Former U.P. school resource officer gets near-max sentence in 2nd child sex crime conviction
MENOMINEE, Mich. (WJMN) — Former Menominee sheriff’s deputy and school resource officer Brian Helfert will serve a minimum of nine years in prison for his second conviction for sex crimes against a student.
“It’s always difficult as a judge to have to pass sentence on an individual,” said 41st Circuit Court Judge Mary Barglind. “Particularly so when you have someone who has spent many years wearing the badge. But in this case, Mr. Helfert, that badge was woefully betrayed.”
Helfert was a Menominee County Sheriff’s Deputy for 27 years, serving as a school resource officer for decades before his firing in 2020 following the first charges being filed against him.
Former U.P. school resource officer found guilty in 2nd case of sex crime against student
A jury found him guilty last December of 2nd Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct for acts he committed against a 16-year-old student in 2007.
“Justice in this case requires that you be away from the public, that the public be protected from you, and that it be for a considerable period of time,” said Judge Barglind. “It is the decision of this court that you will be sentenced to the Michigan Department of Corrections for a minimum period of nine years to a maximum of 15 years with credit for 757 days served.”
The sentence marks the first substantial punishment after Helfert pled no contest in 2020 to a lesser crime, landing him a six-month jail sentence. A contributing factor to that outcome, according to Menominee Prosecutor Jeff Rogg, was the increasing burden felt by the victim in the face of a possible trial.
‘No one will believe you’: Another child sex crime trial set for twice-convicted former deputy
This coming summer Helfert faces another jury trial for sex crimes against another student. The consequence for the charges in that case could be as severe as life in prison. After Helfert’s trial last trial in December Rogg also indicated the Prosecutor’s Office was communicating with six to eight other possible victims.
At Thursday’s hearing Helfert declined his opportunity to speak, admit guilt or apologize to victims—a fact that Rogg included in his reasoning that Helfert deserved the maximum sentence possible.
“The saga of Mr. Helfert, unfortunately, is not over for our community,” said Rogg. “It is very frustrating to me that he can’t acknowledge that he’s been caught, that he should simply admit it, apologize to the community that he purported to love for 30 years.”
Prior sex crime guidelines used during sentencing
Much of Thursday’s hearing was spent by Helfert’s lawyer objecting to the Michigan Department of Corrections’ sentencing recommendation of 10-15 years, the maximum allowed by the law. The state’s recommended sentence for the crime is about three to five years.
Due to when the abuse happened, the court was compelled to use sentencing guidelines that were in force at the time. Since then several changes have been made to the statutes, lowering the bar for some elements or making them more comprehensive.
The MDOC official in charge of the case arrived at the conclusion based on Helfert’s score of 175—which is 100 points higher than the top tier of the state’s sentencing guidelines.
Helfert’s lawyer Trent Stupak attempted to knock down several of the “offense variable” scores, but only succeeded in removing one worth 50 points, still far exceeding the top tier number. Judge Barglind said the score was struck due to a higher bar set in guidelines when the crime was committed.
How much U.P. cities are getting for having pot shops in 2023—and what some plan to do with it
Before delivering the sentence, Judge Barglind commented how the prior guidelines failed to account for many aspects she saw as relevant to deciding the sentence, including the effort to groom victims, pattern of predatory behavior, and frequency of abuse.
After the hearing even Stupak commented on the challenge, saying “The criminal sexual assault statutes have changed over the years, and the offense variables, how they apply to someone being sentenced after conviction has been very difficult. The changes require us to stay up with the law, but also make arguments that maybe we didn’t make a year ago.”
Stupak indicated that Helfert is likely to appeal Judge Barglind’s above-guidelines sentence, and that Helfert would likely argue against the judge’s decision to leave many of the high offense variable scores unchanged.
Victim, father address the court
After the minutiae of offense variables was meted out by Judge Barglind and the attorneys, Eric Jenkins and his father were allowed to address the court.
“Police officer,” began Eric, “some people use these words and think protector, courageous, trustworthy, friend, and maybe even hero. Unfortunately, not all have those characteristics. When all of this came to light I was confused. Confused on how I should feel, if those feelings were okay. At the time I thought I’d been the only person who had been victimized. I also thought he, as a police officer, could do no wrong.”
Jenkins continued, “Once I learned that I was not the only person, I became angry, and also had feelings of guilt. Angry at myself for allowing the victimization to get as far as it did, and guilty that I did not have the strength to come forward sooner and spare other families the same pain.
“When it came to the trial, I was nervous. Nervous that he would find a way to keep his power over me. I was intimidated by the legal system and feared that it would fail me, even though I’m telling the truth.”
Jenkins went on to say he often spends his one day off a week traveling to therapy appointments, saying the lingering feelings of guilt and doubt are“an endless psychological battle within myself.”
