Jayru Campbell Plea Deal
Jayru plead guilty to a misdemeanor, aggravated assault. He has to undergo psychological counseling, take anger management classes and apologize for body slamming the school security guard.
I think it was a tough case for the prosecution to pursue since there is a lot of sympathy for Jayru (judges and juries tend to feel bad for those who come from rough backgrounds) and it would be tough to win a felony conviction that could potentially send him to jail for up to 10 years.
From Jayru's perspective, this puts an end to this chapter and hopefully, he has learned his lesson that you can't assault another person, period. I hope Jayru learns that everyone makes mistakes, but it's how you react and learn from your mistakes that makes you into a man.
It's a good result for MSU as well, who may look again at pursuing Jayru (and in my opinion, I feel that he will end up at MSU down the line).
Under a plea agreement, Cass Tech football standout Jayru Campbell will be able to avoid a criminal record if he is able to complete a youth probation program, a Wayne County Circuit Court judge ruled Friday.
Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Timothy Kenny agreed to a plea deal between Campbell’s attorney and the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office to sentence Campbell under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act in the case in which Campbell admitted to assaulting a school security guard in a body-slamming incident Jan. 22, which was caught on video.
“It doesn’t have anything to do with you being a good athlete,” Kenny told Campbell on Friday.
The judge told the teen it is because of his family situation and background.
Campbell, 17, had been charged with felony assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, which was dropped under the plea agreement. He instead pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, a misdemeanor. Under the original charge in the case, Campbell could have been sentenced up to 10 years in prison.
His MSU scholarship was revoked. I doubt he will be playing for State or any other B1G level program after this.
I can't believe I am going to say this but I give props to MSU for pulling their offer.
I think they had to at the time when he was facing a possible felony conviction... but imo, they might change their mind now...
I think they had to pull it because of the video. It's pretty graphic, a very violent, aggressive assault. If it's just a police report, it's easier to digest.
Jeremy Hill sends his regards.
Why? Because they bowed to pressure from the media and mouth-breathers online? The kid is a junior in high school. He very well may turn out to be a good person. If that incident wasn't recorded, it wouldn't have become a sensational story and he'd probably still be on track to going to MSU. I usually stay out of these kinds of threads because I detest the culture of "Whatcha gonna do. Well. . .WELL" people see fit to put on college coaches based on whatever makes the easiest PR.
He may turn out to be a good person, but he doesn't appear to be a good person right now. I don't believe Sparty is in possession of a time machine.
I guess I offended a number of those mouth-breathers.
Sorry you lost me on that one.
Yea, I meant to say that's my opinion. I feel that they can work it out. I think the fact that it's only a misdemeanor and that it could be expunged would basically make him "recruitable" again.
From a different 2015 QB. I don't think they'd take 2, but I know nothing about MSU and their recruiting. I'd speculate Jayru would want to look elsewhere too with the competition there.
I didn't make it up. It's rumored, but not offically confirmed.
It was presented as fact..thats why so many people are asking where you saw that.
I hadn't heard this. Is there a link for this info?
The link was at the bottom of my post. Story is from Detroit News, but it's in other papers as well.
I think he means about MSU pulling his scholarship. Rivals still lists him as an MSU commit and a quick Google search didn't bring up anything about his offer being revoked.
Scout does not show him as a MSU commit. I'm not sure what it is based on.
Is this actually true? Haven't been able to retrieve it from any reliable-type sources. I thought they were withholding a decision...
It seems like his scholarship being revoked is more of a rumor than acutal fact. A few sites are saying "probably revoked" but nothing concrete. Note that MSU has already received a verbal from a different 2015 QB, FWIW.
I know that there were a flurry of stories that it had "probably" happened from less than reputable sites such as one run by a certain teenager, but those came out in January when this first happened and there haven't been any such stories recently that I have seen. I believe that the NCAA does not permit coaches to comment on the status of unsigned recruits, so it seems like if there was anything to ever report on this front, it could not be definition come from MSU itself.
I think we will find out soon enough how true the rumors are, simply by him either going on visits or remaining firm with his original commitment.
Lets be gentle now...
I don't think that's accurate. My wife is a prosecutor and their office doesn't push hard when the defendant has a sympathetic story. They almost always offer a generous plea in those circumstances and the public defender will typically counsel the defendant to accept.
The ones that they crack down on are repeat offenders and defendants who refuse the pleas.
