Druliner Unloads on Davis Police Detective and Prosecutor in Case –
Druliner Unloads on Davis Police Detective and Prosecutor in Case – 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.”
This was confirmed last night by one of the jurors who posted comments on yesterday’s Vanguard article. Under the name “shetazz,” the individual wrote, “I was one of the jurors for this case. This case made me sick to my stomach everyday!”
The individual continued, “We had to follow the law on the 3 counts! We could not go with our feelings! There was no question she was a minor on count 2! Count 3 he clearly said and wrote things to her that made it illegal! Do I think he is a rapist? NO WAY! But he was a stupid 18-yr-old that did some stupid things that will follow him forever!”
“I am sick about that! I was one of those people that talked to the lawyers afterword’s! But as a young person you have to know the laws when your 18 yrs old! You are a adult and if you choose to have sex with anyone under 18 it is illegal! Not for one minute did I think he forced her! She was dating a girl that was 6 months older then Michael and THAT was OK! Makes me sick!,” the juror concluded.
The juror later pointed out, “The girlfriend was 6 months older then Michael!! And it was made clear that the girls spent many weekends together! But she wasn’t charged!”
Kathryn Druliner was more concerned with count three, which also carried with it lifetime sex offender status. What Mr. Artz did was admittedly stupid, particularly in his contact with the girl nine months later, seeking more sex and bringing up photos and a video that apparently did not exist, unbeknownst to the victim. However, does that rise to lifetime sex offender status under Megan’s Law, a law designed to protect the community from serial rapists and child molesters, not from 18-year-olds with raging hormones?
“Count three, which they also had no choice about because it’s statutory, is the one I’m concerned about because that one carries a lifetime registration as a sex offender,” Ms. Druliner told the Vanguard. “Of course I could not tell the jury that it carries a lifetime registration as a sex offender, but the jurors I talked to said they figured it did. But they also felt they couldn’t do anything about it because it was a statutory requirement. Once they determined that he had contact with her and he fulfilled the other requirements of the statute – which he did.”
According to the jury instructions on Count 3, to prove 288.3, he had to contact a minor in this case with the intent to orally copulate. To prove that, they had to show both that he he contacted or communicated with a minor, and that he intended to commit 288A(b)(1), oral copulation with a minor, and that he knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a minor.
“The important thing about count three is it’s unconstitutional and it will be reversed on appeal,” Ms. Druliner explained. “It was enacted three years ago by initiative. It never went through the legislature. It was never vetted by any legislature in California. It’s my understanding that California is the only state that can put an initiative directly on the ballot by the people without running it through the legislature.”
“There are no cases that have ever been decided under that statute, so it’s never been appealed,” Ms. Druliner continued, “Sacramento County, which is much larger than Yolo – I think they have 75 judges in Sacramento County – they’ve never prosecuted a case under 288.3. I don’t know why – I used to be a prosecutor there – but I believe that Sacramento County knows it’s unconstitutional.”
“So I believe that Count 3 will be reversed, and that it was a total victory for Michael [Artz],” she said.
The DA’s version of events clearly omitted the fact that he was exonerated by the jury on the most serious charge, that of forced oral copulation.
“Michael Hien Artz was convicted last Friday of oral copulation with a 16-year-old girl and later communicating with this same girl via Facebook and the telephone with the purpose of forcing her to have sex with him,” writes the DA’s press release.
“According to Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven, the incident began in August 2008, when Artz invited the girl to a “party” at his house. When she arrived at his house, no one else was at this “party,” according to Raven. “Artz made the 16-year-old girl orally copulate him and he took photographs and video during the incident. Nine months later, around May 18, 2009, Artz initiated contact with the girl through Facebook, a social networking website.”
However, Mr. Raven is incorrect here, in fact, intentionally so. The jury specifically acquitted him of forced oral copulation, so it is a clear misstatement of the facts to say that he “made the 16-year-old girl orally copulate him.”
The DA also writes, “A 20-year-old Davis man has been convicted of “sextortion” and now faces almost five years in prison.”
It is not accurate to say that he was convicted of “sextortion,” he was convicted of having sex and later contacting the girl to have more sex. It is also misleading to say that he faces almost five years in prison as the most likely outcome, given the fact that this is his first offense, is that he would get probation and at the very most, time in the county jail – at the very most.
The Vanguard initially spoke with Kathryn Druliner Friday after the verdict.
“The jury said they just didn’t have enough to convict him on count one,” Ms. Druliner said. “They didn’t think that [the victim] had given them enough information.”
“The questions [the jury] asked the DA were how well did you prep her, how much time did you spend prepping her, and what did investigation did your office do? Of course the answer is [Deputy DA Tiffany Susz] met her right before she testified and her office did two interviews starting in June right before the trial,” Ms. Druliner continued. “Both of those interviews were the result of my investigation, which went on for a year and we interviewed twelve people.”
“[The victim] was just not credible. It appears that the women were the ones on the jury that knew that [the victim] was not telling the truth,” she said. The women basically saw through the story, and that is why count one didn’t go anywhere. “Counts two and three were just statutory. They didn’t want to convict him and they felt really bad about it.”
“The jury didn’t feel like it should be, but it was, under the law, and they followed the law,” she added. “They had a problem with it being a criminal act. They also had a problem with [the girlfriend] not being charged. She’s six months older than Michael [Artz].”
Ms. Druliner also had problems with the investigation performed by the Davis Police Department and Detective Jeff Beasley, including a phone call to the defendant’s sister asking if he had ever had inappropriate sexual contact with her.
“[The Davis Police Department] didn’t investigate. They didn’t investigate anything,” she said. “I have positive feelings about the Davis Police Department except for [Detective Jeff] Beasley. The officer who did the forensic analysis and the other officer who testified were professionals and honorable officers. But Detective Beasley, I cannot say enough bad things about him.”
“I think it’s important to know that Beasley did the exact same thing in a trial I was tangentially involved in – the Noori case,” she continued referring to a case from December that the Vanguard covered. “The Noori case was a fight outside of a dorm or apartment complex on a college campus. The girl who claimed she was raped, she was not raped, she was working on the internet and she went willingly – these boys were all good looking – she went willingly to have whatever sexual act she engaged in.”
The police in the Noori case came because they were called to the fight, not because of some sexual assault. “They didn’t come because she called the cops about a rape,” she said, “they came because they were called about the fight between two boys in the parking lot.”
It was, she said, a two-and-a-half month trial with 63 counts, Mr. Noori is now suing Detective Beasley and the Davis Police Department in federal court. “Beasley did the same thing in that case that he did in this case, and that is unconscionable, he called the defendant’s sister and he called my client’s sister in this case, right during the trial and claimed that he was calling her to see if she had been the victim of my client,” she said.
