Senior Cliff Satell pleaded guilty to five misdemeanors following a plea bargain in a case stemming from his possession of child pornography.
According to court documents, Satell was sentenced to 18 months of supervised probation and a suspended sentence of 90 days in jail. He does not have to register as a sex offender and will serve jail time only at the judge’s discretion if he violates the terms of his probation.
Satell was first charged in April 2009 with felonies related to obtaining and possessing material containing images of pre-teen and teen boys engaging in sexual activity. If convicted of those charges—second and third degree sexual exploitation of a minor—he would have had to register as a sex offender. Instead, Satell was convicted Feb. 9 of five counts of misdemeanor preparation of obscene materials for dissemination, which means that Satell intended to distribute the obscene materials.
“Given what he was charged with and assuming they could prove what they charged him with, this is a very good deal for him,” said James Coleman, the John S. Bradway professor of law. “He went from... very serious felonies that would require him to register as a sex offender to... misdemeanors that carry very little time in jail, that did not require him to register as a sex offender—that’s huge.”
Satell’s lawyer, William Cotter, did not respond to requests for comment. In a telephone interview, Satell declined to comment on his case.
A week after pleading guilty, Satell violated the conditions of his probation by testing positive for marijuana. When Satell’s probation officer, Quanda Edwards, searched his home, she found less than half an ounce of marijuana along with six bongs, a marijuana grinder, a smoking humidifier, a scale and drug trafficking notes, according to the violation report.
Under the terms of his conviction and probation, Satell is required to submit to warrantless searches of his person, vehicle and premises and is in violation if he downloads—or otherwise possesses—any type of pornography. He is not allowed to use illegal drugs and is required to submit to drug and alcohol testing at the direction of his probation officer.
After being arrested for violating his probation, Satell was released on $20,000 bond and appeared in court for a hearing Feb. 28. A month later, the court ordered Satell to enroll in and complete drug education and rehabilitation classes.
Mark McCullough, the Durham County assistant district attorney who handled Satell’s case, said the case and outcome are not typical. He added that the sentence could have been far more severe if the case had gone to trial because Satell would have been tried on the original charges.
“He could have gotten 100 to 165 months in jail,” McCollugh said. “Say he had gone to trial and been convicted, he would have qualified for probation and probably gotten it, but the suspended sentence would have been much higher.”
McCullough said Satell would have qualified for probation because this was his first offense.
The Chronicle previously reported that Satell was expected in court in December. McCullough attributed the delay to the nature of the plea deal and the negotiation process.
“Once in Superior Court, negotiations go on, and it took a while to negotiate and come to an agreement as to how to handle this case,” he said.
Satell is still listed as a student on Duke’s online phonebook and is still on campus. The Chronicle reported in November that Satell said Duke concluded its disciplinary process and that he was scheduled to graduate in May.
Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek declined to comment on Satell’s case due to student privacy rules. But she said the Undergraduate Conduct Board sometimes decides on students’ cases before the criminal justice system does.
Wasiolek said that in general, when a student is charged with a crime, the student can be temporarily suspended if he or she poses a threat to campus, but otherwise the conduct board addresses the matter.
“If the student is found to have committed a misdemeanor in the court, we don’t necessarily judge the allegations based on the way the criminal court system found them,” she said. “Evidentiary rules are different and the standard of proof is different. We hear the case based on the Duke Community Standard not on criminal law.”
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.