I'm pretty sure we have prisons bursting at the seams with poor, black defendants who come from rough backgrounds.
They are most likely repeat offenders. A poor, black defendant who commits simple assault as a first timer would be let go on probation.
Juries won't put a teenager away for 10 years because he hit a guy. That is a dog of a case if you have to argue that. In my opinion, this is one of those cases that appears to be open and shut to lay people, but tough to win in the eyes of most prosecutors.
Note: This is my personal opinion and does not represent any legal conclusions or analyses with respect to the subject matter or any other matter.
But if I recall correctly, juries don't sentence in Michigan. Judges do. So even if this went to a jury for a determination of guilt, the judge would determine the sentence.
And that sentence would be subject to sentencing guidelines that your wife would be well-familiar with. The sentence here would likely be imposed in a separate phase of the trial, while the jurors would be long gone.
Yes, judges sentence. I don't know how it works in Michigan, but most states have sentencing guidelines (i.e., min/max; a range) so juries would typically know what they're dealing with in terms of the repercussions of their decision.
Being a juror is a tough job. If you take it seriously, as you should... there is a lot riding on your decision.
Yes, being a juror is a tough job. If the juror takes her job seriously, she considers the facts and determines whether the evidence factually supports the conviction. If she takes her job really seriously, she does not consider the potential sentence at all, since she is simply a trier of fact. So if the jurors really take their jobs seriously, this is a very easy case.
Also, in Michigan (at least several years ago), the jurors are absolutely not informed of the potential sentence or sentencing guidelines. That's not their job or their concern - they are simply triers of fact, and are supposed to not consider potential sentecing implications. (They are instructed, IIRC, to disregard the sentence - my memory may be faulty on this.)
I get that some jurors will be sympathetic toward younger defendants. But I think you underestimate the power of the VIDEO as evidence. And there are a bunch of eyewitnesses that saw this go down.
As I say elsewhere, you're entitled to your opinion. But in my opinion, this is as much a slam dunk as you'll ever see short of an unrecanted confession. (And you'll note at no point did anyone on Campbell's side come close to trying to concoct a defense, even in the press.)
Considering that you've taken a keen interest to this case, I'm sure that you're much closer to the facts than I am. I appreciate your insight and your experience. I agree that jurors should be triers of fact, but I feel that in practice, they do take sentencing implications into account in making up their mind (implicitly). You may be right that this is a slam dunk case, but then again, I guess I'm just spoiled by TV justice where 1 hour segments always end with unrecanted confessions. :)
Guidlines for felonies. Depending on the misdeameanor charge / court / judge. The court will refer the case to the probation dept. for a PSI report that makes a reccomendation for the punishment.
Here, since this was more of a 'high profile' case, they likely had Cobbs plea to make sure things went smoothly.
Also, Frank Murphy (the third circuit criminal court) is a bit terrifying for an outside attorney, but once you get the hang of it, it a pretty decent place to practice.
EDIT: this was a reponse to MLaw06
He was put on a HYTA, which is about the most common thing for someone with a first crime under 21. Nothing is unordinary about the sentence. That said, DPS is typically VERY strict about kicking kids out for the year for committing a violent act. Him not being suspended for the year, which would essentially be an expulsion, is a bit telling.
DPS legal counsel typically has hearings for each student facing such a charge, so he may have had that happen already, but my guess is that he helps the team win thus he gets to stay and play.
Yes, but Everybody Murders is correct in stating that a jury would not be told what the sentencing guidelines would be. As trier of fact, the jury's only job is to determine whether or not certain facts were proven by the proseuction beyond a reasonable doubt. Was each required element of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, and if no affirmative defenses were proven, then the jury's role is at an end and they should convict. By the same token, his background and family situation have nothing to do with whether or not those elements have been proven, and should not be taken into account by the jury. The length of the sentence and the mitigating circumstances should be left for the judge to consider and to address at the sentencing hearing.
As someone working in justice reform I can tell you that your opinion is statistically innacurate. First time offenders that are minorities and from poor backgrounds are significantly more likely to be punished than first time offenders from better backgrounds.
180 school days, too. Meaning he shouldn't be eligible to return until after next years football season. Doubt he'd be back in school already if he wasn't the school's star QB.