“First of all, this was at [Deputy District Attorney] Tiffany Susz’ direction, she admitted that to me,” Ms. Druliner charged. “If either them had a really true concern about Michael [Artz’s sister] – by the way, the effect that it had on her was tremendous, she called the parents and was hysterical. He also called her husband.”
“[Mr. Artz’s sister] called her parents on a Monday, they called her back and she finally returned their call on a Wednesday. She was still hysterical, but was just calm enough to explain what had happened.” Ms. Druliner said all of this in court just prior to the beginning of trial.
“I asked Tiffany Susz for discovery and she told me I only have to give you exculpatory evidence,” she told the Vanguard. “I’m thinking, who do you give the inculpatory evidence to, who gets that? Exculpatory evidence is Brady Material, of course I get that.”
She said she never got a report, and that Detective Beasley never wrote one. But she asked Tiffany Susz, “Did you tell him to do this? And she said, yes. I thought about that and the only thing I could come up with is she must have done it to extort a plea.”
“If Beasley had really had a concern that Michael [Artz} had done something to his sister, he would not have called her on the phone and asked her that. He would have had a female cop and victim advocate go out to her house and he wouldn’t have done it during the trial, he would have done it when he first got the information and they first did the search warrant,” she continued.
“He got to stay in the court room because he was an investigator, but he went out and fed witnesses information,” she added. She was referring to an animated scene that occurred outside of the court room where Mr. Beasley was seen talking to the victim for several minutes. She asked about it on the stand and he claimed it was just an exchange of pleasantries, and very brief. But she was able to show that it was far more than that. “Unfortunately there is a presumption the District Attorney and the cops are not cheating. There is a presumption of that. It’s almost impossible to overcome that presumption. In fact it is pretty clearly impossible.”
She said this was a problem throughout the trial, and indicative of the way Detective Beasley conducted himself throughout the trial. “If I hadn’t had a background in child sexual assault cases, Beasley would have gotten away with all of the lies he was trying to tell about the pretext phone calls, about search warrants, about having to have his sergeant sign the search warrant” she said.
Detective Beasley did not save his notebook from his interview or from the pretext phone call, and said that it was not a common practice for the police to do so. “I know that’s not true,” Ms. Druliner said, “I’ve had cops testify that they have their notebook from watching an autopsy. So when I asked him how many cops in Sacramento did you talk to to confirm your study, none. But what if I were just a green public defender? It’s scary.”
Brief Commentary
The Vanguard has consistently charged that the DA’s office typically overcharges on these cases. Indeed, Ms. Druliner noted that the DA’s office had done precisely that in this case.
She told the Daily Democrat on Monday, “that the DA’s Office’s handling of this matter carried much of the “overcharging” and “overprosecuting” that she feels has become typical of District Attorney Jeff Reisig’s administration.”
“In her opinion, had the matter been filed correctly, Yolo County taxpayers could have avoided a costly trial, and ensuing appeal, and reached a conclusion through a plea bargain,” the Daily Democrat article continues. “The girl’s claims were rejected by the jury, so she lost. Mr. Artz lost. The taxpayers of Yolo County lost,” Druliner explained. “The only one who came out on top here was the District Attorney’s Office.”
In the meantime, the DA’s office was completely dishonest with the press about the nature of this case. They failed to mention the forced oral copulation charge in their press release. They failed to note that Mr. Artz had actually been acquitted on much of what they called fact. The media is culpable here, as on Monday several news entities including News 10, the Sacramento Bee, and the Woodland Daily Democrat printed the press release verbatim and apparently without bothering to verify facts. The Democrat added to the press release with a brief interview with Ms. Druliner that was appears to have been simply attached to the end of the press release.
If the Vanguard and the work of this writer gets accused of bias, what does the DA’s press release amount to?
Moreover the charges by Ms. Druliner about police and prosecutorial misconduct deserve an airing and an investigation. The DA in this case loses the benefit of the doubt by the very fact that the office misrepresented the facts of this case to the public.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “The individual continued, “We had to follow the law on the 3 counts! We could not go with our feelings!”
That is exactly what juries are supposed to do – follow the law.
dmg: “The important thing about count three is it’s unconstitutional and it will be reversed on appeal,” Ms. Druliner explained. “It was enacted three years ago by initiative. It never went through the legislature. It was never vetted by any legislature in California. It’s my understanding that California is the only state that can put an initiative directly on the ballot by the people without running it through the legislature.””
Exactly why is count three unconstitutional?
dmg: “”I am sick about that! I was one of those people that talked to the lawyers afterword’s! But as a young person you have to know the laws when your 18 yrs old! You are a adult and if you choose to have sex with anyone under 18 it is illegal! Not for one minute did I think he forced her! She was dating a girl that was 6 months older then Michael and THAT was OK! Makes me sick!,” they concluded.”
Yes, at 18, you are expected to obey the laws, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Whether the victim was dating a girl who was 18 or 19 is irrelevant. Firtst of all, two wrongs don’t make a right. Secondly, the girlfriend did not use sexual contact to try and extort the girl into having more sex. I have no doubt the “sextortion” part of this case is what drew the police in… to discourage sexual predation.
“Exactly why is count three unconstitutional?”
I think because it’s punishing speech not action.
Here is a description of the 288.3 law –
“(a) Every person who contacts or communicates with a minor,
or attempts to contact or communicate with a minor, who knows or
reasonably should know that the person is a minor, with intent to
commit an offense specified in Section 207, 209, 261, 264.1, 273a,
286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 289, 311.1, 311.2, 311.4 or 311.11 involving
the minor shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
the term prescribed for an attempt to commit the intended offense.
(b) As used in this section, “contacts or communicates with” shall
include direct and indirect contact or communication that may be
achieved personally or by use of an agent or agency, any print
medium, any postal service, a common carrier or communication common
carrier, any electronic communications system, or any
telecommunications, wire, computer, or radio communications device or
system.”
As I read it – anybody who has any form of sex with a minor and and any form of communication with that minor is guilty of this crime. The intent seems to an attempt to go after internet predators but of course that is not how Yolo County has applied it.
To ERM’s point –“Whether the victim was dating a girl who was 18 or 19 is irrelevant. Firtst of all, two wrongs don’t make a right. Secondly, the girlfriend did not use sexual contact to try and extort the girl into having more sex. I have no doubt the “sextortion” part of this case is what drew the police in… to discourage sexual predation.” The defendant was acquitted of sexual predation so that leaves us with two “adults” having sex with a minor and two “adults” “communicating ” with a minor with the intent of having sex. One of those two adults is charged and convicted of those two crimes while the other adult is not. That is inconsistent application of the law.
The DA’s press release appears to have been written before the verdict came in and then slightly edited before being released. It is very deceptive. On the first read, it sounds like a 20 year old man was preying on a 16 year old girl. In reality, it was a High School senior who had just turned 18 getting a blow job from a High School junior, who had misgivings after the fact due to being in a relationship with another 18 year old woman. It doesn’t mention that the charges of forced sexual activity was acquitted. In fact, it really implies that he was convicted on these charges.
