Did Grants Drive Prosecution of Artz Case As Statutory Rape Case?
The Vanguard has now learned that prosecutor Tiffany Susz is designated as the Statutory Rape Grant Prosecutor, and 30% of her salary comes in part from a Vertical Prosecution Block Grant. This supplies the DA’s Office overall with $480,000 and funds portions of four prosecutors including Ms. Susz, and also Ryan Couzens (40%), Robert Gorman (45%) and Robin Johnson (45%). Data from the DA’s grant application illustrates this.
However, the grant is specifically for the prosecution of cases where adults have sexual contact with minors. In this case, that designation has always been highly questionable as not only do the two individuals have less than a two-year gap in their ages, but they were only one grade apart in school. It is thus questionable that this is really the intent of the grant program.
Reading the grant criteria makes it clear what is going on here. According to the language in the grant instructions, “The goal of the SRVP [Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution] Program is to increase vertical prosecution of adults having sexual intercourse with minors.”
Furthermore, “The service mandated by the SRVP Program is to vertically prosecute cases of unlawful sexual intercourse as defined under PC §261.5. Vertical prosecution has been shown to improve conviction rates, reduce trauma to victims, and provide more consistent, appropriate sentencing.” Vertical prosecution requires that a prosecutor or a small team of prosecutors handle a case from start to finish, enhancing familiarity with the case, providing continuity throughout the trial process and streamlining all interactions with all involved in the case. Such a method normally requires a greater number of prosecutors.
The SRVP Program also notes that the intent is not to subsidize the prosecution of cases for forcible rape, or child molestation cases.
“The intent of the SRVP Program is to vertically prosecute adult offenders engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse as defined under PC §261.5. It is not the intent of the SRVP Program to subsidize prosecution of these cases for forcible rape or child molestation cases.”
In other words, it seems like the Artz case should not have possessed the criteria for inclusion, based on the fact that it was primarily an alleged forced oral copulation, rather than strictly a statutory rape case. Although, again, the jury ended up acquitting Mr. Artz of the forced component of the charges.
This is made clear in the narrative provided by Deputy District Attorney Tiffany Susz.
Writes Ms. Susz in the most recent report, dated September 14, 2010, “Other noteworthy cases scheduled for trial within the next reporting period are People v. Michael Artz and People v. Adam Craver. People v. Michael Artz has been pending for awhile, and was mentioned in the last reporting period. Defendant Michael Artz is an aggressive 18-year-old male. The victim is a timid 16-year-old female.”
She continues, “Artz is charged with forcing the victim to orally copulate him, in violation of Penal Code Section 288a(c)(1), and communicating with a minor with the intent to rape the minor or force the minor to orally copulate him, in violation of Penal Code Section 288.3(a). Artz met the victim through his ex-girlfriend. He befriended the victim and engaged in grooming behaviors with the victim.”
Grooming behaviors with the victim? This is really a reference to cases in which an older adult will coach a minor on sexual behavior. That is not what happened here, where the two individuals were basically friends. In addition, the prosecution has tried to play this victim off as sexually innocent, when it is far from clear that was the case.
Ms. Susz continues, “Artz invited the victim to a party at his house where he represented [that] other people would be present. The victim went to the “party” only to find out that she was the only person he invited to this “party.” Artz lured the victim into a bedroom where he forced the victim to orally copulate him. It appeared to the victim Artz videotaped the incident.”
As we now know, of course, the jury did not buy this portion. They found the victim’s account not credible and did not believe this act was forced.
“After the incident was over, the victim told Artz he had forced her to orally copulate him and fled Artz’ home in tears.”
This statement does not appear to be accurate either. In fact, it is not clear when, if ever, the accuser confronted Mr. Artz on this point.
“The victim did not disclose to law enforcement after this incident, but she confided in her best friend what happened.”
Actually, she confided in her female girlfriend or lover, who then pushed her to report the incident.
“Approximately nine months later, Artz used “Facebook” to initiate contact with the victim. Through “Facebook,” text messages, and phone calls, Artz threatened the victim [that] if she did not have sexual intercourse with him or orally copulate him, he would post on the Internet photographs he claimed he had from the oral copulation incident. The victim decided she must report this conduct to the police department,” Ms. Susz continued.
“The police department got involved. The police interviewed Artz and recorded telephone conversations he had with the victim where he admitted engaging in sexual acts with the victim when she did not want to.”
