Over two years ago, Marco Topete allegedly shot and killed Yolo County Sheriff's Deputy Anthony Diaz.  The evidence in support of that is strong and compelling.  Yet from day one, the case has been fumbled all over the field.

On June 18, 2008, Mr. Topete was to be arraigned on charges that included the first-degree murder of a Yolo County Sheriff's Deputy.  The media and public, including Mr. Topete's family, were locked out of that hearing.  Deputy Diaz had himself been a bailiff in these courts, and evidence suggests that on the arraignment day other courtrooms recessed early, allowing their bailiff-deputies to go and fill up spaces at the arraignment.

On January 20, we launched the Yolo Judicial Watch project as a focused effort to monitor and track cases that go through the Yolo County Judicial system.  The idea was to report to the public on what happens in an area of our government that they often have limited access to.  We do not have TV in our local courtrooms.  We do not have regular news coverage either.

Often, all the public has to go on is the first-hand coverage of a few high-profile cases and the press releases from the DA's office that are biased and often run verbatim in the local newspapers and local media.

The Vanguard has complained in the past of the sometimes misleading press releases coming  out of the Office of the District Attorney, Yolo County.  However, Monday's press release on the Michael Artz case really takes the cake.  Nowhere does it mention that the jury acquitted  Mr. Artz of the main charge, forced oral copulation.  It instead focuses on elements, most of which were either never charged by the DA or were exonerated by the jury.  The local media did themselves and the public no favors by posting the press release verbatim.

On Monday, The Vanguard spoke for a second time with Defense Counsel for Mr. Artz in the criminal trial, Kathryn Druliner.  She stated that "[The DA's press release] absolutely misstates what happened.  He was acquitted by twelve people of the only charge over which the jury had discretion.  That is the charge that he forced [the victim] to engage in any sex act."