The fact that the girl was involved in a sexual relationship with another older person, a young woman who, amazingly, was a witness at the trial against the young man, is completely left out. Where’s equality in that?
Very, very poor job on the part of the DA’s Office and Officer Beasley here. Growing up in Davis is a very scary undertaking.
I hope he wins his appeal.
When a newspaper prints a press release verbatim, the paper should say so at the beginning or end of that press release. Maybe there should be a law requiring that.
dgm: “I think because it’s punishing speech not action.”
Attempt to communicate with intent to commit a crime is not protected speech.
Alphonso: “The defendant was acquitted of sexual predation so that leaves us with two “adults” having sex with a minor and two “adults” “communicating ” with a minor with the intent of having sex. One of those two adults is charged and convicted of those two crimes while the other adult is not. That is inconsistent application of the law.”
The defendant was found guilty of the “sextortion” count, or did I miss something?
Elaine – you missed something.
[quote]”He was acquitted by twelve people of the only charge over which the jury had discretion.”[/quote] No, they had all the discretion a jury ever has, mainly finding a defendant guilty or not guilty. They decided he was guilty on two charges and not guilty on one.
So, Ms. Druliner and her client “knew” the jury had no choice but to come back with “guilty” on two counts, including one that would result in lifetime registration (and just as well could decided he was guilty on the third).
With that “knowledge,” wouldn’t it be wise to negotiate a plea instead of going to trial with a guaranteed guilty outcome? Maybe not, if they “know” that one count is based on a law that will be found unconstitutional in a few years.
I still don’t understand the rationale for allowing a key witness to view the entire proceedings because he is an “investigator” for the prosecution. Not only does it encourage him to revise his planned testimony, but also permits him to coach the other witnesses as the trial proceeds.
What’s the use of “witness exclusion” if a member of the prosecution team can so easily circumvent the intent?
What bothers me is the handling of the case by the Police Detective and the Deputy DA, and then of course the “Misleading,” to put it lightly, press release. These people are sworn to protect the public good. The destruction of notes, prepping witnesses, not handing over evidence (both exculpatory and inculpatory are required) – these are SERIOUS issues and NEED to be addressed. I am thankful that this Defense attorney chose to speak to the public. What else is going on that we don’t know? More people need to come forward.
[quote]”This was confirmed last night by one of the jurors who posted comments on yesterday’s Vanguard article.”[/quote] How much stock can you really put on claims by someone who signs in as “shetazz”? I’d feel better if this person would contact you with her/his story for you confirm his/her role in the trial. Nothing against pseudonyms on blogs of course, but “shetazz”!?
“The defendant was found guilty of the “sextortion” count, or did I miss something? “
There was no “sextortion” count as far as we could tell that was never charged.
Just Saying: I think it was pretty obvious that he had sexual contact with her and conversation with her about sexual context. That’s what the attorney is referring to.
I think the point here is the conduct of the DA and the police department, not what the jury did or did not find. The is just another example of the problems within the Yolo County judicial system under the direction of Jeff Reisig.
What I find interesting is the fact that a defense attorney is willing to speak publicly in very definitive and accusatory manner regarding the unethical behavior of both the DA and the police department.
There are a number of points to glean from this article:
1.) Another shining example of the corruption and collusion found within Yolo County’s judicial system.
2.) Connecting other recent articles to this article, one questions the DA’s motive for such egregious conduct—cash for convictions is becoming more and more of a clearly established motive.
3.) It would be interesting, David, if we knew what the criteria is for these grant funds. You’ve mentioned before the number of prosecutions/convictions are a requirement for some grants–and we’ve seen a number of cases over prosecuted that would, in the very least, raise suspicion as to the DA’s motive. Are published news articles a requirement of grant funds to show that a local area indeed has issues regarding the subject matter of a particular grant? It would be interseting to find out, and would certainly help to piece together more of an understanding as to why the DA’s office engages in this type of conduct.
4.)As the saying goes…whatever is funded is found.
Great work and thank you for your continued reporting.
I want to be clear that I am not criticizing Jeff Reisig. I supported him for District Attorney and have no reason to believe he was personally aware of his deputy’s wrongdoing. I hope he looks into it. Unfortunately the State grant funding for special victims units when combined with budget cuts in government overall and very young, inexperienced prosecutors who do not understand the reasons for the grant funding to begin with cause these kinds of over-prosecutions. Follow the money.
It’s the big advantage of having a private attorney from Sacramento as opposed to a public defender from Yolo who has to work with these people on a regular basis. Needless to say there is a lot that we’ll be looking into.
Unfortunately Kathryn you’re being naive here. Tiffany Susz can’t tie her shoes in that department without approval from the top brass. That means Garrett Hamilton or possibly Jon Raven. And neither of those guys can do anything without the big dog himself. The corpse of the DA’s office rots from the neck down I’m afraid.
[quote]”I think it was pretty obvious that he had sexual contact with her and conversation with her about sexual context. That’s what the attorney is referring to.[/quote]” Agreed, that’s what I was commenting on also. It must be difficult going into a trial when you know your client is guilty and know the jury will find him guilty. It does sound like this jury might have appreciated a “nullification” solution, but I guess that’s almost impossible to pull off.
Can you give me any help on my “witness exclusion” question?
I just read the comment someone made about contacting someone with the intent to commit a crime making this law constitutional. This is so much more complicated than that. The law is overbroad, vague, written by the people (not the legislature). Michael and this girl were friends for several years, had a prior consensual sexual relationship, and many contacts. Even if the law had been more carefully written, it would have been written to apply to someone who had a one time contact with another someone, in this case, over the internet to commit a sex crime. There are a plethora of reasons why the law as applied here is unconstitutional.
JS: The attorney can’t ask a jury to nullify, although we did find language that a jury does have the ability at least in some circumstances to say that the law is improper. But no attorney can ask that and most jurors wouldn’t know that.
Obviously the key charge was the first count which would have meant prison time for sure.
In terms of your second question, generally the lead investigator and expert witnesses, those who are not expected to testify on what they witnessed are exemptions to the witness exclusion rule. Whether that’s justified I have some doubts, certainly that was a point that Ms. Druliner raised both in my interview with her and in court. I don’t know what to say other than it’s standard and it seems to give the lead investigator a cloak of legitimacy to sit with the prosecution and then testify.
Actually the press release was written after the verdict. And it was far better at targeting the actual crimes committed in this case than the distorted presentation here by David and Druliner. The entire Vanguard presentation on this case is a load of baloney.
You like to focus on the oral cop charge because that’s the one you won and discount the charges on which he was found GUILTY.
