On December 23, 2015, a telephone conference was held to address the Defendant’s terms and conditions of probation. Dean Wullenwaber and Mark Monson participated on behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant did not participate. The State was represented by William W. Thompson, Jr. . . .
Latah County Prosecuting Attorney Bill Thompson said his office has been contacted by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Child Protection Services and was informed that it will be opening an investigation into the family of Steven Sitler.
On the 26th day of September, 2005, the Defendant, STEVEN JAMES SITLER, Defendant’s counsel, Dean Wullenwaber, and the State’s attorney, William W. Thompson, Jr., appeared before this Court for pronouncement of judgment. . . .
This being the time fixed pursuant to order of the Court for conducting a telephone conference in an attempt to consolidate terms and conditions of probation into one document in this case, Court noted the participation of counsel in this conference call. . . .
A Latah County 2nd District Court judge ordered Tuesday that a convicted sex offender, Steven Sitler, must continue to have an approved chaperone present, within his direct line of sight, at all times he is around his infant child in the wake of new disclosures of “contact resulting in actual sexual stimulation.”
At 27:08: “I can sympathize and appreciate the situation that Mr. Sitler’s parents find themselves in; that his wife finds herself in; that their family and friends and supporters find themselves in; because everybody would love for Mr. Sitler to become a normal person. The fact of the matter is, Your Honor, he is not. He is a serial child sexual abuser, to the point where Your Honor has imposed a life sentence and required that he be under supervision for the rest of his natural life. He has multiple victims, all of them young — some so young that they would not be in any position to protect themselves. The risk to society is substantial here. The risk to his own child, despite the best wishes and hopes of everybody in this courtroom, is substantial. The actions that he has engaged in that he has disclosed to this point are a compelling basis that he cannot have anything close to a normal parental relationship with this child — certainly at this point in time. . . .”
This being the time fixed pursuant to order of the Court for review of the defendant’s probation terms in this case, Court noted the presence of counsel; Blaine Holman, Probation Officer; and the defendant. . . .