Emily Simpson

He was determined to get the minimum possible penalty for his client, and he pulled out every stop to make that happen.

The attorney had witnesses prepared to testify to Mike's strong character, and he had letters from Mike's family, friends, and coworkers, all saying the same thing.

Mike was a good man.

On top of that, Mike had been given a psych evaluation.

It's commonly done in criminal cases to help inform sentencing decisions.

Mike's evaluator said he was a low risk to society.

He wasn't a danger to other women.

As Mike's attorney argued, this crime was a misstep in an otherwise perfect life.

When you get in the mix of the tornado and whirlwind of pornography addiction or pornography fixation, however you want to characterize it, it kind of twirls you out of control at certain moments.

And again, there's nothing that takes away in anything that I'm saying on his own responsibility and his own agency and his own free will.

Mike's other attorney also made remarks.

And of course, he brought up the marital exemption

And then he snuck in another argument.

I want to underscore what's happening here.

Mike was pleading guilty.

According to his lawyers, he took full responsibility for what he did to Saskia.

He was sorry.

But in the same breath, Mike's defense team was trying to discredit Saskia.

They were trying to convince the judge that Saskia did consent in hopes of getting Mike less time.

This was all one big misunderstanding.