No queestion it’s hard to prove two years later a he-said / she-said case that boils down to the two parties’ intent. Not being able to prove it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
The crux of this case is in fact the sextortion. He “extorted” her for sex and if it could be punished under extortion statutes, it would be. This was flat out blackmail. Which is why he’s considered a sexual predator and why he completely deserves to have a sexual registrant label for the rest of his life.
It was easy to prove the sextortion – he admitted it in the phone call and the press release quotes the transcript of that phone call.
The jury may or may not have been distracted enough by Ms. Druliner’s false accusations to forget that very important fact but apparently not enough to avoid finding him guilty of the crime he admitted on tape to committing.
When Druliner couldn’t attack that part of the case, she attacked the prosecutor and the investigator’s character. She couldn’t prove there was any misconduct because it didn’t occur. Sadly, she’s allowed to hurl these baseless accusations. There should be a court that holds her accountable for her gross misrepresentations of people on the other side of this case.
Disgusting…
Oh for crying outloud Sanity Defense, I mean Jon Raven, you got him for getting a blow job and trying to get another and lost on the big charge. Didn’t try him for sextortion, wasn’t convicted of sextortion. Everything else is just spin and lies by you and your department.
One thing that I am starting to hear more and more is that people when you overreact to minor crimes, stop reporting them.
I heard yesterday a story about a father whose daughter was the victim of “sexting” where her nude pictures were being text messaged around. The guy was going to report it to the police but learned that the kid would become a registered sex offender for life under a new law. So now the father decided that he won’t report this crime.
We went to a home a few month back, wife and husband got into a fight, woman got scared called the cops hoping they would talk to her husband and calm him down. Instead they entered their apartment, roughed him, and charged him with all sorts of trumped up crimes. He ended up with a misdemeanor something or other, but guess what, the wife now is not going to call the police next time because they made things worse. I’ve heard that a few times now with domestic cases.
People don’t want to see people’s lives wrecked over this type of stuff. It’s going to end with people just not reporting minor crimes because it ends up wrecking people’s lives and over nothing.
Stuff happened here that wasn’t good, but when you start criminalizing teen hormones and sexual insecurities, then you are asking for a world of hurt.
Sanity Defense: It appears that you know more about this case then you are willing to fess up to. Why don’t you reveal yourself, so that people can properly gauge what you are saying. David is an investigative reporter, investigating and presenting his findings. He is not with the DA’s office or Defense attorneys. In fact he reports on all aspects of Davis life, including the courts. I believe he is being fair and impartial. Accusations of bias are just that unless you can prove them. I think you have a hidden agenda, by the accusations you keep hurling.
“Criminializing teen hormones and sexual insecurities”
The defense attorney admitted that Mr. Artz contacted the victim and brought up the non existent photos while seeking more sex from teh girl…
David:
What if it was your daughter who was the victim here…What if Mr. Artz had contacted your daughter after they had the initial consensual sexual contact and tried to trade her these non existent photos for sex…would you still feel the same way?
To me I would feel like the father in the sexting case I mentioned above, I would not want this kid to pay for his stupidity for the rest of his life with a sex offender label.
What is interesting is, where were the parents in this? We never once saw the girl’s parents in court. When Beasley came to the girl’s house, they were headed out, introduced themselves and left.
dmg: “There was no “sextortion” count as far as we could tell that was never charged.”
Isn’t that what count 3 is all about? And wasn’t he found guilty of count #3?
If the DA so blatantly misleads the people through its press releases what do you think they do during trials? There definitely needs to be an outside investigation.
dmg: “To me I would feel like the father in the sexting case I mentioned above, I would not want this kid to pay for his stupidity for the rest of his life with a sex offender label. I would call his parents, have us all sit down and handle it that way. I would not call the police.”
And if his parents were nonresponsive, just considering “boys will be boys”, no harm done? Then what?
dmg: “What is interesting is, where were the parents in this? We never once saw the girl’s parents in court. When Beasley came to the girl’s house, they were headed out, introduced themselves and left.”
What is interesting to me is that you don’t want to hold the guilty party in this thing responsible…
Sanity Defense: “The crux of this case is in fact the sextortion. He “extorted” her for sex and if it could be punished under extortion statutes, it would be. This was flat out blackmail. Which is why he’s considered a sexual predator and why he completely deserves to have a sexual registrant label for the rest of his life.”
That is exactly what I got out of this case…
It is also interesting to note that even the defense attorney does not think the DA did anything wrong, even though DPD does…
“What is interesting to me is that you don’t want to hold the guilty party in this thing responsible… “
I do, just not criminally.
“It is also interesting to note that even the defense attorney does not think the DA did anything wrong, even though DPD does… “
What Kathryn Druliner said:
[quote]I want to be clear that I am not criticizing Jeff Reisig. I supported him for District Attorney and [u]have no reason to believe he was personally aware of his deputy’s wrongdoing.[/u][/quote]
Care to rephrase your statement, Elaine?
[quote]Isn’t that what count 3 is all about? And wasn’t he found guilty of count #3? [/quote]
Count three again was contacting a minor with the intent to have sex, nothing to do with whether or not he attempted to blackmail or extort it from her.
defense atty: “I want to be clear that I am not criticizing Jeff Reisig. I supported him for District Attorney and have no reason to believe he was personally aware of his deputy’s wrongdoing.”
dmg: “Care to rephrase your statement, Elaine?”
What part of “I want to be clear that I am not criticizing Jeff Reisig…and have no reason to believe he was personally aware of wrongdoing” do you not understand?
dmg: “Count three again was contacting a minor with the intent to have sex, nothing to do with whether or not he attempted to blackmail or extort it from her.”
Count three again was about communicating with a minor with the intent to commit a crime…
[quote]What part of “I want to be clear that I am not criticizing Jeff Reisig…and have no reason to believe he was personally aware of wrongdoing” do you not understand? [/quote]
Where did I claim he was? In this case, the DA refers to Tiffany Susz as the prosecutor of this case, not Reisig.
Specifically a sex offense, in this case, PC 288A(b)(1).
[quote]The jury instructions were very specific.
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:
1. The defendant (contacted or communicated with/ [or]
attempted to contact or communicate with) a minor;
2. When the defendant did so, (he/she) intended to commit PC 288A(b)(1) involving that minor;
AND
3. The defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a minor.[/quote]
That’s it. This is the law that was written basically in response to the internet predators detailed on Dateline where they were having conversations on the internet with minors in order to have sex with them. There is nothing about coercion or blackmail in this statute, they didn’t have to prove coercion or blackmail, coercion and blackmail were never mentioned in the jury instructions. The only count that dealt with force or threat was the first count.
This actually sounds like a very interesting case and it brings up many issues that are quite tricky to adjudicate. One the one hand you have a underage girl who was violated. But 18 year old boys have one thing on their mind and a felony indictment seems strong.
