[UPDATED] Mike Dozer Tweets Nude Photo While On Trial For Rape, Reveals New Charges Filed Against Him

Posted April 13, 2014 by with 67 comments

dozer trial[4/14/14 1:23 a.m.—This story has been updated below.]

As exclusively reported here last month, bareback gay porn star Mike Dozer was released on bail and is awaiting trial on statutory rape, reckless endangerment, and a variety of other felony charges stemming from his encounter with a 14-year-old boy last year. The next pre-trial action (see summary above) is scheduled for May 7th.

As you’ll recall, Mike Dozer (legal name Christopher Steele) met his alleged victim after trading nude photos via social media. So, what’s the first thing Dozer is doing now that he’s out of jail? Using social media to post more nude photos of himself, of course. From this afternoon:

Twitter : mikedozerxxx: Been saving this one all winter ... 2014-04-13 17-48-38

“A kick off of what’s to come”? I’m sure everyone—including prospective jurors—can’t wait to see what Mike Dozer will do next.

Hopefully Dozer’s lawyer won’t be too upset that his client is behaving so brazenly on social media, because after all, what else is there to do while waiting to go on trial for raping a 14-year-old boy than post nude pics of yourself on Twitter?

Also, Mike Dozer really appreciates your support.

supportAND:

Here are some people who responded to Mike Dozer’s tweet. They seem great.

fans

Be more careful next time!

UPDATE:

Late last night, Dozer (or someone speaking on behalf of him, since the tweets are all in 3rd person) took to Twitter again and announced that separate federal charges have been filed against him. These are in addition to the state charges in Pennsylvania, and it now appears that Dozer will be facing two trials.

dozer1

While the state of Pennsylvania is prosecuting Dozer on rape and reckless endangerment charges, the United States will be prosecuting him in federal court on different charges. Given what we already know about the case, Dozer being charged under a federal law like the Mann Act means that he (allegedly) transported the minor across state lines for the purpose of illegal sexual acts. As you’ll recall, Dozer lives in Delaware and the 14-year-old boy was in Pennsylvania.

As far as the child porn, the FBI undoubtedly did a search of Dozer’s home and computer after his arrest in December, at which point they must have found something to constitute the charge.

dozer2dozer3The federal trial is set for June 2nd, while the state trial is set to proceed on May 7th. Based on my limited understanding, the state and the feds usually coordinate so that the trials aren’t running concurrently, don’t they? What if he’s found guilty by both courts and given two separate sentences? If any of you are lawyers, feel free to explain how this is going to play out.

Oh, and if any of you have money, Mike Dozer would like some.

dozer4

  • James Withers

    While he’s only charged, everybody is innocent until the trial ends, always good to be quiet until the jury decides. Sure the DA is thanking Dozier for making his/her job slightly easier.

    • zach

      Rape cases are incredibly hard to prove, and prosecutors usually only go to trial when they’ve got a very strong case. It’ll be interesting to see the evidence they present.

      • Odetofear

        yeah but don’t you feel like in statutory cases (especially ones with a 14 year old), and this also being a gay statutory case that biases are going to stack against him?

      • A.C.

        Zach, I am not sure how you know what you know about sexual assault cases, but your statement about how difficult they are to prove is somewhat true. I actually found that prosecuting statutory rape was on the whole comparably easier than other forms of sexual assault, yet difficult nevertheless. In this case though, where the state allows for a mistake of fact defense (which though offered is a terribly difficult defense to prevail with), the Prosecutor must be thoroughly convinced of the strength of his case and his ability to overcome that defense in deciding to move forward.

      • Jace

        This is a statutory rape case; all that needs be proven is that he had sex with the kid, ‘consensual’ or otherwise. His only defense would be that he truly believed that the kid was over 18 and can back it up.

        • Mike fan

          Clearly str8upgayporn has not done there homework and there never was a exclusives str8upgayporn was not the first to report this story. also the child porn charge goes with the Mann act charge (no child porn was found)
          do your investigation please before throwing more allegations out there.

    • sxg

      While yes it’s true innocent until proven guilty, this case looks extremely obvious that he knowingly slept with someone underage. Who drives over 60 miles for some strange when there’s a whole city of Philadelphia full of it in half that distance? Only someone who is looking for something very particular!

