RANDOLPH, Rich County — Under strong words from a judge and years of pain from his former student, a retired Rich High School teacher has been sentenced to prison for sexually assaulting the woman 22 years ago. 
 
 Michael Layne Williamson, 60, spoke of shame, pain and forgiveness as he appeared before 1st District Judge Thomas Willmore for sentencing on July 27. The former teacher pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, one second-degree felony, while the other was reduced to a third-degree felony. 
 
 No details of the case were released when Williamson was originally charged in November, and requests by the Deseret News to the Rich County sheriff's and attorney's offices for police documents were denied. Inquiries about appealing the denial were ignored. 
 
 In an audio recording of Williamson's sentencing hearing, the judge — unmoved by Williamson's apologies and scolding him for calling his actions a mistake — sentenced the former teacher to one to 15 years, with an additional term of up to five years to run concurrently. While in prison he must complete a sex offender course. 
 
 A pre-sentence report had recommended 210 days in jail for Williamson, his attorneys explained, asking that he be able to serve his time in home confinement as he battles stage 4 prostate cancer. Prosecutors did not ask for a specific punishment for Williamson, saying they left the decision to the judge's discretion. 
 
 Willmore scoffed at the short recommended sentence, which he attributed to the Justice Reinvestment Initiative and efforts to reduce prison populations. He based his sentence on the girl's young age, the position of trust that Williamson held, and the way he disgraced the "noble profession" of a teacher. 
 
 Reading from an apology letter describing the remorse and shame that he, too, has lived with, Williamson said in the hearing, "This indiscretion of mine was of the most heinous type." 
 
 Willmore interrupted at that moment. 
 
 "Let me stop you right there. It is not an indiscretion. You broke the law. And I heard from many of these letters from your family that it was a mistake," the judge said. 
 
 "A mistake means unintended consequences or a lapse of judgement," he continued, pounding his hand for emphasis. "That's far beyond a lack of judgment and indiscretion. You and your family tried to sweep this under the rug, tried to downplay this." 
 
 In an emotional testimony, the woman, now 35, showed the judge a picture of herself in eighth grade to reinforce that it wasn't an adult who was victimized, it was a child. 
 
 "You pushed forward little by little until I was so deep in that there was no way out. You were my teacher, my friend's dad, an adult, all of those people I was taught to respect and to listen to and to trust," the woman said. "You used all of it to satisfy your own perverted desires. You made sure I knew how much I would ruin everyone's life and everything around me if I ever told anyone. You made sure I knew how much you stood to lose if anyone ever found out. 
 
 "You put it all on my shoulders, those of a 13-year-old, to carry. I always blamed myself." 
 
 The woman, who the Deseret News has chosen not to name, explained that she kept her silence about what happened between her and her teacher, eventually leaving the state. On a recent trip back to Utah, however, the pain came rushing back, and she said she made a choice: Report the abuse to law enforcement or take her own life. 
 
 "Since breaking my silence I have attempted to begin processing everything I have pushed aside for two decades," she said, describing the blame, anger, hurt and embarrassment she long believed was of her own making. "I am 35 years old and I am now just starting to understand those things are a reflection of you and not me." 
 
 Among the greatest challenges since coming forward, the woman said, has been battling the panic she now feels seeing her own children go to school or activities knowing that she, at their age, was not safe. 
 
 "With my knowledge of the evil that is out there, I feel helpless in protecting them when I couldn't even protect myself," she said. "So many times I have broken down crying when I am talking to my kids about boundaries and how to keep their bodies safe, telling them that no matter what anyone else tells them it is not their fault." 
 
 In his statement, Williamson apologized to the court, the community, his church and the school district. He called on the woman and her family to do what he called one of the hardest things they may ever face: forgive him. 
 
 "I am so sorry for the pain and anguish I have caused you," he said, calling the woman by name. "I sincerely apologize for every out-of-line thought, action and deed which I committed. I truly wished you no harm and had no intention of hurting you so severely. I was reckless with our student-teacher relationship and ignored the values and principles that I truly believe in and cherish." 
 
 In several moments, Williamson spoke of his faith in God and his belief that forgiveness is possible. 
 
 "The future is ahead and the past is in the past," Williamson concluded. "My hope and prayer is that through these proceedings we can all find closure and live courageously into life ahead. Our lives and our families have been irreversibly changed by my actions of 20 years ago. My earnest prayer is that all of us can move forward from this spot and create our own personal future full of love, forgiveness and healing." 
 