To me the key issue is the level of coercion and the amount of premeditation. A true sexual predator would have obsessed over the issue. I’m not sure how many 18 year olds would really fit that pattern, even if they eventually became predators.
Where were the parents in all of this? I don’t think we can expect the courts to right all of the injustices in society. If we have someone here who is truly evil and needs to be put away that is one thing. What is the evidence that we have a true sexual predator as opposed to a very horny boy who did stupid things? I am certainly not condoning any of this, but our criminal system is overwhelmed, out govt is broke.
dmg: “Kathryn Druliner was more concerned with count three, which also carried with it lifetime sex offender status. What Mr. Artz did was admittedly stupid, particularly in his contact with the girl nine months later, seeking more sex and bringing up photos and a video that apparently did not exist, unbeknownst to the victim.”
dmg: “There is nothing about coercion or blackmail in this statute, they didn’t have to prove coercion or blackmail, coercion and blackmail were never mentioned in the jury instructions. The only count that dealt with force or threat was the first count.”
Which is it?
Which is what? I agree with her, he was stupid in his contact with her nine months later. He did seek more sex and photos and a video were brought up. It’s less clear who came up with the idea of sex for photos and videos, but he clearly ran with it, which again puts him in the stupid category. There is a reason that the DA did not charge him with threats or extortion. While I think it was stupid of him to do, it’s not clear to me that makes him a predator, in fact, I would as I have argue for hormones over malice here.
[quote]Where were the parents in all of this?[/quote]
This is what bothers me more than anything else. Where are the girls parents in all of this? She was apparently having weekend stay overs had her GF’s house, there was another incident the judge did not admit where she, a friend, and Michael slept in the same bed and did god knows what two weeks earlier at his BD party. And the girl’s parents were less than interested in knowing or staying by their daughter’s side as a detective came to talk to their 16 year old daughter and they never went to court. That’s appalling. How does that happen?
[quote]Where were the parents in all of this?[/quote]
This is what bothers me more than anything else (chill out Elaine). Where are the girls parents in all of this? She was apparently having weekend stay overs had her GF’s house, there was another incident the judge did not admit where she, a friend, and Michael slept in the same bed and did god knows what two weeks earlier at his BD party. And the girl’s parents were less than interested in knowing or staying by their daughter’s side as a detective came to talk to their 16 year old daughter and they never went to court. That’s appalling. How does that happen?
I mean she has the victim’s advocate sitting next to her in court and no parents anywhere to be seen? Something doesn’t add up.
dmg: “Where did I claim he was? In this case, the DA refers to Tiffany Susz as the prosecutor of this case, not Reisig.”
How about sentences like this:
“The Vanguard has often complained about the press releases from the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office…”
or “The Vanguard has consistently charged that the DA’s office typically overcharges on these cases.”
or “In the meantime, the DA’s office was completely dishonest with the press about the nature of this case.”
or “If the Vanguard and the work of this writer gets accused of bias, what does the DA’s press release amount to?”
or “Moreover the charges by Ms. Druliner about police and prosecutorial misconduct deserve an airing and an investigation.”
or “The DA in this case loses the benefit of the doubt by the very fact that the office misrepresented the facts of this case to the public.”
Elaine, I’m about to lose my patience with you. Obviously Druliner is referring to the specifics of her case. I am was making more general statements in particular about the press release and the DA’s office overall charging policy.
dmg: “Elaine, I’m about to lose my patience with you. Obviously Druliner is referring to the specifics of her case. I am was making more general statements in particular about the press release and the DA’s office overall charging policy.”
LOL Obviously your own words indicate you don’t much like the DA’s Office headed by Jeff Reisig, no? How does the reader take it any other way? Apparently the defense attorney took it the same way I did, since she felt it necessary to come to the defense of Jeff Reisig…
dgm: “He did seek more sex and photos and a video were brought up. It’s less clear who came up with the idea of sex for photos and videos, but he clearly ran with it, which again puts him in the stupid category.”
It also puts him in the criminal category…
dgm: “This is what bothers me more than anything else (chill out Elaine). Where are the girls parents in all of this?”
I’m perfectly chilled 😉 While I agree the girl’s parents should have been there for her in more ways than one, what does that have to do with the defendant’s actions? (The parents are not on trial in this case.) These two were in the house of the defendant, not the victim here. The defendant knew his parents were going to be away. Apparently the victim did not. The defendant chose to have sex with someone he knew to be a minor, and then tried to coerce her into have more sex with threats of revealing sexually explicit pictures. That goes beyond stupid into the realm of criminal…
As I’ve said before, if you are uncomfortable with the legal entanglement that young men can get themselves into, then you should be foresquare in favor of more education targeted towards sexually active teens. They need to fully understand the boundaries, even if their parents don’t enforce those boundaries. Otherwise these teens can find themselves in the unenviable position of being permanently labeled “sexual predators”. I don’t have so much trouble with that in this case, as I think the 18 year old’s actions crossed over the line into sexual predation. But what about the case in which a 17 year old boy has sex with a willing 16 year old girl, and they take sexually explicit pictures of themselves. Then the boy sends the pictures to his friends as a form of teen “bragging”. Suddenly he can find himself charged with trafficking in child porn, an extremely serious charge, with horrifying penalties.
Elaine: I think my feelings about the DA are well known, and certainly I took exception to the press release. However, I think the criticism in this case was mostly aimed at the prosecutor in this case, certainly as Druliner explained, hers was.
“It also puts him in the criminal category… “
I just think we criminalize too much at this time in our society.
“While I agree the girl’s parents should have been there for her in more ways than one, what does that have to do with the defendant’s actions?”
It doesn’t, just responding to someone point about my where the parents are and that is something that bothers me.
“The parents are not on trial in this case.”
But maybe they should be.
“Apparently the victim did not.”
I don’t buy that, she was told it was going to be a party, she was at a party a few weeks earlier at his home and no parents were there.
BTW, I was talking to my intern, we tried to summarize the case as much as and to the best of our abilities, but we could not include the type of detail to allow a judgment on the issue of her going to his house and the expectation of sex. That just wouldn’t have worked. As my intern pointed out, if she had included that level of material, I would have had to pull a lot of it out. As it was it was over 4000 words with the commentary and 3600 words without the commentary.
[quote]But what about the case in which a 17 year old boy has sex with a willing 16 year old girl, and they take sexually explicit pictures of themselves. Then the boy sends the pictures to his friends as a form of teen “bragging”. Suddenly he can find himself charged with trafficking in child porn, an extremely serious charge, with horrifying penalties. [/quote]
This is what I was talking about, a father found out a boy at school was sending nude pictures of his daughter. He talked to an attorney and decided that while he was very angry that he did not think he should get the police involved because he did not want to ruin a kid’s life by making him a sex offender under the sexting statutes.
