Saturday, July 28, 2018

Springfield Township man claims Ohio's sex offender parole law won't allow visits with son

Ohio's parole laws need to be reformed.

Springfield Township man claims Ohio's sex offender parole law won't allow visits with son
Paula Christian
6:00 AM, Jul 27, 2018

CINCINNATI -- A Springfield Township man filed a federal lawsuit challenging Ohio’s sex offender parole law as unconstitutional because it forbids him from seeing his 14-year-old son.

The Ohio Justice and Policy Center filed the lawsuit on Wednesday on behalf of a 50-year-old former high school teacher who is listed as John Doe in court filings.

In 2014, Doe was convicted of two counts of gross sexual imposition involving an 18-year-old female student at the school where he taught. He has no other criminal history, according to the lawsuit.

Doe served a three-year prison term and had regular visits with wife and his son. The family spoke on the phone nearly every day and sent letters and emails.

Now that Doe is out of prison, he is forbidden from moving back to the family home or having any contact with his son. He could not send his son a card or call him on his 14th birthday. He is not allowed to possess his son’s photograph, the lawsuit stated.

“Mr. Doe’s conviction made him subject to five mandatory years of what is known in Ohio as post-release control,” the lawsuit stated. “Though his offense did not involve a minor, the conditions of Mr. Doe’s PRC include a full prohibition on contact with any minors without the permission of his supervising officer.”

Now Doe is asking U.S. District Judge Michael Barrett for a temporary restraining order that would stop parole officers from enforcing the law, and allow him to live with his wife and son in their Forest Park home.

“Mr. Doe has no history of abusing his son and poses no risk to him … his son will be eighteen -- college-aged -- by the time his father is allowed to speak with him on the phone, send him a letter, or give him a hug as he did while in prison,” the lawsuit stated.

Doe is also at risk of getting a divorce from his wife of 26 years because he cannot live in the same house as his son.

“Mrs. Doe has been forced to choose between spending time with her husband … and devoting attention to her son … She feels guilty spending nights away from her son, so she does not stay overnight at Mr. Doe’s residence,” the lawsuit states. “Mr. and Mrs. Doe love each other, but Mrs. Doe is considering divorce because Mr. Doe cannot live with her or help her raise their child.”

Doe filed the lawsuit against his parole officer and parole supervisor, and a regional administrator at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s adult parole authority office in Cincinnati.

In order to see his son, a parole officer told Doe that he must apply for a visit “in a controlled setting” that is supervised by a parole officer at Doe’s financial expense. Doe is unemployed and struggling financially. And during the visit, he would not be allowed to embrace his child as he could in prison, the lawsuit stated.

His parole officer would not allow Doe's brother, a licensed social worker, to supervise weekly visits with his son. As a result, Doe has not seen his son for more than six months.

“Mr. Doe’s family has been torn apart as a result of his absence," the lawsuit states. "His son misses his father and is suffering from anxiety because of the hardship caused by Mr. Doe’s absence."

The lawsuit claims that parole officers have deprived Doe of his fundamental right to parent his son and have a spousal relationship as well as violated his right to due process.

Friday, June 29, 2018

Ohio House approves updates 'sexting' law related to minors

Still has to be approved by the Senate

Ohio House updates 'sexting' law related to minors
• JUN 27, 2018 AT 10:22 PM

COLUMBUS — State Reps. Brian Hill (R-Zanesville) and Jeff Rezabek (R-Clayton) today applauded the House for passing legislation they jointly sponsored that provides another option to Ohio’s courts when dealing with juveniles charged with possessing sexually explicit digital material, or engaging in “sexting” with a minor.

It was one of several bills OK’d today by the Ohio House of Representatives.

This bill takes into account the growing dilemma of juveniles who engage in “sexting” with other juveniles and the charges that may be filed by prosecutors by law. House Bill 355 prohibits anyone under the age of 19 from creating, distributing, or possessing sexually explicit digital material that depicts a minor through a phone or computer.

The law serves as an alternative option for prosecutors when determining whether to charge the offender with a felony, which has lifelong implications, or nothing at all. Offenders under the age of 19, and in which the victim was less than four years younger than the offender and over the age of 13, would then be eligible for a charge which carries with it a mandatory diversion program, which would cover a host of issues related to sexting, educating our youth about the dangers of doing so.

