On September 2, 2011 Sixth District court Judge Michael J. Cuzzo denied Susan Thompson’s request to end her electronic home monitoring (EHM) so she could take better care of her son, as she stated in her petition to the court.
The Thompsons live several miles outside of Grand Marais and although her neighbors help with rides, her child can’t always get transportation to and from community/school activities, said Thompson.
Duluth attorney Christopher Stocke represented Thompson on August 3 in Cook County court. Stocke noted Thompson’s exemplary record while on probation and argued that her child was being harmed by her limitations to take him to events.
Cook County Attorney Tim Scannell represented the state. Scannell argued vigorously that Susan Thompson should serve her two-year EHM sentence (as she had agreed to do in her plea agreement) and not receive a reduction in time from her original plea. Susan and Kevin Thompson admitted to forcibly restraining, terrorizing, and sexually assaulting an acquaintance at their home over the course of eight hours in May of 2009.
In May of 2010, Susan Thompson pled guilty to aiding and abetting criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree, kidnapping, and false imprisonment. She agreed to serve two years of electronic home monitoring and 10 years of probation and pay restitution to the victim.
Her husband, Kevin Thompson, was sentenced for the same incident to serve two years at Northeast Regional Corrections Center (NERCC), a minimum-security facility outside of Duluth, and one year in jail after that. He could be released earlier if he successfully completes sex offender treatment, but aftercare will also be required. He must also serve 10 years probation after he is released from jail.
In his decision, Cuzzo wrote, “Of importance to this judge, who now steps in the shoes of the one who handed down this sentence and has since retired, is the reasoning expressed in sentencing Ms. Thompson. I have carefully reviewed the transcript of that sentencing, and find it significant that Judge Sandvik’s first comment after outlining the terms of the sentence was that he ‘was principally concerned about [the Thompson’s] minor child.’ He also recognized that this crime was violent and terroristic, and that the defendant was receiving a favorable disposition.
“The only way the favorable disposition (no prison or jail sentence) can be reconciled with the violent and serious nature of the offense was the judge’s concern for the child of the defendant. Clearly, it was with that child in mind that the defendant was sentenced to a minimal loss of liberty (house arrest as monitored by EHM), which allowed the defendant to continue to be the primary care provider for her son (who is also the son of the co-defendant, who remains in custody).”
Later in his brief, Cuzzo states, “The argument that the child is now the one harmed by the continued use of EHM deprecates Judge Sandvik’s gracious and merciful act toward the child of allowing his mother to continue to be his primary care provider, albeit with limitations on her ability to be involved outside the home. Because of the forgoing, the request to eliminate the EHM is denied.”
The judge noted that Ms. Thompson had received numerous letters from friends and family members to support her argument that continued EHM was harming the child, but said, “The court notes that the letters zealously advocate on behalf of the defendant as opposed to indicating that the child is in need of additional care. In light of that, and given the guardian ad litem’s testimony that the minor child is doing well, the guardian is released from further duties in this matter.”
Cuzzo ended by writing, “Based upon the defendant’s stellar record on probation, the court will be willing to consider release of the EHM when Ms. Thompson approaches the two-year period that was contemplated in the plea petition, assuming the defendant’s record on probation remains positive.”
Leave a Reply