The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office picked the wrong case on which to issue a distorted press release. Unlike some attorneys in Yolo County, Sacramento-based Kathryn Druliner does not accept the system as it is and will not drop the matter.
We reported on Friday that a Yolo County jury acquitted Davis resident Michael Artz of forced oral copulation, while convicting him of both having oral copulation with a minor and of having contact with the minor, seeking sexual contact.
The press release from the DA’s office that distorted the record by never mentioning Mr. Artz’s acquittal, was reproduced verbatim by the Sacramento Bee, Woodland Daily Democrat and other news organizations.
The title of that press release, also reproduced by the various media, states, “Davis Man Convicted by Jury in “Sextortion” Case.”
“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.”
While the DA focused on the “sextortion,” it was never charged and tried. Artz was convicted of unlawful conversation seeking sex, under California Penal Code 283.3 – not extortion or blackmail. While some are now claiming there is no provision under the law to charge such a crime, the fact that the crime was not charged also means that it did not have to be contested by the defense.
The Bee’s retraction on Thursday morning read, “Because of incorrect information in a Yolo County district attorney news release, a story on Page B2 Tuesday included incorrect charges as part of the conviction of Michael Hien Artz, 20, of Davis. Artz was convicted of oral copulation with a person under the age of 18 and contacting or communicating with a minor with the intent to commit rape or oral copulation.”
Our sources indicate that the District Attorney’s office is up in arms over the correction, but the defense attorney is apparently not happy either.
The Bee’s correction fails to address the major inaccuracy of the Yolo County DA’s press release which stated at least three separate times that Mr. Artz forced the minor to commit a sex act. Mr. Artz, however, was acquitted of committing any forcible act.
As I have pointed out several times, P.C. 288.3 was not related to the use of force in the sex act. The jury instructions made that very clear and that was, of course, beneficial to the prosecution in the case because it lowered the threshold of proof. To get a conviction on 288.3 , they only had to show that Mr. Artz contacted a minor with the intent to orally copulate.
To prove it, the burden was to show that Mr. Artz 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.
So, while the Bee’s retraction angered the DA’s office, it did not fix the major problem. It did not state that Mr. Artz was acquitted on the charge of forced oral copulation, and it inaccurately described the conviction on the 288.3 charge, contacting a minor with the intent to have oral copulation.
That said, at least the Bee stepped up to correct something. Hopefully other news organizations will follow along. The big problem that remains is that the media simply takes press releases from the DA (and other entities) and reproduces them without questioning their accuracy, generally without attempting to contact the other party.
Amazingly, the Vanguard gets accused of bias, when most of the time we have fully attended the jury trials that we report on, have heard both sides of the conflict, and have tried to present those sides accurately. We draw our own conclusions and write them out, but that’s in addition to the core of the issue from both sides.
I understand local newspapers lack resources. In that case, they should either print a disclaimer that the story primarily came from a press release OR they should not print stories that have not been verified for accuracy. That is in their best interest because, obviously, printing inaccurate stories will destroy the credibility of the newspaper in the eyes of its readers.
A couple of months ago Jim Smith, the Editor of the Woodland Daily Democrat, issued a heartfelt editorial on the state of his paper and why they choose to re-print press releases. I feel for him and the rest of the industry. But since then, he has not taken one step to improve his coverage, either by using a plain disclaimer or by just having his reporter attempt to contact the defense attorney before they run the DA’s press release. Seems simple and not overly burdensome – but to no avail.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How many time do any of you think the District Attorney’s Office of any county will issue a press release telling their voters that they filed a bunch of cases that were overcharged, so they lost, losing the taxpayers money. “We lost the cases because we exercised bad judgement.” They are only going to issue the press releases on the cases they are “bragging” about. The reliance on press releases is, therefore,necessarily biased.
That’s exactly right Ms. Druliner. Which is why I would have expected them not to have issued a press release in this case, but they couldn’t resist trying to spin the issue (probably because they knew we were there and would report the truth of the matter).
Again byline of these ‘stories’/press releases should be “Press release from DA Office” NOT Enterprise Staff as currently done. That gives the reader an altogether wrong impression.
DPD, could you ask the various editors of the 4-5 papers cited why they don’t change the bylines?
You certainly have informed me about these stories. When I see Enterprise Staff now I don’t even read it.
dmg: “To me that means they should either print a disclaimer that the story primarily came from a press release OR they should not print stories that have not been verified for accuracy. This is to their best interest, printing inaccurate stories will diminish the trust that people have in the news they read and the credibility of the newspaper.”
Seems reasonable to me. The refusal of the print media to be upfront about reprinting a press release is indicative of why the public does not trust what they read in newspapers anymore. But other news sources are no better, frequently reporting opinion as if it were fact.
dmg: “Furthermore, while the DA focused on the “sextortion” portion of the case, that portion was never tried. He was convicted of unlawful conversation seeking sex under California Penal Code 283.3 not extortion or blackmail. And while some are now claiming there is no provision under the law to charge such a crime, the fact that the crime was not charged also means that it did not have to be contested by the defense.”