Provisions were placed in the bill to ensure that prosecutors can charge a more serious offense under qualifying circumstances if they want to pursue a heightened charge, rather than the diversion program.

Rep. Hill introduced the legislation after an incident in his district where a young man committed suicide after he faced potentially felonious charges from sexting with his girlfriend. Rep. Hill hopes the bill will give these individuals a second chance. As scenarios differ case-by-case, House Bill 355 will give prosecutors more options to consider the facts of what happened and seek an appropriate punishment.

“I’m happy to see this bill pass that will give young people a second chance when they have made a stupid mistake,” Rep. Hill said. “I do not condone the activity, but I don’t believe a young person should be a felon or sex offender as a result of a first offense for sexting.”

Rep. Rezabek utilized his knowledge of the juvenile court system while working on the legislation, and hopes to allow prosecutors to save the felony charges for the truly heinous individuals who are preying on juveniles, and possessing or distributing child pornography.

“I’m very proud the House has passed this piece of legislation,” Rep. Rezabek said. “Along with Chairman Hill, we were able to see his vision through in helping juveniles who made a mistake to fix and correct their actions.”

The bill will now go to the Ohio Senate for further consideration.

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Ohio House passes bill to expand acts requiring registration

This is a stupid proposal, but Schaffer's "gateway" comment is worse. This is why even minor alterations of the law left unchecked is dangerous.

Child flashers will have to register as sex offenders under bill passed by Ohio House

By Laura A. Bischoff, Columbus Bureau

The Ohio House voted 80-0 for a bill that steps up penalties for people who masturbate in view of or expose themselves to children. These kiddie flashers would be required to register as tier 1 sex offenders for 15 years.

The ACLU of Ohio opposed the bill, saying expanding the sex offender registry in ineffective at best and harmful at worst.

“There is no evidence these policies and laws keep people safer or reduce recidivism,” said Gary Daniels of the ACLU of Ohio in written testimony. Exiling sex offenders and making it more difficult to find housing and unemployment increase the chances they will commit another offense, he said.

A panel that reviewed Ohio’s criminal laws recently recommended that court hearings should be held to determine if someone should be required to submit to tier one reporting.

People on the tier one reporting list cannot live within 1,000 feet of a day care center or school.

State Rep. Tim Schaffer, the bill sponsor, said in written testimony that he was shocked to learn that a man who exposed himself to children on passing school buses in Fairfield County wasn’t required to register as a sex offender.

He noted that the bill is written so that only offenders who knowingly expose themselves for sexual gratification would be targeted — not a college student urinating in an alley, for example. Schaffer said law enforcement told him that public indecency is sometimes a gateway to more serious crimes.

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Reagan Tokes Act passes Ohio House

I am wary of any bill named after a person, but admittedly, I haven't even heard of this bill until today.

Reagan Tokes Act passes Ohio House

PUBLISHED: 06/20/18 10:37 AM EDT
UPDATED: 06/21/18 10:30 AM EDT

A bill named after murdered Ohio State student Reagan Tokes cleared a major legislative hurdle.

The Ohio House version of the Reagan Tokes Act was passed 83-3 during a floor vote Wednesday afternoon.

“This is huge day, certainly thrilled that this received such bi-partisan support,” Rep. Kristin Boggs, D – District 18 one of the primary sponsors of the bill.

The bill is named after Ohio State student Reagan Tokes, who was kidnapped, raped and murdered in February of 2017 by Brian Golsby, a convicted sex offender, who was convicted in March and sentenced to life in prison.

Prosecutors say Tokes was abducted in the Short North area as she left work from her job at Bodega restaurant and bar.

Golsby had been released from prison just three months before Tokes’ death in November of 2016 and was wearing a GPS ankle monitor at the time of the crime. Police records show Golsby committed a string of robberies in the weeks – and even the day before – Tokes’ murder.

Golsby had served six years in prison for attempted rape and robbery and acquired 52 sanctions while behind bars. Despite evidence he was not rehabilitated, state law required him to be released. The Tokes Act seeks to change that.

House Bill 365 would dramatically change how violent felons are sentenced to prison and how they are watched once they are released.

The legislation followed a series of 10 Investigates reports that exposed failures of the state’s parole system to closely track Golsby and others.

“You've done a great job -- you and your station have analyzed a lot of this stuff and pointed out examples of where they have not been monitored and we have victims throughout the state because of it,” Rep. Jim Hughes, R – District 24, told 10 Investigates Wednesday.