Jenkins thanked Rogg and his staff for their support through the entire process, as well as the officers who investigated the case. He expressed optimism for the future, saying, “I am aware the healing process will take a great deal of time, but like most things I will not give up easy. I will heal eventually, and I am a better person for not quitting on what I know was the right thing to do.”
Jenkins’ final word was addressed to Helfert. “Remember, your life is full of choices. You should think about the consequences of those choices before determining a course of action, and need to accept responsibility for the choices you make. We touched on religion earlier, and I know I’m not the most religious person, but if you want to get through Heaven’s gates, you need to admit your sins.”
Jenkins’ father began his statement to the court by presenting the judge with a photograph of his son at 14-years-old.
“I first would like to say how proud I am of my son,” he said. “It must not be easy to go through a trial like this, but to obtain a measure of justice, it was necessary. For himself, and for other victims who could not endure the emotions and trauma of a trial.”
He then addressed Helfert directly. “The English language does not provide my words harsh enough today. The crimes you’ve been convicted of—unspeakable. I’m not going to bother trying to find those words today.”
“My feelings throughout this process—my dad died 10 years ago,” Jenkins’ father said. “It’s a grieving process. The difference of that grief is, that black cloud that hangs over you, it eventually goes away. In this case, I’m still waiting. I’m not sure it will.”
He made reference to Dante’s Inferno, pointing out that the penultimate circle of Hell is reserved for deceivers. “You’ve spent your life deceiving. You deceived the schools. You deceived the Sheriff’s Department. You deceived school boys and their parents.”
Judge Barglind delivers the sentence
”Hindsight is great,” Judge Barglind said to Jenkins, “but you were 15, 16,17 when these things were happening to you, and as a parent who’s raised 15-, 16-,17-year-olds, those were not calls that you could or should have had to make back then, in terms of whether to report or who to report… You trusted him, you relied on him. You thought ‘this is the right thing to do’ or you were doing something wrong. I’m sure your counselors are telling you the same thing. So, please, as you go through this process of adjustment, counseling, therapy and healing, remember that first and foremost you did nothing wrong—and from here, everything should heal quicker.”
“Once you truly accept that in your foundation—which you should, and I hope you eventually do—you will heal quicker,” Barglind continued.
Judge Barglind returned to addressing the court at large, and Helfert. “The goals of sentencing are to rehabilitate an individual, to punish an individual, to protect society from an individual, and deter others from committing similar crimes. The goals of my sentencing take all those things into account.”
“This is a situation, Mr. Helfert, where you engaged in an extensive web of lies, a grooming process that went on for a very lengthy period of time with Mr. Jenkins… the types of violent offenses fall into two categories,” the judge said, describing the first as involving an obvious aggressor with a weapon.
“Those situations are almost less reprehensible than what we have here, because when you know the situation you’re confronted with, you can see it. You can see this is a violent person, that this is a dangerous situation. You can protect yourself. You can call for help.
“The much more damaging and dangerous situation is what we have here—where you, Mr. Helfert, are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. That is, you were disguised completely from head to toe as a good person, a trusting person, a reliable person, a helpful person… when you are 360 degrees the opposite.”
Judge Barglind described how Helfert used progressive, manipulative tactics to gain trust, then to obtain sexual favors in return for financial gifts. “The grooming appeared to be so pervasive, successful in getting what you want, I would consider it close to a brainwashing.”
The judge then highlighted the pattern of behavior by referencing his previous conviction by plea agreement in 2022. She said in reviewing the case, the grooming methods were nearly identical, from using his authority as a school resource officer to targeting vulnerable young boys, giving gifts, and pushing for sexual favors.
Reading Helfert’s own words he wrote in his defendant’s statement for the 2020 case, Barglind illustrated what that grooming looked like. “‘I loaned T.H. money for such things as birthday presents for his girlfriend, for Mother’s Day flowers for his mother,’” Barglind quoted. “‘I made statements to T.H. referencing the use of rectal thermometers and performing enemas. At the time I made these statements, T.H. was 15 years old. These statements were intended to be a solicitation on how he could repay me for the money I loaned him.
“‘These attempts, that solicitation of indecent acts were inappropriate, and I should’ve used better judgment. I admit those comments made to a 15-year-old were meant to encourage or entice that minor to engage in an act of gross indecency or an immoral act. Therefore I plead guilty to attempting to encourage or entice the minor for immoral purposes.’”
Judge Barglind then explained her reasoning on why she denied the defense’s objections to elements of the sentencing guidelines, before announcing her decision.
“Justice in this case requires that you be away from the public, that the public be protected from you, and that it be for a considerable period of time,” said Judge Barglind. “It is the decision of this court that you will be sentenced to the Michigan Department of Corrections for a minimum period of nine years to a maximum of 15 years with credit for 757 days served.”
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WJMN - UPMatters.com.