Based on your previous articles about this case, the 18 year old said he was going to reveal sexually explicit pictures if the 16 year old victim did not have sex with him in the future. Let me quote from a previous article in which you wrote: “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.”
Elaine: Because that issue was not charged, she could acknowledge he acted stupid and did not have to try to contest. I think she would have had a good case for entrapment on that point since if you listen to the conversation and read the transcript, the girl mentioned the trade, he went along with it at that. But because it wasn’t charged, the jury never had to determine the truth of the matter and the defense never had to contest it.
dmg: “Elaine: Because that issue was not charged, she could acknowledge he acted stupid and did not have to try to contest. I think she would have had a good case for entrapment on that point since if you listen to the conversation and read the transcript, the girl mentioned the trade, he went along with it at that. But because it wasn’t charged, the jury never had to determine the truth of the matter and the defense never had to contest it.”
I presume you are now trying to separate the sentence “Kathryn Druliner was more concerned with count three, which also carried with it lifetime sex offender status.” from “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.” after the fact?
Mr. Artz COMMUNICATED with his SIXTEEN YEAR OLD VICTIM that he would reveal sexually explicit photos if she did not continue to have sex with him. This is count three – communicating with a minor with the intent to commit a crime.
Elaine, Your are not getting it right. He was never charged for that. He was charged and convicted for merely communicating to a minor about sex. He was a senior in High School and she was a Junior, I believe. A high school student was charged for talking to a peer about wanting sex. This, at the most, should have been statutory rape and a misdemeanor due to the closeness of their ages. The sexual act was consensual, per the determination of the jury. Why are you such an advocate of throwing this young man’s life away?
Good for the Bee, that is surprising since DA Reisig normally gets his way. I will bet another release is put out with more misinformation to further confuse the public and make you or the BEE bad guy.
A common tactic of Mr. Reisig to put out misinformation and throw up smoke when the gets caught lying. You would think lying to the people by a public official would be a crime.
[i]”I understand the lack of resources by local newspapers. To me that means they should either print a disclaimer that the story primarily came from a press release OR they should not print stories that have not been verified for accuracy.”[/i]
I completely agree with this. I have communicated that to Debbie Davis, as well.
By the way, where I often notice The Enterprise publishing stories which are simply rewrites of press releases is with stories about the “good works” of our members of the state legislature or our member of Congress*.
What disturbs me about that particular practice–regardless of my feelings about the individual office-holder or the activity the office-holder is promoting–is that such “stories” really amount to free campaign advertising for the elected officials. But by contrast, The Enterprise would never give that office-holder’s electoral opponent the same treatment. They would not publish some “story” written by Olivia O. Outsider’s staff which was designed to sell the idea to the public that Mrs. Outsider is a wonderful person doing wonderful things. Yet they do that all the time for Irene I. Insider.
*In addition to the press releases, Cory Golden will write stories about Congressman Mike Thompson which are based on his own work. However, they often send the same message: [i]what a mensch we have for our congressman.[/i] The articles normally do not include contrarian experts providing a different take on what Thompson is doing.
That said, when Cory wrote a story about Thompson’s earmarks earlier this year–“He has requested $41.4 million for projects that would benefit Yolo County directly — among them projects that would strengthen levees and deepen the Sacramento Deepwater Ship Channel — plus upwards of $14 million for UC Davis-related research, almost all in agriculture.”–Golden included a number of quotes from a local Republican campaign manager which noted that while Thompson calls himself a fiscal conservative, his record on spending belies that.
Ryan Kelly: “The sexual act was consensual, per the determination of the jury. Why are you such an advocate of throwing this young man’s life away?”
Once this guy threatened exposure of the sexually explicit photos, to obtain more sex, his behavior crossed the line for me. This is a guy who will do whatever it takes to get what he wants. Condoms and the camera in the car are further evidence this guy planned the thing out, and will do it again. That is what concerns me…
There’s a pattern in the DA’s office regarding press releases. The DA’s post conviction press release in the Ajay Dev case made it sound like he was convicted of somethings the jury found him not guilty of. The same MO as this case. Ajay is innocent and is in the middle of appealing, which unfortunately is a long process.
Bachha: Yes, you are right. The DA’s press release in the Ajay Dev case said that he was convicted of pornography and impregnating the accuser. He was NOT convicted of either of these crimes. I am not sure why the DA feels it is necessary to lie about facts that are so easy to check.
I also recall that in the Jeff Lockwood case, the DA press release stated that there was DNA evidence convicting Lockwood. Yet, there was no DNA evidence brought forth.
I have a feeling that if you looked at most of the cases where the DA sends press releases where he has been “bragging”, you will seem similar issues of “stretching” the truth. Up to this point, no one has been checking what the DA has sent. Hopefully people will start double checking the facts.