The legislation also has two companion bills in the Ohio Senate.

SB 201 was voted out of the Senate in May. It seeks to create indeterminate sentencing in Ohio, which would allow judges to sentence violent felons to a range of years in prison rather than a finite amount of years.

The idea is to incentivize inmates to behave while in prison. If they behave, there’s a chance their sentences could be reduced.

If they act out – as Golsby did – they could receive a lengthier prison term.

Under current Ohio law, offenders cannot be given additional for misbehaving while incarcerated.

SB 202 attempts to address the other issues raised in the legislation – creating a statewide GPS database for offenders, forcing the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to create a re-entry program for hard-to-place offenders and reducing the caseload burdens for parole officers.

HB 365 encompasses all the components of both SB 201 and SB 202.

The major difference – HB 365 strips all the power from ODRC when it comes to the issue of determining if an inmate should be released early from prison. HB 365 calls for a sentencing judge to make that determination. SB 201 would leave the power with ODRC to determine if that the inmate is going to be released early but allows a judge to veto the decision.

The Ohio Public Defenders have spoken in opposition of HB 365 bill saying that it will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars and force the state to build more prisons. The group has said that SB 201 is more palatable.

10 Investigates reached out to ODRC for comment but did not hear back before news time.

The Tokes family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against ODRC alleging that they were negligent and failed to closely monitor Golsby.

Attorneys for the state have responded to that lawsuit – asking that it be dismissed – and stating in part that Tokes’ death was caused "by Brian Golsby. And Brian Golsby alone. DRC is not legally responsible for what he did."

Monday, March 26, 2018

CSU QB isn't on SOR because he was convicted as a minor

This article discusses whether registered persons deserve the right for second chances. Derek Logue of was also cited in this story.

CSU QB isn’t on sex offender registry because conviction came as minor
By Josh Sweigart and Max Filby - Staff Writer

Posted: 5:00 a.m. Saturday, March 24, 2018

Central State University football player Trent Mays was convicted in 2013 along with a Steubenville High School teammate of raping a 16-year-old girl who was incapacitated by alcohol. But because Mays was a juvenile at the time, his conviction does not appear on the sex offender registry.
If not for widespread publicity of the crime, Mays’ conviction would be unknown to many of his fellow students, and possibly to the school.

Central State officials would not comment on their decision to allow Mays to enroll and play football, citing federal laws protecting student privacy.

Mays is one of 15 registered sex offenders in Greene County and 43 in Montgomery County who are not on the public registry because they committed their crimes as juveniles. Many of them are now adults.

State law requires juvenile offenders to report to the sheriff’s office where they live, but not where they go to school.

TOM ARCHDEACON: Trent Mays learning to make right decisions at CSU 

Greene County officials say Mays is the only juvenile offender who has reported a current college address in Greene County and none have registered a college or university in Montgomery County.

Ma’lik Richmond, who was convicted along with Trent Mays for the Steubenville rape, faced intense public pressure when Youngstown State let him on their team last year. The school said the team wouldn’t let him play after an online petition called for his removal from the team. Richmond ended up playing following a settlement with the school after he filed a lawsuit.

A pitcher at Oregon State quit the college’s baseball team after a newspaper revealed he was charged with molesting a six-year-old girl when he was 15.

RELATED: Sex offender says Ohio’s registry ‘destroys lives,’ should be abolished

“He went from being a major league draft possibility to being not drafted at all and probably won’t ever play baseball his entire life,” said Derek Logue, a registered sex offender in Cincinnati who now runs a website advocating for abolishing the registry. “His life is ruined.”

In response to this incident, Oregon State this year enacted a new policy requiring all prospective students to self-report if they have prior convictions or sex offenses. Similar policies exist at some, but not all, Ohio schools.

RELATED: Student twice charged and acquitted of rape wants to put past behind

Logue doesn’t believe any new laws or restrictions are needed in Ohio schools.

“You have these laws that dictate every aspect of how we live our lives…and the laws just seem to pile up year after year,” he said. “In time it begins to restrict our ability to become a productive member of society.”

Registered Citizen says Ohio’s registry ‘destroys lives,’ should be abolished

It is not often I get a news article just on my own personal struggles with the law. Of course, they added Butler County Prosecutor Mike Gmoser as the "Big But" to the story, but I'm just going to leave a couple of articles about him HERE and HERE and leave it at that.

