, but the comments I've read nationally think that his whole life shouldn't be ruined by his decision to go on a date and obviously have sexual relations with that person, especially when that person in all honesty misrepresented their true age," Grabel said.

As a registered sex offender, Anderson can't access the Internet, go to a mall or linger near a school or playground. His parents say because he has a 15-year-old brother, he can't even live at home any longer....

Anderson's case has stirred much debate about the one-size-fits-all sex offender laws that treat all offenders the same whether they are serial child predators or teens who've had sex with a girlfriend. His family has started a Facebook page, called "Justice 4 Zach," and has been very vocal about what they call the injustice of the sex offender registry. "He's obviously not a sex offender," Anderson's father told CNN, "I mean when there's a consensual act, to have one person labeled as the offender and the other person as a victim ... It's hard to swallow."

A former judge in a nearby town said the sex offender registry has to be changed. "If we caught every teenager that violated our current law," said former Judge William Buhl, "we'd lock up 30 or 40% of the high school. We're kidding ourselves."

According to The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, there are 850,000 people on the sex offender list and about a quarter of them were juveniles when they were sentenced, but the records are not broken down by the severity of the crimes they committed.

Some recent related posts:

August 6, 2015 at 07:27 PM | Permalink


Where is the defense here?

The defendant should have pressed charges against this hussy for rape by deception, then sued her in torts for all his legal costs, his incarceration, his reputational damages, and his future pain, suffering, loss of income, loss of licensing, rental, and other opportunities.

To deter.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Aug 6, 2015 9:44:42 PM

Rape by Deception in Michigan.

Michigan– Penalizes intercourse obtained by concealment. (Arguable as to whether a lie is considered concealment.) (v) When the actor, through concealment or by the element of surprise, is able to overcome the victim.

750.532 Seduction; Archaic Law but still on the books- Any man who shall seduce and debauch (degrade, corrupt) any unmarried woman shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 5 years or by fine of not more than 2,500 dollars; but no prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.


Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Aug 6, 2015 9:55:53 PM

I wish that reporters were more intelligent in their reporting.

"As a registered sex offender, Anderson can't access the Internet, go to a mall or linger near a school or playground. His parents say because he has a 15-year-old brother, he can't even live at home any longer...."

My understanding is that whether he registers or not (in Michigan) is out of the hands of the sentencing judge, and is determined by the nature of the crime he pled to. His access to the internet and or going to a mall or being in the presence of minors were set as probation terms by the sentencing judge.

How about we just stop the absurdity which makes the law look like an ass (and makes it earn the disrespect it deserves) and stop the SO madness! The 9 baboons in black pajamas could have ended it in Doe vs. Smith but (accepting the lies of the SG at the time (now the supreme baboon)) ignored all common sense and definitions and needed extremely disingenuous mental gymnastics to conclude that registration is non-punitive.

Posted by: albeed | Aug 6, 2015 10:17:35 PM

Albeed. Do you believe my cousin, Santa, will deliver a toy because you have been a good boy, and will do so coming down your chimney at midnight? If you do, you are more likely to be correct than thinking a vile feminist lawyer will ever end the sex ofender witch hunt of the productive male.

Because these vile feminist lawyers and their male running dogs have dealt them selves absolute immunity from any accountability, restorative violence against them is fully justifiable in formal logic.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Aug 7, 2015 12:54:41 AM

"... but the records are not broken down by the severity of the crimes they committed."

Both the users of these registries and its listees should consider this condition to be outrageous Sex Offender Registry negligence. A class action lawsuit for that constitutional tort under Section 1983, should be filed.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Aug 7, 2015 6:21:29 AM


I am a believer in extremely limited uses of tort law to correct the ills of society, that is how the "lawyer profession" has sucked the blood out of society and survived like a parasite.

I agree with your usual comments about the "vile feminist lawyer and their male running dogs" in general. No, it will take courage to stop the lies and madness of those who profit from the SO business, such as the NCMEC which has never recovered a single victim as far as I know. They too are like a certain animal at the troughs of society.

Posted by: albeed | Aug 7, 2015 7:31:38 AM

There are too many man-made codes, rules, and regulations that are unjust and unfair in our judicial system. My point being that it relys on "truth & honesty" which is becoming more and more rare. Morals, respect and common sense are almost completely gone. Families have been torn apart, causing further disfunctional families. Our forefathers were aware of corruption possibilities and an accused was given the right to face their accuser (not a prosecutor) and a jury of their peers (community neighbors). No victim - no crime!

Posted by: LC in Texas | Aug 7, 2015 2:56:19 PM

The story is a lot of mush which is difficult to understand. The Court should vacate the plea and begin at ground zero. The victim can be charged with a juvenile offense. She was porking without a license. If she was too young to have sex then the act was not sex. Her parents should be held accountable for her use of the internet. Both the guy and the victim should be given hundreds of condoms. Three generations of idiots are enough.

Posted by: Liberty1st | Aug 8, 2015 2:42:57 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB