News File Photo

ALPENA ― Court appearances via videoconference could hurt a defendant’s chances of getting a break from a judge, a state court said during its examination of an Alpena court case.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that Alpena’s 26th Circuit Court acted unfairly when it sentenced an Alpena man who appeared in court virtually, even though that sentencing happened during a state-mandated lockdown because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The appellate court weighed in on appeal by Andrew Swoffer-Sauls, in March 2020 found guilty by an Alpena County jury of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl in his home.

According to witnesses, Swoffer-Sauls, now 22, and a minor tried to make the girl take pills, kicked and hit her, and touched her intimately after forcing her onto a bed in late 2019.

Judge Scott Pavlich, retired former judge of the 53rd Circuit Court who presided over the trial, sentenced Swoffer-Sauls to 38 months to 10 years in prison.

Swoffer-Sauls was present in the courtroom during the trial ― the last jury trial in that courtroom before courts moved to virtual hearings to help prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

During his May 14 sentencing, however, Swoffer-Sauls appeared via videoconference from the Alpena County Jail. His attorney, the prosecutor, and the survivor all appeared virtually, as well.

At the time, lockdown restrictions ordered by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer kept many businesses closed and residents in their homes.

State courts, including in Northeast Michigan, transitioned swiftly to virtual hearings after the imposition of the state lockdown and held many hearings in which the defendant appeared via Zoom or other videoconference platform.

Still, a criminal defendant has a right to be physically present at the time of sentencing, the Court of Appeals said on Thursday, citing a 2016 ruling specifying that courts cannot conduct sentencings for felony offenses via two-way interactive technology.

A defendant may waive that right, but Swoffer-Sauls never did so, the appeals court said.

As quoted in the appeals court decision, the 2016 ruling said videoconferencing from a jail “may color a viewer’s assessment of a person’s credibility, sincerity, and emotional depth,” and people who appear in court virtually may receive harsher treatment from judges.

“In the most important affairs of life,” the quoted ruling said, “people approach each other in person, and television is no substitute for direct personal contact. Video tape is still a picture, not life.”

While the defendant’s appearing virtually may have made no difference in the judge’s ultimate decision, the Alpena court needs to try again, the appeals court said.

Swoffer-Sauls will return to Alpena courts ― this time, in person ― for resentencing.

Julie Riddle can be reached at 989-358-5693 or jriddle@thealpenanews.com. Follow her on Twitter @jriddleX.