David, are you suggesting the law you cite doesn’t apply to, or isn’t supposed to apply to, Mr. Artz? Or that the judge gave improper instructions to the jury? Sounds like he, his attorney, the jury, you and everyone else involved agree that he broke the law. It also sounds as though it’s pretty cut and dried, and that he should consider himself fortunate that the jury acquitted on the one count.
I’m with you on the idea that high school colleagues shouldn’t be treated the same as older predators who prey on kids. How many classmates would be jailed from earlier generations (before we became more aware of and more critical of the various variations of rape)? I think the law changes tried to account for the young’s consensual sexual adventures, but maybe doesn’t yet consider every possible situation adequately.
Maybe the law needs changing; maybe there should be more lenient penalties for those young students found guilty of consensual sexual activities. But, parents (and our institutions) need to assure young people know that turning 18 brings serious legal responsibilities and expectations. I’d lay money that this kid never in his life got addressed as “Mr. Artz”–until after he got arrested.
[quote]David is an investigative reporter, investigating and presenting his findings[/quote]
Good grief. No wonder the world is so screwed up. It seems that the most important thing education could do is devote an entire year of high school to teaching people how to think critically and not allow students to graduate until they master it.
Sanity Defense: I am well educated. I have asked you for proof that what David has written is incorrect. Yet, you produce nothing and want the readers to take you at your word. You keep revealing that you are the biased one without critical thinking skills. Inflammatory rhetoric does not convince me. If you have verifiable proof – let’s see it.
Since you accused us of not being able to think critically, I’d like to critically break down your statement.
“You like to focus on the oral cop charge because that’s the one you won and discount the charges on which he was found GUILTY.”
David did not “win” he was not the attorney, nor the defendant. This accusation is misplaced.
“No queestion it’s hard to prove two years later a he-said / she-said case that boils down to the two parties’ intent. Not being able to prove it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.”
Not being able to prove it doesn’t mean it happened either. Our legal system was built with the presumption of innocence, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten.
“The crux of this case is in fact the sextortion. He “extorted” her for sex and if it could be punished under extortion statutes, it would be. This was flat out blackmail. Which is why he’s considered a sexual predator and why he completely deserves to have a sexual registrant label for the rest of his life.”
The fact that you stated it could not be punished on the extortion statutes, leads me to believe it is NOT flat out blackmail.
“It was easy to prove the sextortion – he admitted it in the phone call and the press release quotes the transcript of that phone call.”
If he admitted this in the phone call that would be proof, hence your earlier comment about it not being able to be punished under the statutes is highly suspicious. The fact that he wasn’t charged with extortion also makes your comment highly suspect.
Or perhaps it’s not so easy to prove and maybe the phone call is not what you are leading the readers to believe, especially if what David reported is true that the detective destroyed his notes from the phone call, which is also very suspicious.
You stated earlier they were not able to prove his intent, and yet later claim that it was so obvious and he stated it in the phone call. What you claim does not add up. You can’t have it both ways. If it’s easy to prove then he would have been convicted.
“The jury may or may not have been distracted enough by Ms. Druliner’s false accusations to forget that very important fact but apparently not enough to avoid finding him guilty of the crime he admitted on tape to committing.”
Where is the proof that she made false accusation? If as you state the jury convicted him of what he admitted to on the tape – then he did not extort sex like you stated earlier, because he was not charged with that.
“When Druliner couldn’t attack that part of the case, she attacked the prosecutor and the investigator’s character. She couldn’t prove there was any misconduct because it didn’t occur. Sadly, she’s allowed to hurl these baseless accusations. There should be a court that holds her accountable for her gross misrepresentations of people on the other side of this case.”
Misconduct of detectives, attorneys and judges are done through the State Bar, Judicial Council, Appellate process, Internal investigations or Federal Investigations. If you are educated about legal process as you seem to be, you should be well aware this and thus your statement is just a red herring to mislead the readers.
“Disgusting…”
You attack the Vanguard as being biased. Yet, earlier this year when pressed on the issue of investigating stories the Daily Democrat’s editor admitted that he reprints the District Attorney Office’s press releases due to lack of staff and budget. You don’t consider this as being possibly biased? Come on. The “paper” newspapers admitted they do not have the resources to cover what is happening in the court. Unless, you have proof that what is being written is misrepresented or wrong I suggest you keep your comments civil for the benefit of everyone.
ERM; In every article written you defend the DA’s actions, the DDA’s actions, the judge’s actions–no matter how outrageous they are. You criticize David for reporting some of these outrageous actions. How come none of these actions never bother you?
Do you have a connection to the DA’s office? Is your work supported by them?
FAI said
Do you have a connection to the DA’s office? Is your work supported by them?
Probably “the connection” are all of the people who suppport the elder abuse progams and many work in the County Justice System. Protecting alliances is quite understandable but it also may cloud objectivity.
Most of us are biased in some direction, but we should always try to be independent enough to be reasonably objective.
Just Saying”
What my sign on name is has NOTHING to do with what I said! If anyone wants to contact me I don’t mind from the attorneys. But for the public it is NONE of your business what my name is! Just like you! “Just Saying” you obviously do not want people to know your name.
I did not know they were going to quote me or I would have come up with something more professional. That was just a playful name on my end.
Shetazz: I apologize for that, I just thought it was important that people who had not seen your post to see what you have to say.
David I do not mind you quoting what I said because what I said was how I felt!
And what I said after the case was the truth.
But the comment about my name from “Just saying” was Not necessary.
I have never been on this site before so when I filled out the information I put in a playful name not knowing I was going to be quoted.
You have to understand the limitations of what can be charged under “Extortion.” He was charged with and convicted of sexual extortion. And his attorney, here in this blog, conceded that he was guilty of it.
Since you don’t understand the difference, you are not qualified to judge what happened here.
You have as much evidence before you that the DA and investigator lied or distorted the facts as you have that Druliner made false accusations. I say one, Druliner says the other. I don’t expect you to believe me. I also expect you not to believe Druliner or David, neither of whom is impartial.
The inability to separate agenda-driven arguments from objective presentations of fact is the only thing that keeps this blog – it is a blog after all, NOT an investigative report – alive.
Sanity Defense
I have a problem with the concept of convicting a person of one thing and then announcing to the world that the person was convicted of something else.
To be fair however-
Shetazz
Would you please make a comment – do you think this guy was convicted by the Jury of sextortion?
Alphonso: The 288.3 doesn’t get at the issue extortion or blackmail, it is simply a charge for contact for the purposes of committing some sexual offense, in this case the 288A(b)(1). I’m still not clear from Sanity Defense’s explanation why it couldn’t have been charged as a threat or extortion. And I think Druliner would have been to show, had he been charged with such a crime, that the issue of who suggested what complicated the actions. I think her statement was meant to suggest he acted stupidly, not that she believed he committed a crime there.