 Email: mromero@deseretnews.com, Twitter: McKenzieRomero ||||| Last November, Los Angeles Unified School District lawyers fighting a civil lawsuit argued in court that a 14-year-old middle school student was mature enough to consent to having sex with her 28-year-old teacher, and that she bore some responsibility for what happened. The district's attorneys also introduced the girl's sexual history into the trial as part of their defense strategy. 
 
 Two legal experts sharply criticized the school district for using those tactics. They also said the case highlights a little-known conflict in California law: while the age of consent is firmly set at 18 in criminal cases, at least two appellate court rulings have found that in civil cases, it is possible to argue that a minor can consent to sex with an adult. 
 
 Last November's case involved a math teacher at Thomas Edison Middle School in Southeast Los Angeles who in December 2010 began a six-month sexual relationship with a girl who went to the school. The teacher, Elkis Hermida, was convicted of lewd acts against a child and sentenced in July 2011 to three years in state prison. 
 
 The girl's family filed a civil lawsuit against L.A. Unified, claiming the district was negligent and the experience had emotionally damaged the girl, endangering any future romantic relationships she might have. 
 
 During the three week civil trial, district lawyers denied that L.A. Unified had any knowledge of the relationship, argued the girl knew what she was doing when she chose to have sex with Hermida and suggested the girl was to blame for her situation, not LAUSD. 
 
 "She lied to her mother so she could have sex with her teacher," said Keith Wyatt, L.A. Unified's trial attorney in the case, in an interview with KPCC. "She went to a motel in which she engaged in voluntary consensual sex with her teacher. Why shouldn't she be responsible for that?" 
 
 Wyatt cited a 2009 legal ruling by the US District Court for California's Central District that said in certain circumstances a minor can consent to sex. That ruling, in the case of Doe v. Starbucks, cited a 2001 decision by the California Supreme Court in a criminal case, People v. Tobias. 
 
 In Tobias, the supreme court argued that when the state legislature added the crime of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" to the penal code in 1970, the lawmakers "implicitly acknowledged that, in some cases at least, a minor may be capable of giving legal consent to sexual relations." 
 
 In its Doe ruling, the District Court went on to cite another court decision as grounds for its conclusion that "the rule that 'a minor may be capable of giving legal consent to sexual relations' has been extended to non-criminal cases." 
 
 The Doe and Tobias decisions left California law "horribly flawed," said Jennifer Drobac, a law professor with Robert H. McKinney School of Law at Indiana University who has studied consent laws nationwide, including the Doe v. Starbucks case. 
 
 California is one of several states where the criminal age of consent laws clash with the civil laws, according to Drobac, noting a minor can be a victim in a criminal case, but found at fault in a civil case related to the same crime. 
 
 "It doesn’t make sense," said Drobac. "The same parties, same behavior, same everything, consent is no defense in a criminal trial. But the same set of facts in a civil prosecution, consent is a complete defense. How is that possible? It's not logical." 
 
 Drobac called L.A. Unified's courtroom tactics in the civil lawsuit "shocking." 
 
 Another leading expert, law professor Marci Hamilton of the Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School in New York, called the school district's approach in the civil trial "outrageous," and accused it of "engaging in scorched earth tactics." 
 
 Hamilton echoed Drobac's criticisms of the California court rulings on consent. 
 
 "If this is a correct interpretation of California law, California is in the dark ages and against the great weight of the social science on brain and emotional development," said Hamiliton, who added, "the legislature needs to take this up. 
 
 "This reasoning is incoherent, especially in the school context," she went on. "It would have the court focus on the child's consent without taking the authority and power of the adult into account...This reasoning takes a page out of the old 'consent' defenses for rape based on a woman's sexual history, which have been thoroughly discredited." 
 
 L.A. Unified lawyer Wyatt insisted that a 14-year-old can have the maturity to consent to sex. 
 
 "Making a decision as to whether or not to cross the street when traffic is coming, that takes a level of maturity and that's a much more dangerous decision than to decide, 'Hey, I want to have sex with my teacher,'" Wyatt told KPCC. 
 
 In his closing argument during the civil trial, Wyatt maintained that the girl was pursuing the case for purely financial reasons. 
 
 "She wants to be paid for doing something that she knew was wrong, that she acknowledged was wrong, that she knew was from the beginning," Wyatt argued, adding, "She doesn't want therapy, she wants money. That's what they are asking you for." 
 
 Minor's sexual history heard 
 
 During the trial, L.A. County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Cho allowed L.A. Unified to introduce evidence of the girl's sexual history as part of its defense. 
 