This is again inaccurate. He may have admitted in engaging in sexual acts with the accuser, but never admitted any knowledge that she did not want to.
“Artz also admitted he threatened the victim [that]if she did not have sex with him or orally copulate him, he would expose their prior sexual act.”
This is also less than clear from testimony and evidence that was presented at trial.
“The police department collected various electronic items from Artz’ home and conducted a forensic exam on Artz’ computer. During the forensic exam, law enforcement found disturbing videos and photographs of rape fantasies on Artz’ computer. In the last reporting period, I had conducted the preliminary hearing in December 2009. We are scheduled to begin this trial in August 2010 [sic; this report was released after the trial]. This case should hopefully resolve by the next reporting period.”
This case has partially resolved itself. However, we now know the motivation for the DA’s Office to pursue the unlawful sexual conduct with a minor charge. As I have stated many times, I think this is a case in which the letter of the law is not operating as intended. The point of having an age of consent and statutory rape laws is to prevent older and more mature adults from sexually exploiting children.
In this case, the DA is prosecuting the behavior of peers and classmates, one of whom was held back a grade, for engaging in sexual acts. These individuals were friends, they hung out in the same social circle, and that is very different from other cases in which older men are sexually exploiting far younger minors.
Moreover, this is a case where it appears the DA’s Office has diverged from the intended funding purpose of the vertical prosecution program, a purpose that was not intended to subsidize the prosecution of forced rape cases, yet that is precisely what this case did.
In a previous report, signed in March of 2010, which also mentioned the Artz trial, Ms. Susz wrote:
“The first six months as your statutory rape prosecutor has certainly been interesting and rewarding. Cases involving adults that groom teenagers, adults that engage in sexual acts with teenagers, or adults that engage in sexual intercourse with teenagers is a very specialized area. I look forward to continuing vigorous prosecutions of adults that take advantage of our youth.”
Moreover, it also appears important that the DA’s Office obtain convictions that force the registration of individuals as sex offenders. We know that Mr. Artz was not eligible for that registration based on the sexual contact with a minor charge due in part to the small age difference, but he was eligible based on the third charge, which was having a conversation about sex with a minor.
Furthermore, the DDA is pushing hard for jail time, as we know from her motion which argued that, even though Mr. Artz was acquitted of the forced charges, the Judge could still take those factors into account.
We see in the grant report a possible incentive for securing prison and jail time for convicts.
There is an old saying that if you want to understand an action that on the surface does not make sense, one ought to follow the money, and that is what we have done here. This is very simple, the DA’s Office was able to fund this prosecution through the grant, hence there exists a prime reason why they chose to charge the additional charges. Ms. Susz needed to justify 30% of her pay and the DA’s Office needed to help insure the continuation of eligibility for the grant in the future. Remember, they have to be able to show increased prosecutions, as that is the purpose of this grant.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
For us “dummies”, what is ‘vertical prosecution’?
Good question. Here’s what I found:
“The term “Vertical Prosecution” is used to describe these specialized prosecution activities. Vertical Prosecution refers to a method in which a prosecutor is assigned to the case from the initial point of referral to the completion of the prosecution. This method results in continuity and improved prosecution success.”
Vertical Prosecution is a method in which a prosecutor is assigned to the case from the initial point of referral to the completion of the prosecution. This method results in continuity and improved prosecution success and that translates into more grant money for “special” projects.
Vertical prosecution is where the DA assigns special prosecutors to handle a case from the very beginning (arraignment of the defendant) to the very end (dismissal or sentencing). The idea is to prevent the sensitive alleged victim from being/ feeling passed around from one deputy to another for arraignment, preliminary hearing, pre-trial negotiations, trial, etc. It is also supposed to allow the prosecutor to properly assess not only the case but the viability of the alleged victim to benefit from the process. In child sex assault cases, for example, the victim does not get any money. If the victim is telling the truth about the assault (not always the case, there are some other reasons where the child is angry and legitimately so but not for molest) but for one reason or another will probably not be able to convince a jury of 12, is it better to have him/her rejected? The only thing the victim gets from the process is validation which is a step on the way to regaining self esteem. The process of molestation removes trust in adults and destroys self esteem. The vertical prosecution team was designed to protect and serve the victim—- not fund the office. It is also used for domestic violence victims for the same purpose. Sometimes it is used for drug cases for a different reason — usually due to the special knowledge of who the drug dealers are.
