RSS
Home
Mistrial in Old Bridge assault case
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Former wrestling coach Phillip Sandford, accused in 2007 of aggravated assault on a 16 year old wrestling opponent of Sandford's son, will have to continue his wait on learning his future fate.
After deliberating for a period of 14 hours over a three day period, a jury at Middlesex County Superior Court informed Judge Joseph Rea that after "further examination they could not reach a decision on whether 46 year old Phillip Sandford was guilty of aggravated assault". The jury had to decide if Sandford meant to hurt the victim.
A relatively new law elevates a simple assault, normally a disorderly persons offense, to aggravated assault, an indictable offense, if it occurs at a community or sporting event attended by children younger than 16. The charge is a fourth-degree offense. This incident occurred in 2007, at Old Bridge High School, during a recreational wrestling meet. Sandford's then 14 year old son was wrestling a 16 year old opponent at the time.
After what Sandford believed to be a punch to his sons face by his opponent, Sandford storms over and tackles the teen. Sandford’s testimony is that he saw the teen lift up his fist as if to hit his son again, and he was simply running over to grab the boy’s fist and stop any further punches to his son.
However, the key evidence in the case is a video taken by a spectator, which clearly shows the coach running full sprint onto the mat and tackling the teenager with the fervor of a linebacker—after the match had been whistled dead—and as the teen was already walking away from Sandford’s son. Where is the difficulty in this deliberation? There was no assault in progress, therefore there is no room to claim coming to the defense of another. What happened is clear and easy to decide; if Sandford didn’t mean to hurt the teen, he would have “used his words” as my son’s kindergarten teacher often instructs, and his authority as a coach to have the nasty opponent penalized.
The jury must have been made up of parents who at one time or another wanted to, simply put, beat up a kid that hurt their own with a dirty-blow move. He did what probably every parent wanted to do at one time or another in similar scenarios. Sandford’s problem: He actually acted on it. In reality, you can do anything you want, but then you pay the price for that decision. The 16 year old admitted to giving the 14 year old “a little punch” in retaliation for being backhanded by the wrestler during the match. He did what he wanted to do. He paid the price by having the referee stop the game and penalizing him a point for unsportsmanlike-like conduct, and by being attacked by Sandford Sr. Sandford in turn, should pay the price for attacking a minor at a high school sporting event. Worse still, he wasn’t just the boy’s father, he was the team coach. Shame, shame, tsk, tsk, to Mr. Sandford, and to the jurors who blinded themselves from seeing what was clearly shown to them.
You be the judge, or at least a pseudojuror-http://videos.nj.com/star-ledger/2009/05/tape_of_phillip_sandfords_alle.html
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
Attorney General Anne Milgram held an announced yesterday at the William C McGinnis School in Perth Amboy, that $2.8 million dollars in grant awards …
In an effort to redeem themselves in the eyes of the law for various “minor” offenses, 40 juveniles, ages 12 to 17, started six weeks of …