Sex offender says Ohio’s registry ‘destroys lives,’ should be abolished
By Josh Sweigart and Max Filby - Staff Writer

Posted: 4:00 a.m. Friday, March 23, 2018

Derek Logue is a member of one of the few groups it is socially acceptable for people to openly hate. He knows online comments on this story will likely refer to him in the most vulgar terms, and no one will come to his defense.

But Logue said people like him are being unfairly discriminated against, and he thinks something should be done about it.

Logue is one of 17,236 adult registered sex offenders in Ohio, a group whose criminal histories are accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

Offenders must list with the local sheriff’s office the addresses of where they live, work, volunteer and go to school — information, along with their photograph, that is put into an online database. Depending on the severity of their crimes, they have to register between once a year for 15 years or — in the most serious cases — every 90 days for life.

Many also face restrictions on living too close to a school or daycare.

‘I served my time’

While some people have called for more public notification and oversight of offenders, Logue believes the entire registry should be taken down.

“The registry destroys lives,” said Logue, who will spend the rest of his life on the registry. “It has destroyed my life.”

Logue was convicted in Alabama in 2001 of sexually abusing an 11-year-old girl when he was 22, and spent three years in prison. When he was released, he moved to Cincinnati and was required by the state of Ohio to register as a “predator.”

Logue unsuccessfully challenged that designation in court, saying it is a higher label than Alabama considered his offense.

“I committed a crime. I served my time,” he said. “It’s one of those things you certainly regret and wish you could take back.”

Logue said the registry attaches an unfair label on individuals.

“If you’re a registered person people assume you’re a pedophile, that you’re a predator, that you’re just going to rape and molest at the first opportunity,” he said. “And that’s simply untrue.”

‘Absolutely essential’

Butler County Prosecutor Mike Gmoser doesn’t have much sympathy for Logue’s argument, saying public distrust “is the price people pay when they commit crimes.”

“We need to track these people,” he said. “I think the sex offender registry is absolutely essential and something that perhaps a sex offender should’ve thought about before he engaged in something he presumably knew was illegal and against all social norms.”

But Logue said the harm done by the registry goes beyond public embarrassment. Because his home address is listed on a publicly searchable database, he said he faces danger every time he walks out his front door or rides his bike to the grocery store.

“It’s a very real possibility,” he said of someone taking it upon themselves to do him harm.

Forced to move

Logue is sitting in an armchair of his ramshackle apartment in northern Cincinnati a few yards from a railroad line that routinely shakes the building as trains go by.

He considers himself lucky to have a place to live. He has been homeless. He was previously forced to move because his apartment at the time was too close to a vocational school. He said it once took him 130 phone calls over seven months to find a landlord willing to rent to him.

“I would call and ask if they’d take me. I would get not just a ‘No’,” but ‘Aw, hell no!’”

He said he is on disability because of depression and anxiety.

“The day I got my disability was one of the happiest days of my life,” said Logue, who has a bachelor’s degree but said he could only get low-wage jobs that would never last more than a few months because customers or co-workers would see him on the registry.

“You’re only going to be (able to hold a job) until someone finds out you’re on the list and makes an issue out of it,” he said.

‘Balancing act’

Logue now runs a website advocating for reform to Ohio sex offender laws. There’s no registry for murderers, or drug dealers and gang members, he argues, so there shouldn’t be one for sex offenders who he says are statistically unlikely to re-offend.

“We’re focused so much on this public registry and we advertise it as a ‘tool’ to help people look for potential threats in society, but people do not use the registry for that purpose,” he said.

“First of all most people don’t look at the registry, and second of all, even when they do look at the registry, they don’t look at it because they’re necessarily concerned for their public safety, they look at it because of salacious reasons.”

But Gmoser said public safety is outweighed by any inconvenience people on the registry may face.

“It’s a balancing act and I fall in favor of society that has not engaged in crime and just wants to live a peaceful, safe life in a peaceful, safe neighborhood,” he said.

Sunday, March 11, 2018

Ohio Supreme Court to review Bellevue obscenity case

From the Fremont News-Messenger

Ohio Supreme Court to review Bellevue obscenity case

Daniel Carson, Reporter Published 10:45 a.m. ET March 11, 2018

TOLEDO - A legal issue raised by a Bellevue man convicted of pandering obscenity will be decided by the Ohio Supreme Court

In a decision issued Friday, the Ohio 6th District Court of Appeals in Toledo also vacated the four-year prison sentence of Glen Gilbert, 76, of Bellevue, remanded his case to Sandusky County Common Pleas Court, and ordered the state to pay the costs of Gilbert's appeal.