As to the comment Susz made about grooming, that was disengenuous to say the best (lawyer speak). An example, real life, is when a grandfather like figure in the life of a child who has no real active parent takes the 6 year old out and buys her dolls and ice cream. He takes her to the play ground. He loves her. He pays special attention to her when no one else does. Then, once he softens her up and makes her trust him, he moves slowly into the molest. Here, as Susz knows but fought like heck to keep away from the jury, and won a ruling by Mock, the “victim” had slept in the same bed with Artz two weeks prior to the alleged “rape” in August of 2008. She was at a party at his girlfriend’s house and was too drunk to go home. She discussed engaging in a 3-way with Artz, his girlfriend and herself. Artz’ girlfriend was the one to say no. Was this the timid, naive girl that Susz represented to the grant funders? Or to the jury? Also, this girl told the jury she still wanted to be friends with Artz and when probation contacted her for a victim statement she declined. It did not look to me like Susz had bonded with her AT ALL. This looked like anything but vertical prosecution.
great work, David.
David: Again this is great detective work, but at the same time very scary stuff. I remember that one of the juror’s on this case said that they were disgusted to have had to give a “guilty” conviction on the statutory rape charge because these were two high school classmates.
It seemed at the time very strange that the DA’s office would want to push the statutory rape crimes in this case. If DA’s started prosecuting all teens in high school that partake in sex (and one is over 18), we could be locking up many, many students.
When you tie in the money factor from the grants, now it makes sense, why they have added these charges. The big question here: Is the DA trying to put real criminals behind bars, or just using cases like this to bolster his numbers?”
FAI, I think you have raised a very pertinent question here:
“The big question here: Is the DA trying to put real criminals behind bars, or just using cases like this to bolster his numbers?”
We have seen many examples of this type of prosecution from the DA’s office. David has tied over prosecution to a cash for convictions progra from Reisig’soffice. I would like to see two things:
1.) An independent investigation of Reisig’s office into the appearance of grant fraud and over prosecutions.
2.) As an elected official who has taken an oath to serve the people, it is the moral obligation of such an official (Reisig) to support an independent investigation to maintain trust with the people through transparency. In view of the allegations, he should be out on the roof tops welcoming such an action, and even call for one himself. By calling for an investigation himself (not one that he has any influence over, or with any one he and his office has ties to the investigating agency (didn’t Jonathan Raven, the grant writer, come from the Attorney General’s office?) he would demonstrate a clear conscience and a willingness to keep all matters transparent and above board.
Furthermore, the County Board of Supervisors should demand one as well.
“Furthermore, the County Board of Supervisors should demand one as well.”
Times are tough and the Supervisors need this money to balance the books. Justice is compromised to meet the budget.
Good Job again, it just irritates me that the Sac Bee and Dem will not pick up things like this and bring focus and education to the public. I keep reading in the Dem that the Vanguard is not the press, really? You break more stories in a month then they do all year.
Many other major papers get a lot of their breaking stories from things just like this, but for some reason DA Reisig and his bully and fear tactics has all the local “news media” scared and intimidated to “cross him” or demand answers.
Another Definition of Vertical Prosecution is:
The DA gets to give his “loyal guys” the grant positions with extra money, so these cases get extra cash, extra and better equipment, their own high end computers, some grants come with take home cars, bigger offices and since the grant positions bring in money they are given special treatment and not burdened with other lower Dep DA duties, all one hell of an incentive to protect and justify their grant to stay on Mr. Reisig’s good side!
The ubiquitous “Cash for Convictions” stratagem prohibitively employed by the District Attorney’s office in Yolo County has transformed prosecutions into persecutions for personal, professional + financial aggrandizement.
Justice be Damned!
I have to agree with Roger Rabbit. Why hasn’t the Sac Bee, Daily Democrat or the Enterprise tried to find out about these issues? Why is David the only person reporting on this?
dmg: “Grooming behaviors with the victim? This is really a reference to cases in which an older adult will coach a minor on sexual behavior. That is not what happened here, where the two individuals were basically friends. In addition, the prosecution has tried to play this victim off as sexually innocent, when it is far from clear that was the case.”
Two points:
1) Because the two were “friends”, there cannot be rape/statutory rape? Is that your argument?