From respected, reputable RCMB legal correspondent "Stonewall55":
Still, this somewhat smacks of the "overcharging" epidemic that PD-types are always crying about, whereby DAs trump up exaggerated charges that they know, or at least should know, that they have no way of proving in court, in hopes of coercing a favorable plea. It's unethical, but extremely hard to prove.
As someone who worked at a DA's office, and who is obviously a die-hard MSU fan, I can't really form an unbiased opinion as to whether the DA in this case was acting unethically.*looks up DA, realizes she went to scUM*
WOLVIE SCUM SHOULD BE DISBARRED.
I normally wouldn't respond to any poster on RCMB, but let's be clear here... prosecutors don't care what school you went to, are going to, or whatever. No prosecutor is going to make a decision or charge you based on allegiance to a college or a football program. That's just nonsense.
Don't fall into the trap, the N in RCMB stands for nonsense!
I agree with the OP that it is usually best to allow a juvenile to plea down a matter like this. There's no benefit to society to having the young man's life ruined by a really stupid mistake. The security guard was not permanently injured, which is a blessing for both him and Jayru Campbell.
But I really disagree with this statement by the OP:
I think it was a tough case for the prosecution to pursue since there is a lot of sympathy for Jayru (judges and juries tend to feel bad for those who come from rough backgrounds) and it would be tough to win a felony conviction that could potentially send him to jail for up to 10 years.
The video evidence here is astoundingly damning, and it's really unusual to have such a clear-cut case of aggravated assault. Campbell picked up a security guard and slammed him (nearly headfirst) onto a hard floor. There is video of the assault, and it's not really prone to varying interpretations. And also, there were a boatload of eyewitnesses.
That's not a tough case to win. That's about as easy a case to win as you'll ever find. Whatever drove the result here, I really doubt it was that it would be tough to win a felony conviction here.
In my personal opinion, juries have a hard time convicting a first time offender to a felony assualt (especially knowing that it may lead to 10 years in prison). Even if most of the jury can get themselves to do it, there will be that one guy or lady in the jury that has made up their mind that it's just too much for a momentary lapse in judgment (or whichever argument the defense construes it as). Then the prosecution risks a "not guilty" judgment on a felony and the defendant will walk.
Taking a step back, there is a bit of "game theory" to this as you would rather offer a plea and get a "bird in hand" rather than risk striking out on a felony conviction.
There are many factors that go into whether the prosecution seeks to pursue a charge, but the fact that you have clear video evidence does not always lead to a "guilty" conviction.
Seriously, you're entitled to your opinion. But having had a bit of experience in this sort of work a while ago, the folks in the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office would have a field day with this sort of case. The video shows Jayru Campbell rushing up to the security officer, picking him up, and slamming him to the floor. There's no fight, there's no danger to Campbell. He just body-slams him. Seldom have I seen as clear-cut evidence of guilt as what I saw in the phone video.
Two other factors to take into account: (1) the victim here is a peace officer - the Wayne County jury (which would draw from all over the county, not just Detroit) is just as likely to be protective of men and women in uniform as they are of a young man; (2) the jury is not instructed as to the penalty that will attach to the crime - they are just asked to consider the facts in the case. And if a juror is savvy enough to know that a crime is a 10-year felony, they're probably savvy enough to know that first-time offendors almost never get anything close to the maximum sentence.
If an assistant prosecutor told me they were afraid to lose this case, I would suggest to them that they consider a new career and mock them (gently - if I liked them). If that assistant prosecutor said they were amenable to a plea agreement to try to salvage a young man's life, that's a different kettle of fish.
One way to think about this is to pretend that you're Jayru Campbell's defense attorney. What is your defense strategy? Go with the Chewbacca defense?
would likely be from 0-11 months in jail, although there would be a sigificant issue about his prior record. the judge can pick any number he/she wants in that range, but must cite 'substantial and compelling' reasons to exceed the guidelines. what is not disclosed to the public is his juvenile record - if he has one - but those offenses are counted in the scoring guidelines.
as mentioned above, there are no scoring guidelines for misdemeanors. this deal is very standard and appropriate from what i have gathered about the case.
He knows right from wrong...
I'm not saying he should be in jail and he's a felon, but I'm also not going to feel sorry for the guy.
Grow up. Man up. Learn. Make this world a better place.
It's a lot easier said than done.
MSU is still a perfect fit for him. He hasn't been in school for a while, so he's likely used to not going to class. As we know, you don't have to go to class at MSU...alas peas and carrots.