      • LB

        Absolutely. He drove out to the kid’s family home in the suburbs. He didn’t meet him in a college dorm or in an apartment where he lived with roommates (and where you’d expect to meet someone young but legal). Dozer met him in a context where you would expect to meet an underage kid who still lived in his parents’ home. That in itself should raise red flags as to how much Dozer knew about the plaintiff’s age.

  • sxg

    Mark Henderson does some great photoshoots, but there are so many models that are unrealistically photoshopped, and Dozer is one of them. He’s never had a defined and slender stomach like he does in those pics.

    And I lol’d when I first saw some of the responses he got “Be careful next time!” lol!

  • GN

    Whether he’s actually guilty or not I cannot say, but it’s obviously he’s not taking it very seriously. That attitude alone, will sink him in court.

  • Tom

    I’m not a lawyer, but I think I would tell my client to avoid social media, especially posting a nude. All he needs is a 14 year old sharing it with his/her friends. Poor judgement.

  • Cosmic

    He’s not a very bright man is he Zach?

  • Zealot

    Stoopid is as stoopid does…

  • Terry

    I cannot say that it’s his worst decision but, yes, given the situation, posting nude pics it’s a very stupid thing to do ! He should be more … CAREFUL !!! *facepalm*

  • sxg

    This case could very well be easily proven. If Mike Dozer did have sex and infected the kid with HIV, then the HIV strain in the kid will have DNA coding that will match that of Mike Dozer’s.

    • Kid tested neg I’m pretty sure.

      • sxg

        Not sure whether you’re joking or serious. We’ll only be sure once the trial begins and evidence is entered.

        • NickDC

          Regarding the HIV window period? I couldn’t be more serious; it is a real thing and those timeframes are precise.

          • sxg

            um no, as you can see I’m responding to Aaron Hudson not you.

            Aaron claims that he’s “pretty sure” the kid tested negative for HIV. There isn’t an article referring to any HIV testing except when Zach reported a couple of months ago that one of the charges being brought up to Dozer is a reckless endangerment charge, which is a common charge for those who pass along HIV to unknowing victims.

          • I read numerous blogs some with different sources than Zack and can’t always recall exactly where i read something.

          • MartInHeart

            That charge led me to that conclusion too. Sad. As an adult if you contract HIV, while devastating, you can move on, but at 14…highschool is going to be rough.

        • How could that be interpreted as a joke? I knew someone would come back with the 3 month window thing, its been three months since the sex took place so I would hope the kids gotten a second confirming test.

      • NickDC

        When the test was administered in relation to the sexual encounter is important to establish because the HIV window period is up to 3 months if the testing is done via the rapid test (most common test) or up to 3 weeks if an RNA test was used.

  • Zoompietro

    Zach already touched on this but anytime a prosecutor takes a case to trial anywhere in this country (other than Florida); they do it with the belief that they can get a conviction. Prosecutors are in many ways the most powerful people in the judicial system because they choose to try or not try a case at their discretion. Even during the case if they feel like they can’t get a conviction they can offer a plea deal ( really the only thing that defense attorneys do in this county is get charges pled down) and still consider that a win. It’s not unusual for prosecutors to have a winning case percentage of 90 or higher and a defense attorney to have a losing case percentage in that same percentile. The fact that the prosecutors went after Dozer was bad sign number one, once you’re in front a jury the odds are already against you. Bad sign number two is that they adjusted the charges, a lot of ppl would probably look at that as a win for Dozer but I don’t think it is. The prosecution most likely did that to strengthen the case they were presenting to the jury, having concise charges usually results in the jury coming back with the verdict that the prosecution wants. Overcharging is a great way to lose a case and it looks like these guys are making sure to avoid that. Bad sign number three is the feds filing a separate case. Much like prosecutors; the fed doesn’t try cases that they don’t think they can win. Usually when the fed files charges; someone is going to prison. Something like 95% or 96% of people that face federal charges end up being sentenced. Since Dozer doesn’t have a codefendant; I’m guessing that someone is him. At this point his attorney should be telling him to request to serve the state and fed sentences consecutively in the event that he’s found guilty.

    • A.C.

      Your are correct sir, that is what I tell my cousins and the black and latino young men in my neighborhood. They idolize Johnny Cochran and Jose Baez, but they rarely recognize that it is Prosecutors which hold the discretion and have the better success rate in terms of convictions. The federal rate of conviction is 97% overall and for sexual based crimes it is interestingly, 97%. Mr. Steele’s actions both then and now, could not be more ill advised to put it mildly. One correction, you said that his attorney should ask that his sentences be served consecutively, based on your statement as a whole, I think you meant to say concurrently.