The appeals court ruled that the common pleas court did not inform Gilbert of the residential restrictions for sexual offenders, as required in Ohio Revised Code 2950.034, rendering his guilty plea involuntary.

The appeals court noted that its decision conflicted with a decision on sexual offender residential restrictions and notifications made by the 8th District Court of Appeals in State v. Creed.

The court certified Gilbert's case for review and final determination by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Sandusky County Prosecutor Tim Braun said Friday that all appellate court districts have the different ability to create law.

When there are conflicting appellate decisions, it is up to the state supreme court to review and decide the matter, Braun said.

In Gilbert's case, the 6th District Court of Appeals ruled that defendants needed to be notified of sexual offender residential restrictions, he noted.

"These are all things they (defendants) want to be advised of during their plea," Braun said.

Gilbert originally faced four felony charges after police responded to an internet post seeking a sexual encounter with a teen girl.

Gilbert posted on the website Craigslist and believed he was communicating with a 13-year-old girl when Bellevue Police Detective Eric Burt responded to the man's request for a sexual encounter with a teen, according to police.

Gilbert pleaded guilty in September 2016 to one felony count of pandering obscenity involving a minor.

In a separate ruling on Friday, the Ohio 6th District appeals court denied an appeal  involving Gage Villarreal, 20, of Gibsonburg.

The Sandusky County Common Pleas Court sentenced Villarreal to 18 months in prison in May on a telecommunications fraud charge after the man admitted he had been involved in an online banking scheme to take money from a credit union.

Villarreal appealed the trial court's decision.

The appeals court ruled that Villarreal's due process rights were not violated by the trial court and that the Sandusky County court did not err in imposing cost of confinement and court-appointed counsel on Villarreal.

Thursday, March 1, 2018

A proposed bill would restrict public access to visual sex crime evidence. Not everyone agrees with it

This bill will make false allegations and false convictions harder to detect.

A proposed bill would restrict public access to visual sex crime evidence. Not everyone agrees with it.
Michael Pitman  Staff Writer
 12:00 a.m. Thursday, March 1, 2018

Ohio Rep. Wes Retherford’s bill designed to protect a crime victim’s rights could soon be headed for an Ohio House vote.

The bill, called the Victim’s Protection and Privacy Act, would prevent photos, videos and images of a victim of a sexually oriented crime from being accessed via a public records request. The bill was prompted by Retherford’s conversation with a Hamilton police detective.

These pieces of evidence were protected throughout a court case, including the appeals process, until the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in Caster vs. Columbus. In a split decision, the court said these pieces of investigative evidence could be released once the initial court case concludes.

House Bill 451 would prevent that. The House’s Government Accountability and Oversight Committee voted 11-0 on Tuesday to move the bill out of committee on for a full vote by the House. Retherford, R-Hamilton, believes it could be up for a floor vote next week.

“With the vote (on Tuesday), we are one step closer to ensuring victims of sexual violence are not subject to being re-victimized,” he said.

The bill is supported by the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, and the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence.

“Our members do occasionally receive public records requests for the types of records described in your bill,” wrote Steve Hall, assistant executive director for the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, to Retherford earlier this month.

“Many prosecutors have expressed to us that they make every effort to deny such requests. Others feel that there is currently no authority to do so. All agree that it would be very beneficial to have a clearly stated exclusion.”

While the Ohio Public Records Law provides transparency “critical to a functioning free society,” Camille Crary, director of legal services and policy with the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence, said, “this loophole infringes on the rights and privacy interest of any person who happens to end up the victim of a sex crime.”

However, the bill is not supported by all. Dennis Hetzel, president and executive director with the Ohio News Media Association, said this bill “is not an easy one to oppose” because no one wants graphic content such as photos or videos released that could be used to re-victimize crime victims.

But there’s nothing in state law — even after the Caster decision — that says this would happen, and it has never occurred “to anyone’s knowledge,” Hetzel said in his testimony to the Government Accountability and Oversight Committee.

“Requesting records and receiving records are two different things. This is why there is no documented case of an offender receiving graphic photos after a case is closed,” Hetzel said.