[quote]”I did not know they were going to quote me or I would have come up with something more professional.”
“Shetazz: I apologize for that, I just thought it was important that people who had not seen your post to see what you have to say.”
“I have never been on this site before so when I filled out the information I put in a playful name not knowing I was going to be quoted.”[/quote] Sorry, I just was wondering if we should believe your anonymous claim to be a juror. If it’s true, we should give special weight to your observations about this case.
If David vouches for you, that’ll be good enough for me. And, I’m sure he’ll help you change to a less offensive name if you want. It doesn’t need to be “more professional,” as you can see from the strange monikers that abound here.
Alphonso: The 288.3 doesn’t get at the issue extortion or blackmail, it is simply a charge for contact for the purposes of committing some sexual offense, in this case the 288A(b)(1).
I agree – it looks like the DA convicted the defendant of one thing and then announced the conviction was for something else. I suppose the assumption was that most people would be too ignorant of the facts to notice.
Thank you “Just Saying”
It also puts him in the criminal category… ”
I just think we criminalize too much at this time in our society.
“While I agree the girl’s parents should have been there for her in more ways than one, what does that have to do with the defendant’s actions?”
It doesn’t, just responding to someone point about my where the parents are and that is something that bothers me.
“The parents are not on trial in this case.”
But maybe they should be.
Classic…one one sentence David you rail against too much being “criminalized” and in the next you make a statement that the parents should be on trial.
That’s my fault in that I was a bit sloppy in my glib comment which was attempting at least to make the point that I think the parents need to step up and police their own kids behavior not the criminal justice system.
erm: “The parents are not on trial in this case.”
dgm: “But maybe they should be.”
I’m going to strongly disagree with you here. Teens very frequently do things behind their parents’ backs (and can be very devious about it), no matter how well brought up these kids are, no matter how much parents may have done the right thing in raising their kids. Once you have teen children, come and talk to me! I’ve had three, so I know of what I speak… Remember back to your own youth. Are you going to tell me that you never did anything wrong behind your parents’ backs? Children climb out of windowns, lie to their parents as to where they are going, etc.
Would you fault the parents of the defendant? They left him unsupervised with the freedom to use the place as a brothel if he so chose? They didn’t seem to be keeping a very good eye on his activities (condoms and camera in the car). Would you put them on trial? Somehow I doubt it… Yet he needed some solid education in regard to sex with underage girls, and sextortion…
fai: “ERM; In every article written you defend the DA’s actions, the DDA’s actions, the judge’s actions–no matter how outrageous they are. You criticize David for reporting some of these outrageous actions. How come none of these actions never bother you?
Do you have a connection to the DA’s office? Is your work supported by them?”
Now I find it interesting that anyone who doesn’t agree with the premise that the DA is corrupt is somehow connected with the DA’s Office. I am in no way connected with the DA’s Office, nor have I ever been. But it shouldn’t matter. The rules of this blog allow for anonymous posting. No one knows who anyone is unless the poster chooses to reveal his/her name. However, who the poster is and what their connections are is irrelevant. If you can’t argue the logic, accuse the poster of being connected with thus and such? That is nothing but name calling/innuendo/is a personal attack. Argue against the position, but skip the personal attacks. When you devolve into accusations of that time, it is bc you are losing the argument.
I defend the DA’s actions when I think attacks on the DA are based on malice, bias, unfairness, misunderstanding, or are not well founded. IMHO, I have found that so many of the attacks on Vanguard’s Judicial Watch against the DA are crafted more to support a preconceived agenda (the DA is corrupt) than to actually uncover wrongdoing.
As a lawyer who has practiced briefly as a trial attorney, and who has been a respondent and plaintiff in a 3 1/2 year civil trial, I also find there are huge misconceptions about the legal process by the Vanguard, along with misplaced blame.
Am I troubled by some things the DA/law enforcement have done? Absolutely – and I have said so on this blog many times and been very specific about it…
“As a lawyer who has practiced briefly as a trial attorney, and who has been a respondent and plaintiff in a 3 1/2 year civil trial, I also find there are huge misconceptions about the legal process by the Vanguard, along with misplaced blame. “
I am a Senior Finance Manager, not an attorney. I suppose it is fair to say I have misconceptions about the legal process. However I do know a person is considered innocent until proven otherwise and that is why I questioned your objectivity. You stated the defendant in this case was a predator, but that was not what was decided in court – that was just your opinion based on bits and pieces of information you read somewhere. You claim DMG puts too much of his own “biased” opinion into his commentary, yet you do the same thing.
What troubles me about this case is the way the DA reported it. They convicted the defentant of two things but then reported it as if they had convicted him of something different. They simply were not honest – is that how the legal process is supposed to work? You didn’t object to that misinformation
at all because you were hung up on your own opinion.
I do think the Yolo judicial process has major flaws and I wish the State had an auditing process to insure more consistency between all of the juristictions. Judges and DAs should be rotated throughout the State. In the meantime we need information from both sides of the Judcial process. Its interesting that two people have found some of DMG’s Judicial commentary to be biased yet agree that some of the topics have value – and they have different ideas on which ones have value. The last thing I will say is that this case proves the DA press releases are more biased than anything found in the Vanguard. It is good to have both sides of these issues and it should be required reading for all prospective jurors.
Alphonso:
I disagree…The jury convicted him of the 288 charge which carries with it the requirement of registering as a sexual predator.
Is your belief that he did not contact this girl and attempt to use the non existent photos to gain sex from this girl?
DB
As I understand it, he made contact in an attempt to have oral sex. You are adding to that charge the notion of coercion and that is where you and I disagree. The applicable law speaks of communication ( in any form) and it does not say anything about coercion or blackmail. The juror’s comment, that was posted earlier, seemed to be saying the sex was consensual and not coerced (in his/her opinion) but they had to convict on the other two charges due to age and the fact that there was in fact communication – but there was nothing else. The same juror also pointed out the “victim” was doing the same things with a woman who was six months older than the defendant. I am just not seeing the conviction for coercion. You and I did not hear the case – I would really like to get more information from jury members.
Also, I think the term is “registering as a sexual offender” – not a predator.
These days everything is criminalized. Also the feds are now paying big cash for sex convictions, so there is a huge incentive to charge these cases up to the max. A million years ago when I was a teenager in east podunk, 18 year old boys were getting blow jobs from 16 year old girls on a regular basis with no police or courts involved. Maybe it wasn’t the right thing to do, but the teenagers didn’t get charged with felony sex crimes that will ruin their lives because they gave into raging hormones. I am sure for all the sanctimonious comments about 18 year olds being responsible for knowing the law, this boy never thought in a million years that he was committing a crime. This country has become a police state.
