AA.com: Frank Clark Waives Preliminary Exam; Pre-Trial Hearing Set for Sept. 11th
Basically says that he said nothing and waived the preliminary exam. The pre-trial hearing is on Sept 11th. The judge issued a no-contact order with an unspecified male who is likely the owner of the laptop.
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:24 AM ^
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^
Is a no-contact normal procedure or could this indicate that this situation wasn't a simple misunderstanding? I am guessing that since the pre-trial isn't until Sept. 11, he will be out until at least then. I can't imagine Hoke would let him play until this is resolved.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:37 PM ^
I'm not an MGoLawyer, but I believe no-contact orders are typically only given to people who would normally contact each other, people who know each other in some respect. I could be totally wrong about this, but I certainly don't think it suggests it's more than a misunderstanding.
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^
when it's alleged he stole a laptop? Why isn't there an additional charge of burglary?
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:44 AM ^
in never charging Michigan players with every charge they can possibly bring? Take Furman as an example. Oh, wait.
This has been my single biggest question. How does one steal a laptop and not be charged with stealing a laptop? Methinks there is more to this than meets the eye.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:13 PM ^
In Michigan, the charges of "home invasion" and "burglary" are pretty much interchangeable.
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:42 AM ^
Unspecified male? Is Stockwell co-ed now?
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:43 AM ^
That was my question when this first happened and I never got an answer. I feel old.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:28 PM ^
I responded to that post, or at least one of the posts asking that. It is co-ed.
Gender ain't what it used to be.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:09 PM ^
Woah. So you're saying Stockwell is no longer... stocked... well.
Nice play.
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:45 AM ^
It was closed for renovations during the I believe 2009-2010 year (don't quote me on that) and re-opened the next year as a co-ed dorm. It's mostly singles, a lot of sophomores that stay in the dorms live there.
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:50 AM ^
Don't know the date it happened either, but the sophomore thing is largely driven by the fact that they have a Residential College there...it's called something like Sophomore Year Experience.
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:51 AM ^
Who is Frank Court?
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:17 PM ^
Home invasion includes entering a home/residence without permission and committing a theft while in there [there are other ways to commit this crime as well].
Just stealing a laptop [some type of larceny] is a lesser crime than entering someone's else house and then stealing something from the house.
Home invasion-2nd degree can have rather serious penalties/punishments. The waiver of the preliminary exam does not tell you for certain whether Clark intends to fight the charge, or whether he will be looking to take some sort of plea, either to a lesser offense, or maybe under a first offender program
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^
There are a variety of reasons a defendant, usually on the advice of counsel, will waive a preliminary examination. It's quite common, so don't read much into it.
One possibility is that a plea deal is being negotiated with the prosecutor. If this is a first offense, some sort of pre-conviction diversion might be in the works which could result in the charge being dropped if he keeps his nose clean for a year or two. It also depends on the victim's attitude. A deal could be made before the start of the season. That's probably a best case scenario.
Worst case scenario is that the case will proceed to trial, he will be convicted and spend some time behind bars.
All this is speculation. Time will tell. Let's hope his teammates are learning from his mistake.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:44 PM ^
If no settlement is reached before September 11th, I can't see how Clark plays before mid-season, at best. During his indefinite suspension, he's not practicing. Even if everything was nicely tied up at the September hearing, you'd have to think he'd have to practice for a couple of weeks before he could play -- and that assumes any suspension would have an end date by then.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:49 PM ^
In Michigan people under a certain age are sometimes eligible for a diversion program called Holmes Youthful Trainee Act. I would suspect that is what being discussed between the prosecutor and the Defendant. Assuming the Defendant doesn't have a criminal history this is how alot of cases of young adults are resolved. Home Invasion 2nd Degree is a very serious charge and can end up with significant jail time if convicted as charged. Usually a prelim is waived when some type of settlement is likely. I can't see this getting close to being resolved prior to the season a the legal process moves pretty slow in Circuit Court.