2) The victim is not on trial here…
dmg: “Ms. Susz continues, “Artz invited the victim to a party at his house where he represented [that] other people would be present. The victim went to the “party” only to find out that she was the only person he invited to this “party.” Artz lured the victim into a bedroom where he forced the victim to orally copulate him. It appeared to the victim Artz videotaped the incident.” As we now know, of course, the jury did not buy this portion. They found the victim’s account not credible and did not believe this act was forced.”
All we know is the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the oral copulation was forced. There is a huge leap from there to concluding the victim’s account was not credible, and the jury did not believe the act was forced. They did not believe the act was forced beyond a reasonable doubt.
dmg: “Actually, she confided in her female girlfriend or lover, who then pushed her to report the incident.”
Three points here:
1) Was there proof the female girlfriend and victim engaged in sex?
2) Relevancy?
3) The victim and the female girlfriend are not on trial.
dmg: “”Artz also admitted he threatened the victim [that]if she did not have sex with him or orally copulate him, he would expose their prior sexual act.” This is also less than clear from testimony and evidence that was presented at trial.”
How so?
dmg: “In this case, the DA is prosecuting the behavior of peers and classmates, one of whom was held back a grade, for engaging in sexual acts. These individuals were friends, they hung out in the same social circle, and that is very different from other cases in which older men are sexually exploiting far younger minors.”
So I take it that if an 18 year old has sex with a minor close in age, no matter what the circumstances are, you believe the DA should not prosecute for statutory rape, even tho the DA has a perfect right to do so?
Also, I thought someone in an earlier thread said there had to be a 3 year age difference to charge statutory rape in CA. Or is it there has to be 3 year age difference to become registered sex offender? Need clarification on this point…
dmg: “The intent of the SRVP Program is to vertically prosecute adult offenders engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse as defined under PC §261.5. It is not the intent of the SRVP Program to subsidize prosecution of these cases for forcible rape or child molestation cases.”
But if the case involves multiple charges, one of which includes statutory rape, then isn’t it OK to use the grant money to vertically prosecute adult offenders? Or is that not permitted under the grant funding? In other words, can the grant funding only be used for vertically prosecuting statutory rape cases where there are no other charges involved?
dmg: “There is an old saying that if you want to understand an action that on the surface does not make sense, one ought to follow the money, and that is what we have done here. This is very simple, the DA’s Office was able to fund this prosecution through the grant, hence there exists a prime reason why they chose to charge the additional charges. Ms. Susz needed to justify 30% of her pay and the DA’s Office needed to help insure the continuation of eligibility for the grant in the future. Remember, they have to be able to show increased prosecutions, as that is the purpose of this grant.”
What are you saying here, that you would prefer the DA not to pursue this grant funding bc it has inherent conflicts of interest that come with it? The problem I see is that in order to show grant funding is being effective, you have to be able to show numbers, but requiring numbers sets up an inherent conflict of interest in giving a DA improper incentive to overprosecute certain charges. Very circular, and I’m not sure how you solve the problem other than to refuse such grant money altogether. But to do so hamstrings a DA’s Office from obtaining funding that can help keep the DA’s Office afloat. It is much the same as the inherent conflicts in plea bargaining.
ERM
As the lawyer: Have you read the Cal Supreme Ct Case of People v. Eubanks overturning a conviction due to minor funding of investigative effort by an Insurance Co. when the DA could not afford it? (Conflict of Interest due to funding).
Also, were you privy to the police reports, court docs, witness testimony? How do you know that the alleged victim was credible or even said she had been forced?
Moreover, are you aware that the prosecutor and cop in this case, according to the alleged victim’s sworn testimony, knew of her romance with the girl 6 mos. older than Artz that they spent week-ends together, and the DDA was “ok with it” and Beasley went off tape to hide it from the defense (all unconstitutional of the highest “Brady” magnitude”). And did you know Beasley did all this before Mr. Artz was even arrested?
Did you know Judge Mock suppressed a three way sexual contemplation by the alleged victim, Artz and his girlfriend 2 weeks before the alleged naive girl went to his home for the “party” ruse?
Did you also know Beasley and the City of Davis are being sued for civil rights violations (42 U.S.C. 1983) arising out of similar conduct in the Noori case in December 2009? Nine week trial, one day acquittal of 3 young men. Did you know that the Artz family will be soon added as plaintiffs to that civil rights lawsuit and it is not in Yolo County but Federal Court.