 California's rape shield law prohibits evidence of a sexually abused victim's sexual history in criminal trials, but it is allowed in civil cases, according to Jeff Dion, Deputy Executive Director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Center for Victims of Crime. 
 
 "I think it's unusual that we are seeing it being used against a child," said Dion. 
 
 Marci Hamilton went further, saying, "basically they are treating child victims worse than an adult victim of rape. It makes no sense." 
 
 L.A. Unified also persuaded Judge Cho to place the girl's name on the jury's verdict form, which provided an opportunity for jurors to find her comparatively negligent, or at fault. 
 
 Cho admitted his ruling was unusual, saying, "There is currently no published decision in California" allowing the consideration of a child victim's comparative negligence in a school sex abuse case. 
 
 The judge "went beyond the bounds of common sense," said Hamilton. 
 
 Cho's move surprised the girl's attorney, Frank Perez. 
 
 "I have never seen a verdict form where the child has been listed as partially responsible for his or her own molestation," said Perez. 
 
 In the end, the jury didn't fill out the verdict form. It ruled in favor of LAUSD, accepting the district's argument that it had no knowledge of the relationship and therefore was not at fault. 
 
 Perez said the case is being appealed, in part because the girl's name was on the verdict form. 
 
 Following publication of this story, L.A. Unified issued a statement from Keith Wyatt Thursday. 
 
 "While we are sympathetic of the pain that this type of inappropriate relationship could cause this young woman and her family, the case focused on whether the school district could have done anything to prevent it," Wyatt said. L.A. Unified tried the case "in a respectful manner," he said, adding, "our argument shared in the disgust with this teacher’s actions, but it focused on the decisions of this teacher and young lady to hide their behavior from the school district." 
 
 Wyatt issued another statement from his law office on Thursday in which he apologized for his remarks: 
 
 “Upon reflection, I realize how insensitive the comments I made to KPCC were, and I am truly sorry to this young woman and her family. My statements were ill thought out and poorly articulated and by no means reflect the opinions of the school district or its leadership. It is regrettable that my remarks have taken away from the respectful manner in which this case was tried.” 
 
 L.A. Unified spokesman Sean Rossall said the district is continuing its professional relationship with Wyatt’s firm, Ivie, McNeill & Wyatt. He said the firm has represented the district "for over 20 years," and is currently handling 18 lawsuits on behalf of LAUSD. Regarding the upcoming trial over the Miramonte sexual abuse civil suit, Rossall said the firm’s only involvement was "in a very limited capacity as legal counsel for one of the witnesses." 
 
 Seeking reactions from members of the L.A. Unified Board, KPCC reached board members Tamar Galatzan, Monica Ratliff, Steve Zimmer, Richard Vladovic, and Monica Garcia. None would comment. The district did not respond to a request for comment from Superintendent Ramon Cortines. 
 
 One former longtime school board and L.A. city council member, Rita Walters, did comment. 
 
 "I think that the attorney for the district went out of his way to blame it on the victim," she said. 
 
 This story has been updated. 
 
 Correction: An earlier version of this story misspelled the Robert H. McKinney School of Law.
– A retired Utah school teacher was sent to prison for having sex with one of his teenage students 22 years ago, reports the Deseret News. The woman came forward last year and told police that former teacher Michael Layne Williamson, 60, had repeatedly assaulted her over a period of years. He was sentenced to one to 15 years in prison by a judge who berated him for disgracing the "noble profession" of teaching. Williamson, who pleaded guilty in May to aggravated sexual abuse of a child and another count of attempted sexual abuse, apologized in court. "This indiscretion of mine was of the most heinous type," he said. "Let me stop you right there," retorted Judge Thomas WIllmore. "It is not an indiscretion. You broke the law." The unidentified victim, now 35, displayed a photo of herself as an eighth-grader and said Williamson ruined her life. "You put it all on my shoulders, those of a 13-year-old, to carry," she said. "I always blamed myself." She said she left the state and kept silent but on a trip back home, the pain was too much. Supporters of Williamson, however, wrote that he was a respected teacher and golf coach who “fell victim to the persuasions of a girl,” reports the Herald Journal. It's possible this isn't the end of Williamson's legal trouble: Last year, the state changed the law to allow victims of sexual abuse to file civil lawsuits years after the fact, notes the Deseret News. (In Texas, this teacher was accused of having a longtime sexual relationship with an eighth-grade student.)