      • Zoompietro

        You’re right I meant to say concurrently but had a little slip up lol.

        • A.C.

          Believe me, when you are as attractive as you are, you are allowed to make those mistakes every now and then. Sorry if I offended by making that statement, but I have personal rule – at least 10 impromptu compliments per day. I HAD to extend one to you.

          • JoshChicago

            Careful A.C. made sure you check Zoom’s ID before going any further with this. :-)

          • A.C.

            Now that was the laugh of the morning! I am trying to kill time waiting on a client, and responding here along with your quip has really settled me – thank you for that!

          • Zoompietro

            Thanks 😉

  • I’m guessing that he does not have any no social media stipulations on him while hew is free on bail unless he is blatantly violating them,. Since he earns a living in adult entertainment he might have gotten the ok to do things related to that so he can earn $$$ for his lawyer and stuff. The federal case will be the one with the most cushy jail time if convicted as federal prisons are like a country club compared to the state lockups. Maybe he will get sent to the same place that Tag Adams is serving time then they could be cell mates, and fuck buddies.

    I’m still holding judgement until his trial, i would want the same treatment from others if it were me but i would never be so stupid as to do jail bait like he did.

  • I doubt anyone who follows him on twitter would make it onto the jury one of the two sides would probably ask the judge to dismiss a juror who identified themselves as a fan or follower of his on social media because they might not be impartial as a result. I’d love to see him face Judge Judy!

  • NG212

    You in danger, gurl…

    This is not looking good. And when he is sent to prison, he better lie about his charges.

    I don’t know how he’s going to sleaze his way out of this one. Hopefully he enjoys the prison dick, even if it is filled with herpes and hepatitis.

    • John Henry

      I think the guys in prison should be more concerned about what they’d catch from this douche.

    • jcd

      lie? those guys knows everything

      He won’t survive jail

  • JoshChicago

    Well, the possession of child pornography is not good and should really dilute his claim and defense of being set-up by the kid who allegedly lied about his age to begin with.

    As far as the two trials running concurrently with one another – as you stated one is beginning may 7 and the other June 2. So they would only be running concurrently if the first trial with the State runs into and through the June 2 Federal trail date. Perhaps what we don’t know is that it will be a quick trial (they know these things before scheduling most times) and will be finished prior to June.

    With that all said, it would seem plausible, since the defendant is out on bail, to argue for and seek a delay in the federal case to grant time to prepare for trial.

    Is Mike Dozer on any kind of suicide watch?

  • NickDC

    Has anyone considered that the child pornography charges could simply be photos that the victim sent to this scumbag prior to the two meeting in person?

    Regarding the trial dates of May 7 for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Steele and June 2 for United States v. Steele: These trial dates will both likely be significantly delayed by a variety of motions that any competent lawyer would file to challenge evidence, attempt to get charges reduced, be granted a delay in order to review all of the discovery provided by the prosecution and a number of other tactics that will result in pushing the dates for both trials.

    I would suggest the most conservative estimate for an actual trial to commence in either case is April 2015.

    • JoshChicago

      I don’t think it would matter where the child pornography came from or who it was of. Child porn is child porn. If it’s in your possession, you’re in trouble. I agree with the delay motions you mention. I would not think our system would burden any defendant with concurrent trials with charges this serious.

      • NickDC

        First of all the US Government and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are absolutely correct to prosecute all child sex crimes to the fullest extent of the law.

        That being said, it is equally important to understand that, although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. This right further solidified by the US Supreme Court in Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895).

        If Steele is guilty of the crimes he is accused, I hope that he is given the maximum sentence possible and he is forced to serve the State and Federal terms consecutively. Child sex offenders are the worst of the worst.

        However, if the Federal charge is solely based on a photo of that the victim sent to Steele at a time that Steele believed the victim was 18 years old then it is an example of prosecutorial overcharging and the Federal charge should be dismissed. However if there is one iota of evidence of child pornography other than the photo sent by the victim that is discovered on Steele’s computer then he should be fully prosecuted for this crime.

        I understand that this comment may sound wishy washy but I’m equally as passionate about the harshest penalties possible enacted against those guilty of child sex crimes and the importance of upholding and extending the presumption of innocence to all individuals charged with any crime.