Did you also know that prosecutor’s have only qualified immunity (Imbler et al) when they interject themselves into the investigation of the case?
Did you know that Susz admitted to me that she told Beasley to call the sister of Mr. ARtz on the day trial was set to start (July 26th, 2010) [as he did with 2 sisters in the Noori case]? Did you know that this is never done? Did you know that Mr. Artz’ parent’s both have cancer and his mother is past her projected life expectancy already? Did you know that while his sister knew of the charges that Beasley’s call, first to her husband and then to her, so upset her that she called her parents and was so hysterical that they could not even tell what was wrong for quite a while. It took months and me to intercede for a telephone call with her dying mother.
What do you really know?
1. Eubanks’ conviction overturned.
2. Victim had a girlfriend.
3. Supposed “three-way” contemplation.
4. Artz to join Beasley suit in federal court.
5. Prosecutor’s [sic] have only qualified immunity.
6. Beasley called sister of Artz who got upset.
7. Artz’ [sic] parent’s [sic] unfortunately both have cancer.
Relevance, Ms. Druliner?
What I “really know” is that Mr. Artz is guilty of law-breaking, convicted by the jury who found witnesses credible and other prosecution evidence convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, and now is facing up to four-years-plus in the state pen for his crimes. I also know that some cases are reversed when appealed–but, for now, guilty as charged (except on one count).
What I really don’t know is how we can teach young guys to not to engage this kind of threatening sexual behavior with minor girls. Or, at least, to stop it before their 18th birthday when it automatically turns into serious criminal activity.
Eubanks is still good law. It is Cal Supreme Ct decision and would have to be overturned by U.S. Supreme Court and has not been. Shepardize it.
Relevance of other facts are to answer hypothetical questions and alleged knowledge of ERM.
Relevance of federal lawsuit against DDA and adding plaintiff to Noori suit is public knowledge which is one of purposes of this blog isn’t it?
What about the issue of “Cash for Convictions” that David has brought forth. I would love to hear more discussion about this.
In David’s other article, he showed that the DA’s office exaggerated their statistics in order to get grants. In this article David is demonstrating that the DA’s office stretches the truth in the reports they submit in order to keep their grant funding.
Doesn’t this bother people, that their DA’s office is doing this? Doesn’t this bother people that the “cash for the convictions” seems to be more important than justice?
Elaine:
A few points in response to your points…
“1) Because the two were “friends”, there cannot be rape/statutory rape? Is that your argument?”
No, I’m specifically responding to the issue of grooming which I don’t this applies in this case for the reasons stated above.
“2) The victim is not on trial here… “
The victim’s interaction with the defendant form the context for the incident and thus her behavior before and after (and during) the incident are in play.
“All we know is the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the oral copulation was forced. There is a huge leap from there to concluding the victim’s account was not credible, and the jury did not believe the act was forced. They did not believe the act was forced beyond a reasonable doubt. “
We talked to the jury and a juror in fact posted on this site, so we know more than you are stating here. That statement was based on our conversations with Emily and other jurors.
“1) Was there proof the female girlfriend and victim engaged in sex?”
I believe there was evidence that they had.
“2) Relevancy?”
If the girlfriend was manipulating the accuser behind the scenes due to jealousy then it goes to the credibility of the story.
“3) The victim and the female girlfriend are not on trial.”
Again, it’s all one big puzzle that needs to be put together.
“How so?”
He never admitted he threatened the victim and it was mostly implied rather overt. Also the victim seemed to plant the idea in the defendant’s mind.
“So I take it that if an 18 year old has sex with a minor close in age, no matter what the circumstances are, you believe the DA should not prosecute for statutory rape, even tho the DA has a perfect right to do so?”
That is correct, I don’t think the statutory rape laws were designed to protect 16 year olds from their 18 year old classmates. The law may read that way, but the DA has discretion as to what to charge.
“Also, I thought someone in an earlier thread said there had to be a 3 year age difference to charge statutory rape in CA. Or is it there has to be 3 year age difference to become registered sex offender? Need clarification on this point…”
I believe the latter.
“But if the case involves multiple charges, one of which includes statutory rape, then isn’t it OK to use the grant money to vertically prosecute adult offenders?”
I don’t know. It seemed like this was primarily a case of forced rape with the other charges bootstrapped on as secondary charges. If you read the narrative that really becomes clear. That would seem to violate the intent of the language.