“If such a request were made, it would be denied, and it would be upheld based on factors such as past Ohio Supreme Court decisions on the rights to privacy and the ‘catch-all’ exemption in our open records law that keeps material exempt if it is made secret by other portions of state and federal law.”

Retherford said the bill allows the legislature to be “proactive” to a possible situation “instead of being reactive to a scenario that could happen.”

Friday, October 27, 2017

Ohio judges can dismiss sex charges against kids under 13, justices rule

The Ohio Supreme Court makes another good ruling.

Ohio judges can dismiss sex charges against kids under 13, justices rule

By Randy Ludlow
The Columbus Dispatch

Posted Oct 25, 2017 at 11:18 AM
Updated Oct 25, 2017 at 11:24 AM

Juvenile court rules empower judges to dismiss some sex charges against children under age 13 charged with molesting a child close to their age, the Ohio Supreme Court declared Wednesday.

The court was divided on the Franklin County case, voting 4-3 to overturn a decision by the Franklin County Court of Appeals.

The 2013 case involved a 12-year-old boy charged with three delinquency counts of gross sexual imposition for conduct with a boy who was nearly 10 years old.

A Juvenile Court judge dismissed the charges, finding that court rules gave him discretion to end prosecution and order treatment in lieu of taking formal action.

The judge found that the two boys were close in age and that since no threat of force or violence was involved, it would be arbitrary to pursue charges against one child, but not the other.

Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien appealed the ruling to the court of appeals, which reversed the judge, leading to the Ohio Supreme Court ruling.

In the majority opinion, Justice William M. O’Neill wrote that a juvenile court’s concern may not always center on determining if a crime was committed.

“As we have recognized in the past, holding a formal proceeding to determine whether a child was motivated by innocent curiosity or by culpable sexual gratification may be as bad or worse for the children involved — and for society — as was the act itself,” his opinion said.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Terrence O’Donnell agreed with O’Neill. Justice Patrick F. Fischer concurred in a separate opinion.

Justice Sharon Kennedy wrote the dissent, joined by Patrick DeWine and Judith French.

Kennedy wrote that juvenile court rules do not give judges the authority to dismiss a formally filed charge and that cases can be screened by judges for alternative treatment prior to the filing of formal delinquency charges.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

YSU Football player successfully sues University for right to play football

The man served his time, let him play. And play he has, though just a little.

Convicted rapist Ma'lik Richmond remains at Youngstown State as school settles suit
by Ben Kercheval

Oct 3, 2017

Ma'lik Richmond, the Youngstown State football player who was convicted in the Steubenville High School rape case of 2012 in Ohio, will be allowed to remain on the roster and play football for the program. This decision was reached when lawyers representing Richmond and Youngstown State filed a motion to dismiss the federal lawsuit filed by Richmond against the school.
The case was dismissed with prejudice. As such, Richmond cannot bring forward the same complaint. Attorneys for Richmond argued that the school could not bar him from playing so long as he followed school rules.
"What is most important is that Ma'lik moves on," said Susan Stone, one of Richmond's attorneys, in a statement obtained by the Associated Press. "This was never a case about money. This is a case about Ma'lik being given all the opportunities afforded a student of good standing."
"This has been a complex situation," a Youngstown State statement read. "While the settlement agreement may cause concern for some, we believe it is in the best overall interest of the university, students and the community."
Richmond, a defensive lineman, served less than a year in juvenile detention for his crime. He attended two schools after his release and joined YSU as a walk-on this past year. The lawsuit claimed that Richmond and his family spoke with YSU president Jim Tressel and coach Bo Pelini about joining the team, and that both were supportive.
However, in August, when news of Richmond's arrival got around, a petition was created to remove Richmond from the football team. The university then said that he would not play for the team but would remain part of the program and lose a year of eligibility. Richmond quit the team before filing his lawsuit in September. A federal judge granted a temporary order saying Richmond could not be barred from playing while the case was being reviewed unless, as Football Scoop noted, the coach (Pelini) opted not to play him. 
However, Pelini played Richmond in garbage time of a 59-9 blowout of Central Connecticut State on Sept. 16. "You have to be happy for the kid," Pelini said. "This isn't about me." Richmond has not played since.
Richmond's father, Nathaniel, was shot and killed in August by a probation officer in Steubenville when he opened fire on a judge, who returned fire.