According to the court website he was only being charged with the second degree home invasion charge, so perhaps he entered the dwelling but failed to actually take the laptop. Or there could be an issue as to ownership of the laptop, in which case he is guilty of entering the dwelling with the intent to commit a larceny but the actual larceny charge is still being sorted out?
No idea without more details, but definitely reads like a weird issue.
If you enter someone's dweilling without permission and steal something, it is HI2. It usually becomes an HI first degree if the dwelling is occupied at the time of the theft or if the dwelling is unoccupied but the Defendant is armed at some point during the transaction. That is probably an over simplification, but in this circumstance, HI2 means he alledgedly went into someone's dwelling that was unoccupied at the time and took something that didn't belong to him.
Cut him loose. Jesus, do you people really think if this kid pleads guilty to this crime we should let him anywhere near this team? What kind of example would that set?
At that point, how do you define the cost to him, the team, and the university.
The legal system will have to run its course here. But if he did, indeed, steal the laptop, I can't imagine him being kept in the program. How can you trust the guy next to you to have your back when he is a thief?
I hope that it was, indeed, a misunderstanding, or that Clark owned the laptop in the first place and went there to get it back. In that case, I would hope to see him back on the team. Essentially, Clark is getting what amounts to a forced redshirt year, so he is definitely paying a price no matter what the outcome.
I don't see Clark playing at all this year, at best. Even if he pleads it down, that won't happen until mid-Sept, and surely Hoke will levy some sort of penalty that would be imposed after the court date. Once you're into October with no game time and greatly lessened practice time, it would make sense to red-shirt him, assuming he stays on the team at all.
If I were Hoke, and it turns out that Clark did indeed purloin somebody else's laptop in reality, I'd kick him off the team for good, regardless of what the plea-bargaining might result in. This is Michigan, fergodsakes.
I don't think kicking him off the team and ruining, what is likely to be, his best shot at living a productive life is a good message to send to the team either. He made a horrible decision and it was his first as a wolverine so give him a chance to demonstrate that he learned his lesson. He's like 18-19 yrs old. He'll be a better person after this, and if not, then Hoke will prbly give him the boot.
I agree with this. I've always been a believer of second chances followed by tough consequences for screwing up again. Everyone makes dumb mistakes, but doing again means you didn't learn from it.
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:12 PM ^
but I don't think I would ever kick a player off a team for a first offense; If it is serious enough to go to jail then they are already punished, if it isn't enough for jail time, then I could see giving someone a year off to get themselves together
You just don't throw a life away at the first mistake. I believe this firmly across the board, but I must reiterate that doesn't mean a player can't lose a whole year and have to earn their way back on the field, it just means that if I thought enough to recruit them, count on them, and counsel them then I feel like I owe it to give them a second chance.
jdon
So you think Dantonio was right in letting Winston Grant back on the team after he almost killed someone by bashing his head in? Someone who he had no quarrel with? It was his first offense that we knew about. He did his time in jail. Grant was shown to be a volitile person who had no control over his emotions.
I think, like most things, a coach needs to take in the circumstances of the offense. If Clark thought it was his or it was some misunderstanding (like MRob), than a second chance is warranted. If the crime was premeditated and he walked into the dorm room and knowingly stole someone's laptop, he doesn't deserve to be on the team. IMO, that type of behaviour is unacceptable. If you don't know home invasion is wrong, what other things don't you know you're not suppose to do?
I think Hoke is dpoing the right thing. He's finding what the court knows and, presumably, making a decision from that.
i don't think your anecdote supports your position...
Win at all costs, much?
Anybody who deliberately and purposefully steals a laptop does not have the value system necessary to play football for Michigan.
Period.
It's not an isolated "decision," it's someone thinking they are bigger than the program and the law for that matter.
And I don't have a problem with us not knowing everything. We don't know what Hoke knows. If nothing else, I rather suspect he knows more about dealing with young athletes than most of us, and I'm comfortable with that too.
I see your point. Getting kicked off the team almost had disastrous effects on his life. He did end up becoming a productive,moral, individual as many troubled teens do (including myself) but getting kicked off the team did more to derail that than help it.
Edit: this was intended to be in response to Jon06's comment.