I just read the article again…am I to understand that the 16 year old girl was also in a lesbian relationship with an 18 year old woman who then testified against the boy? Sounds like a triangle here with overtones of vengeance on the part of the 18 year old girlfriend and excuse “he forced me” on the part of the unfaithful 16 year old. Also, why wasn’t the 18 year old lesbian girlfriend prosecuted for having sex with a minor? Did I just fall down the rabbit hole David???
You read that all exactly right and yes, I do believe that the girlfriend was behind a lot of the police complaints.
Which headline was on David’s write-up and which one was on the County news release?[quote] “Yolo County Jury Finds Davis High Grad Not Guilty of Forced Oral Copulation”
[ and ]
“Davis Man Convicted by Jury in ‘Sextortion’ Case”
Now, that was easy, wasn’t it? Okay, next question…
How much different are these two descriptions about what Mr. Artz was found guilty of:
[quote]”…oral copulation with a person under 18 and contact and communication with a minor with the intent to have sexual relations….”
[ and ]
“…oral copulation with a 16 year-old girl and later communicating with this same 16 year-old girl via Facebook and the telephone with the purpose of forcing her to have sex with him, an act that has come to be known by law enforcement as ‘sextortion’….”[/quote]
Final question: Who cares?!
Just Saying: Let’s be accurate. The title is:
Davis Man Convicted of Extortion. One of the lines in the article states, “Artz made the 16-year-old girl orally copulate him and he took photographs and video during the incident,” Raven stated.”
Here the Daily Democrat article makes it sound like Artz was forcing her to orally copulate him. The juror and David both said that Artiz was found innocent of forcing the oral copulation.
Just because you picked out some words in the press release that were similar to David’s article, doesn’t mean that Raven’s press release didn’t have lies in it. This is huge lie.
Here’s the link to the article if other people would like to see for themselves what was written.
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/ci_15949371?source=most_viewed
Also, why wasn’t the 18 year old lesbian girlfriend prosecuted for having sex with a minor? Did I just fall down the rabbit hole David???
Wow! That’s an interesting question. Why wasn’t the 18-year old girl prosecuted? That seems like a bit of bias in the legal system.
Alphonso: “However I do know a person is considered innocent until proven otherwise and that is why I questioned your objectivity. You stated the defendant in this case was a predator, but that was not what was decided in court – that was just your opinion based on bits and pieces of information you read somewhere. You claim DMG puts too much of his own “biased” opinion into his commentary, yet you do the same thing.
What troubles me about this case is the way the DA reported it. They convicted the defentant of two things but then reported it as if they had convicted him of something different. They simply were not honest – is that how the legal process is supposed to work? You didn’t object to that misinformation
at all because you were hung up on your own opinion.”
LOL All I did was agree with the jury’s verdict! How is that not being objective? I have said that I do not think newspapers should publish the press release from the DA without identifying that it is a press release from the DA. And no, the DA should not misrepresent anything in a press release.
Alphonso: “Also, I think the term is “registering as a sexual offender” – not a predator.”
I would say that was a distinction without a difference.
Just Saying:”Which headline was on David’s write-up and which one was on the County news release?
“Yolo County Jury Finds Davis High Grad Not Guilty of Forced Oral Copulation”
[ and ]
“Davis Man Convicted by Jury in ‘Sextortion’ Case”
Now, that was easy, wasn’t it? Okay, next question…
How much different are these two descriptions about what Mr. Artz was found guilty of:
“…oral copulation with a person under 18 and contact and communication with a minor with the intent to have sexual relations….”
[ and ]
“…oral copulation with a 16 year-old girl and later communicating with this same 16 year-old girl via Facebook and the telephone with the purpose of forcing her to have sex with him, an act that has come to be known by law enforcement as ‘sextortion’….””
The splitting hairs that is going on here to excuse the behavior of this 18 year old is amazing. The 18 year old threatened to expose sexually explicit pictures to coerce the 16 year old to have more sex with him. That is “sextortion” – from UrbanDictionary: “Sextortion – When a person… uses guilt, power, or knowledge of certain secrecy, to force another person into having sex or performing sexual favors.
[quote]”Just Saying: Let’s be accurate.”[/quote] I [u]am[/u] accurate–not only merely accurate, but really most sincerely accurate.
Please examine the county’s release at: http://www.yolocounty.org/Index.aspx?page=26&recordid=1430&returnURL=/index.aspx
FAI, my point is, of course, that David and the DA headline their stories about the same trial from very different approaches. One thinks his headline should feature the acquittal verdict, and the other thinks it should highlight the two guilty verdicts. All Vanguard regulars can guess correctly on their first try about which is which.
But, both versions are “true”–although one could say they reflect quite different points of view on the outcome–so why should we be calling one a lie? (And please note that I didn’t even mention the poorly done [u]Democrat[/u] article you quote.) [quote]”Just because you picked out some words in the press release that were similar to David’s article…”[/quote] [u]Very[/u] similar, in fact. I’m glad you noticed. Each shows what the author sets out as the major point of the story to follow. The DA’s lede goes on to detail some of the “communicating” charge evidence and to note that the behavior “has come to be known by law enforcement as ‘sextortion’.” David’s lede goes on to describe the two guilty findings. Different approaches, but it’s hard to pick out any lies here.
But, more important, what difference do these post-trial reporting observations make to the Artz case and the jury’s decisions? It’s just a mystery to me why they are generating such vitriol.
Odd observations:
[u]Don[/u]: Why are we all talking in boldface now? Does it happen when we top 75 comments and too many are redundant?
[u]Elaine[/u]: Checked out your UrbanDictionary citation and notice you left out a strange portion of the definition. With good reason. LOL, as they say.
ERM
LOL All I did was agree with the jury’s verdict! How is that not being objective?
What if you are basing your comments on a twisted (by the DA) view of what the Jury decided? We disagree on our different views of what was actually decided by the Jury. You are not being objective if you are basing your conclusions on bad information.
Just Saying: “Elaine: Checked out your UrbanDictionary citation and notice you left out a strange portion of the definition. With good reason. LOL, as they say.”
Yes, I wondered if anyone would catch that! Good analysis above by the way. Each side is framing the argument to bolster a preconceived agenda.
Alphonso: “What if you are basing your comments on a twisted (by the DA) view of what the Jury decided? We disagree on our different views of what was actually decided by the Jury. You are not being objective if you are basing your conclusions on bad information.”
Actually I was basing my comments on DPD’s version of what happened. And I hardly consider his view objective/unbiased.
As I read this, I can’t help but think of how similar the actions and handling of the Ajay Dev case by the Davis PD detective and the deputy DA were to this case. IT’S THE SAME MO(Method of Operation).
Even the DA’s post conviction press release made it sound like Ajay was convicted of somethings the jury found him not guilty of. Again the same MO as this case. It looks like there is a pattern here. Ajay is innocent and is in the middle of appealing, which unfortunately is a long process.