“What are you saying here, that you would prefer the DA not to pursue this grant funding bc it has inherent conflicts of interest that come with it?”
I think there are problems that arise when it appears the DA is prosecuting in order to receive money, don’t you? As there are more budget cuts and more reliance on grant money, we are likely to see some cases not charged and other less serious ones charged due to resources, isn’t that a problem?
[quote]”What about the issue of “Cash for Convictions” that David has brought forth. I would love to hear more discussion about this.”[/quote] Sometimes trying to “follow the money” leads one down the wrong road. Sometimes it’s a stretch to conclude that one good thing (grant funds) drives a bad thing (unfounded prosecutions).
David suggests the DA “is prosecuting in order to receive money.” The evidence he provides that these motives are true is skimpy, at best. It’s more likely that the money [u]allows[/u] counties to go after offenses that the state feels are serious enough to support with special emphasis and funding. That, of course, is the objective of grant programs.
Either way, we count on David to see the justice world the way he does and follow his tendencies when he takes a look at actions by police, prosecutors and courts. Sometimes he exposes unfair, bad things. Sometimes, instead, he only reveals his bias and compassion for the underdogs in our legal system.
[quote]”Relevance of other facts are to answer hypothetical questions and alleged knowledge of ERM.”[/quote] Thank you for clarifying; I thought you meant these facts went to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Artz.
Incidentally, it’s not tradition here to try to discredit other posters or to ridicule their levels of expertise as part of disagreeing with them. The Rules of Engagement for David’s enterprise call for focus on opinions and facts rather than credentials. We all have a right to be wrong here.
When someone purports to be an expert (i.e. Rush Limbaugh) and others rely on that person, it can be dangerous to the public knowledge base. ERM spoke as a trial lawyer and made other representations that were dangerous to anyone relying on them. That is the very reason for the First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, thought, expression, debate, the press. To the extent that my comments personally attacked ERM I sincerely apologize to her. I have no doubt her heart is in the right place, especially after following the Vanguard since the Artz verdict, more specifically today. Those remarks arose from frustration; not an excuse just an explanation. I would not apologize if the comments had been made by Rush Limbaugh as he does what he does, knowing he is inciting ignorance, and he does it for his personal financial gain. That is despicable.
Also, Just Saying, perhaps you could respond to your remark posted that Eubanks was overturned when it was not. Are you satisfied to ignore this? What if I had not corrected that false statement?
Just Saying: Getting grant money can be a very good thing–especially when it is used to fight real crime. Unfortunately, the DA in Yolo County is abusing the concept.
David has shown us that the DA has misrepresented crime stats on this grant applications to get this money. Now David has shown us that the DA misrepresents the cases in his grant reports in order to keep the money. It has also been shown that the DA misrepresents cases to the public in his press releases. All three of these things in themselves is enough to make one wonder about the integrity of the DA’s office.
On top of all that add the fact that there have been numerous complaints that the DA has a habit of overcharging, turning misdemeanors into felonies, overprosecuting, and that some people have been falsely convicted.
I am not sure what it will take for you to feel that an investigation into these claims should be done.
OK, I went back and read all the comments after the Artz verdict. I’m old and have never blogged before. I wanted to know who was behind these pseudonyms because it was clear to me that one of the bloggers was from the DA’s office First I thought it was Sanity Defense; I was disabused of that
Then I was alerted in the blog posted by Just Saying with all the “sic” references and the false statement about Eubanks being overturned, combined with something someone posted earlier “Come on Jonathen Ravens” that he is Just Saying-Reisig’s new Chief Deputy, and the one who signed the grant docs David posted. That makes sense. J. Ravens came to Yolo DA from the State AG’s Office and no doubt does not want to lose his job. He wrote the press release that the Sacramento Bee retracted as false.
[quote]”When someone purports to be an expert (i.e. Rush Limbaugh) and others rely on that person, it can be dangerous to the public knowledge base. ERM spoke as a trial lawyer and made other representations that were dangerous to anyone relying on them.”[/quote] Pleased to see you’ve decided Elaine doesn’t fit into the Rush Limbaugh category. In fact, I’ve never noticed her to “purport” to be a “trial lawyer” or make any other false claims, for that matter. We all recognize she’s an attorney of a different sort, but we appreciate her views about all issues–including legal ones, including occasional wrong ones.