        • JoshChicago

          I don’t think you’re being wishy washy at all, however I’m not sure why you consider IF it was just the photo transmitted via the social app, why that would be prosecutorial overcharging in your mind.

          • NickDC

            According to the Pottstown Mercury:
            “Steele also allegedly sent nude pictures of himself to the victim and received explicit pictures of the victim, police said.”
            Full article: http://www.pottsmerc.com/general-news/20131225/del-man-charged-in-limerick-sexual-assault-case

            I’ve not used Jack’d so I’m not sure if one can upload private photos they just took and send them to an individual using the app or if that would occur via email; the article’s use of “send” leads me to believe it was done via email but I honestly don’t know enough about Jack’d to definitively make that claim.

            However, that is all moot if we consider that Steele believed the victim was 18 years old when the victim sent nude photos of himself to Steele. If Steele had no reason to believe the victim was under 18 years old when he received the photos and if NO other child pornography was discovered on Steele’s computer or mobile device, then yes it is absolutely a case of prosecutorial overcharging and that charge should (and likely will) be dismissed.

          • JoshChicago

            why do you believe that Steele believed the kid was 18?

          • NickDC

            The Jack’d terms of use clearly state:
            “You warrant to the Company that: You are 18 years of age or older (21 years in places where 18 years is not the age of majority) and all information and details provided by you to the Company (including on registration as a user or member) are true, accurate and up to date in all respects and at all times”
            From: http://www.jackd.mobi/#terms

            Every user of Jack’d has to confirm that he is over 18 years old in order to join and use the site. The Jack’d terms of use provides the user with a reasonable expectation that others using Jack’d are also over 18 years old.

            Underage individuals lying about their age in order to join gay dating apps is increasingly becoming a problem both in the US and abroad. Here is a recent story from the BBC highlighting this disturbing trend: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/26039692

            One has to ask why isn’t the corporation that distributes the app using age verification tools which are readily available. Additionally, why is their no liability on the distributor of the app for failing to verify the age of every user?

          • A.C.

            The defense of mistake of fact is available to him in Pennsylvania (though it is hardly a successful defense by the numbers), but it is not available to him as a defense on the Federal level. Though mistake of fact is a defense to most federal crimes, it is not listed in the Mann Act statute and therefore all the Feds would have to prove is that he was in possession of illicit pornographic materials that he elicited from the minor through the internet to prove the charge. Mr. Steele’s presumptions as to the young man’s age then is irrelevant, though I am sure that his attorney will argue otherwise.

          • NickDC

            @disqus_cjOibhZbOR:disqus given that the terms of use of the app contain clear language which provides the user a reasonable expectation that all other users are also 18 years or older, how is Steele’s presumptions regarding the age of the victim irrelevant?

            Also, if you might read my other comment which cites these terms I am curious to learn from a legal perspective why the corporation that distributes the app is not liable and, from a corporate perspective, why do the makers of Jack’d, Grindr and similar apps not use readily available age verification software to provide every user of these apps a safer experience?

          • A.C.

            The reason that his presumption concerning the age of the minor is irrelevant is because that presumption forms the basis for a defense that he cannot avail himself of in federal district court. Believing that the minor was not a minor is the defense of mistake of fact. Unless federal statute allows for that defense it cannot be used in Federal Court and as the Mann Act statute does not provide for such a defense he cannot raise it to defend against the charge. The defense is available in Pennsylvania though, but as I said, by the numbers, it is not a particularly successful defense.

            As for the question of why app makers like the ones that you cite are not held liable, allow me to share a joke/bit of wisdom with you that I share with my students – because lawyers have not become involved. Furthermore, verification will not solve this problem. Age verification software not as reliable as you would think and as a result will not effectively deter young users. The only way to be “safer” is to date the old fashion way (wow, I am in my early thirties and I am using the term “old fashion”, how sad) and or employ precautionary screening measures that can better insure that the individual you are dealing with is of age. The outfits connected with these apps I do not believe should bear much more responsibility than what they do now. Great talking with you!

  • A.C.

