FAIRBURY – A decision is likely to come next week in the case of Donald Boomgaarn Jr., the Fairbury man who was arrested with help from an outside entity in October for knowingly attempting to engage in sexual acts with a minor.  

Concluding Boomgaarn’s preliminary hearing at the Jefferson County Courthouse on Monday afternoon, presiding judge Linda Bauer indicated that while she was not ready to issue a ruling on the case this week, that ruling could come as early as next week: at that time, the case could be shifted over to district court, or it could be dismissed entirely.  

All parties involved – Joseph Casson, the prosecutor, Paul Payne, the counsel for the defense, and Bauer, the judge – all acknowledged Monday that this is “somewhat of a unique situation.” Boomgaarn was initially arrested by Jefferson County police in Fairbury’s City Park on October 16 after the 25-year-old Fairbury native was “stung” by an outside group called Predator Poachers Southeast Texas, a Houston-based group that works to expose adults attempting to engage in inappropriate acts with children.  

In this case, Boomgaarn had been communicating through the social media network Discord with someone he believed to be a 15-year-old girl named Lily. Lily was, in actuality, someone from Predator Poachers, who ultimately arranged a meetup with Boomgaarn in the City Park before alerting the police.  

Jefferson County Sherrif’s Deputy Thomas Osienger testified Monday that he met with five men from Predator Poachers at the park on October 16. Osienger then engaged with Boomgaarn, who “kept saying he was sorry,” the deputy testified. The suspect was brought back to the police station for questioning, but was not formally arrested until after that interview was completed. 

The key sticking point in this case is whether there is enough legally admissible evidence present against the accused party, and, in specific terms, what the crime actually is. Boomgaarn was charged with attempting to solicit a minor, and since the other party involved was neither a minor nor a member of law enforcement, a core question arose Monday: is the solicitation itself – in other words, merely engaging with the purported minor with illicit intent – the crime? Or is the end goal of the solicitation – in other words, the desire to and effort to at some point engage in illicit acts with the minor – the crime? That deliberation could ultimately determine the fate of the case and the next steps for the accused, and a decision of some kind is likely to be presented next week.