    Since the Federal Government is considered a separate and distinct sovereign it has the ability to prosecute cases a part from the state government without triggering the 5th amendments prohibition against double jeopardy. It is also important to note that separate sovereigns (which could be two or more states or the federal government and a state) can charge a defendant with separate but related offenses stemming from a single incident. In situations like these, the general rule is that whichever jurisdiction (state or federal) has physical custody of the individual first will prosecute first – this is known as primary jurisdiction and the sovereign which prosecutes second obviously has secondary jurisdiction. Although there are exceptions to this rule, it appears that the rule will hold in Mr. Steele’s case. Once and if he is convicted he will be turned over to the other jurisdiction to answer the charges that have been filed against him in that jurisdiction.

    Once and if he is found guilty in both jurisdictions things become more than a bit complex. Specifically, the Attorney General delegates authority to the Bureau of Prisons to compute the federal sentence imposed while Mr. Steele is under the primary custodial jurisdiction of the state. The Bureau of Prisons determines when the sentence commences (18 U.S.C. section 3585(a)), any prior custody credit to be issued (18 U.S.C. section 3585(b)), the projected release date of the defendant (18 U.S.C. section 3624(a)), and the defendants place of imprisonment (18 U.S.C. section 3621(b)). The Federal District Court Judge MAY NOT award credit at sentencing, so the judge in this case cannot grant him mercy in terms of sentencing once he is found guilty. Any credit that he will receive will be computed AFTER he begins his sentence. Most importantly, Mr. Steele cannot receive double credit for pre-sentence detention time. That means that if convicted, Mr. Steele cannot receive credit for the time in which he was imprisoned awaiting arraignment and or awaiting release on bail. It also means that he cannot receive any credit for the time he served awaiting the start of his federal trial.

    Mr. Steele will in all likelihood serve a concurrent sentence for this crime (though it could very well be consecutive depending on the severity of the offense). That means that the Attorney General will designate whatever state penitentiary he is assigned to as the place where he will also serve his federal sentence (18 U.S.C. section 3621(b)). Though he will likely begin serving his sentence in state penitentiary when he is brought to trial on the federal charges (the state court judge could postpone sentencing until the conclusion of the federal trial though not probable), the beginning of his federal sentence (if he is convicted) would be made retroactive to the start of his state sentence, again IF he is given a concurrent sentence. Mr. Steele CANNOT receive credit for time spent serving a state sentence or, as stated above pre-sentence detention time in the state jurisdiction. He can argue for credit for the time served in state penitentiary in a round about way by asking the federal court judge for a sentencing adjustment, but in Pennsylvania he is not likely to receive it, particularly in light of the Penn State matter and the ongoing Priest abuse matters in that and Philadelphia county. Worse for Mr. Steele is that the US attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is Zane Memeger, while he will not be personally prosecuting this case, his attorneys are highly, highly sensitive to cases like these and I am fairly certain, from personal experience, (having tried civil cases against his attorneys) that his attorney will be putting on a full court press in this matter. It will not be easy or pretty for him or his attorney – I hope the latter is up to the task. It also does not surprise me that he is asking for donations, his attorney’s fees are going to be sizable to say the least.

    As for the charges themselves, the charge for child pornography does not necessarily mean that he had a cache of various children or teenagers on his computer. It is more likely that the young man in question sent him photos of himself that are of a prurient nature. That alone is sufficient for conviction under the statute and what I believe is more likely the case in terms of the evidence. The facts are that Mr. Steele traveled to the young man’s home for illicit sexual activity if I recall correctly. For that reason, I believe that he is likely being prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. section 2251(a) of the Mann Act. This was a 1978 amendment to the Mann act that federally criminalized child pornography. The statute makes it clear that if Mr. Steele induced, coerced, enticed, encouraged, or persuaded a minor to engage in any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of
    producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of
    transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct he is to be punished per section (e) of that same portion of the statute provided that he knew or had reason to know that
    such visual depiction would be transported or transmitted using any means
    or facility of interstate or foreign commerce. Conviction then would be relatively simple because the young man likely sent the pictures of himself through the online “hook-up” site Jack’d, which uses the internet, a channel of commerce.

    It seems somewhat odd that the Federal Prosecutor would become involved unless the state is being cautious. Because Mr. Steele is afforded the mistake of fact defense on the state level, there is a possibility that he could prevail at trial with that defense (though the Police maintain that he knew of the young man’s age). The federal statutes provide for no such defense to the crimes charged on that level thus all but insuring conviction in either one or both jurisdictions. If convicted under 18 U.S.C. section 2251(a) Mr. Steele will be fined AND he will serve a term of no less than 15 years and no more than thirty for his crimes. Remember that the federal prosecutor has a 97% success rate in cases like these, so the stakes for him could not be higher. In short, he will have to pay what will be a hefty fine and he will serve a minimum of 15 years in prison. What a terrible fate for one thoughtless, careless encounter. I will be handling a matter in that same Courthouse around the time of his federal trial. I think that I will sit in and observe. I hope that answers you questions Zach. Let me know if you have any more.

    • JoshChicago

      Wow! Thanks AC for that keen insight.

  • McM.

    I kind of pegged Mike Dozer as the type of guy with a distorted view of reality because he’s handsome, well built, and has a big dick. Since Dozer is a minor celebrity there are no shortage of men who will support any dumb thing he says or does so they can win his approval and bump up the infinitesimally minuscule chance to fuck or form a relationship with him.

    The twitter responses confirmed my suspicions.

    I primarily see blanket support for the attractive/sexually desirable when it’s heterosexual men replying to the media feeds of women, but it’s not surprising to witness simp-like behavior among gay men.

    • JoshChicago

      If you’re profiling sexual child molesters based upon physical characteristics such as being handsome, well built, and having a big dick, then I think you need to re-examine your bias.

      • McM.

        The characteristics were brought up because I believe they factor into why some men on social media respond in support of Dozer in spite of what he does and has been charged with.

        Any bias I expressed was against those who allow attraction to override reason.

        • Zoompietro

          You’re right, Jodi Arias is a prime example of what you’re saying. She had tons of supporters simply because she was good looking.

  • Sorry Zach. But not engaging in this witch-hunt with you. Most prosecutors are over-zealous, self-righteous assholes not subject to even the smallest amount of reproach, scrutiny or professionalism. So piss off.

    • JoshChicago

      your four twitter followers will appreciate you choosing them, over this place, I’m confident.

    • Zoompietro

      I don’t see how it’s a witch-hunt on Zach’s part because he’s not vilifying Dozer or saying that he’s guilty at all. All he’s doing is updating us on issues pertinent to the case. I’d be a witch-hunt if Zach was constantly saying that Dozer was guilty and needed to be locked up or something like that. The word “witch-hunt” is really misused in situations like this.

  • Todd

    Damn it ! I cannot support the Dozer Defense Fund because I’ve already allocated all of my 2014 charity money to Brent Corrigan’s Daddy & Son website start up. And I’m still unsure what ever happened to my 2013 Send Seth Knight To London contributions !

    • Zoompietro

      I really can’t believe the nerve of that bitch to ask people for money. He’s most likely going to prison either way, so people should just save their coins.

      • JoshChicago

        OR, throw some coins here! (for entertainment purposes only)

        http://www.gofundme.com/8c0w8c

        • Zoompietro

          Wait will he really go if the goal is reached? I’d donate if Zach’ll really go lol.

          • JoshChicago

            so would I lol

        • Pascal

          $2.000 sounds like a lot of money! The best price on Expedia for an 18 days stay comes out at $1.600, with direct flights, double bed in a smoking room (so Zach can party).

          I was thinking more along the lines of a road trip. Where were you planning on putting him up? Shouldn’t a motel be enough? Or did you include the escorts in that goal as well?

  • jcd

    All the prosecution needs to show is the kid was underaged at the time of the sexual contact. A guy in Florida got caught screwing two underaged guys he met on Craigslist, one lied about behing legal, the state attorney said not knowing the real age is not an excuse. The guy is serving time right now

    This dirtbag has HIV, adding on top of his other troubles. He’s done for. He’s going to jail and there they don’t take lightly to kiddy fuckers, he’ll get maimed or killed in short order.

    I’d almost bet this won’t go to full trial, if it does it will be stacked with moms who’ll drop the hammer on him in no time.

    he’s finito

    • Kalcen

      Yea cause that make sense. Lets not punish the underage person for lying about their age, ie: purposefully allowing someone to commit a “crime” based on their lies. That makes sense.

  • cael
    • zach

      That’s not sentencing. That’s when his state trial is supposed to start (which has been delayed and delayed for months).

    • Kalcen

      I keep trying to find some sort of up-to-date news source on this but every search I try gets me information from February of 2014. Where are you getting your information?

  • BlogZilla

    Is this guy the dumbest brick in the wall or what?