I can see how you might have gotten irritated with some of the opinions you found here when you joined this lash-up, but (as you now generously note) the personal nature of your early attack wasn’t appropriate for the situation. Worse, Elaine didn’t have the advantage of reading your message before it was yanked. “Worse” because her subsequent responses didn’t come close to satisfying your original concern and appeared to irritate you even more.
Don: You were a major, though unwitting, party here. By “sanitizing” Ms. Druliner’s post, turning it into a simple request for Elaine’s background, you left her without a clue of the intent to discredit her and her opinions. I used to think personal-attack posts should be pulled, but now I wonder. Should only the offensive part be deleted (and with a phrase indicating why? This attempt to paraphrase led the target down a unfair path. How about just leaving the nasty stuff and adding a warning: “That’s One!”
“Eubanks’ conviction overturned….” was just an inartful attempt to summarize the facts I thought you were providing, that the defendant’s [u]conviction[/u] was overturned. I also was wondering how you feel People vs. Eubanks 14 Cal 4th 580, 594 might be relevant to the Artz case. No need to Shepardize if you’re satisfied with my explanation.
I was thinking that the Eubanks case dealt with a DA who thought he could use private, corporate contributions from the “victim” to finance prosecution efforts for that case. How would a prosecutor suffer a similar conflict of interest because the state provides budget assistance that enables counties’ to investigate and prosecute various [u]types[/u] of crime?
If you’re really that concerned about “representations…dangerous to anyone relying on them,” you’d better keep a closer eye on David. Some of the stuff he sez is really radical, although I wouldn’t say it’s “dangerous to the public knowledge base.”
Anyway, it’s great to have another legal point-of-view joining the fracas.
read the former blogs: ERM said she did read my original comment before Don pulled it.
Eubanks is relevant b/c if 13,000 in $ can be enough to cause the S court to overturn a conviction b/c the defendant might not have received or felt he received a fair trial, how can Mr. Artz and so many others feel that just Susz’s 35% of her salary paid for by the State and not the General Fund not create the conflict?
kd: “ERM spoke as a trial lawyer…”
Never happened, as JustSaying pointed out. Thanks JustSaying, for the clarification 🙂
kd: “To the extent that my comments personally attacked ERM I sincerely apologize to her.”
Apology accepted. To those new to the blog, it takes a bit of getting used to the written and unwritten rules 🙂
kd: “read the former blogs: ERM said she did read my original comment before Don pulled it.”
No, I said I HAD NOT READ YOUR ORIGINAL COMMENT before Don pulled it. Someone else said they had read your comment (cannot remember the person’s label, but I think it was bachha?). As I said, blogging on the Vanguard can be tricky as there are a lot of very intelligent commenters, and it definitely keeps us on our toes 🙂
JustSaying: “Don: You were a major, though unwitting, party here. By “sanitizing” Ms. Druliner’s post, turning it into a simple request for Elaine’s background, you left her without a clue of the intent to discredit her and her opinions.”
I think Don is darned if he does, and darned if he doesn’t! 🙂 However, those who blog on the Vanguard have to understand, as someone pointed out earlier, that one should attack the opinion, not the person. Seems simple enough.
But I would like to make a couple of observations here. 1)When someone goes into “attack mode”, it is likely the party “attacked” is going to go into “fight mode”. This will be true on a blog or in the courtroom. As the old adage goes, you get more with honey than with vinegar. 2) I am a bit puzzled why a defense attorney would feel it necessary/advantageous to retry a case in a blog.
JustSaying: “We all recognize she’s an attorney of a different sort, but we appreciate her views about all issues–including legal ones, including occasional wrong ones.”
LOL, and right you are! I have been known to be wrong a time or two! And I try to admit a mistake when I’ve made one. Smart people are not smart bc they never make a mistake. Smart people are smart bc they LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES!!! 🙂
OK: I where did I get the impression that ERM was putting herself out as legal expet? 8/31/10 posting “Attempt to communicate with intent to commit a crime is not protected speech” This is incorrect or drug and prostitution stings would not be necessary, just phone call monitoring.
When did I say I was a trial lawyer 9/1/10 posting “lawyer, briefly as trial attorney.. 3 1/2 years ..civil proceedings… ” and then went on to offer opinion based on that experience/expertise on Vanguard reporting.
Just Saying can see how I would have gotten irritated? Read his remarks which came close to calling for my deportation (I am a citizen) for defending my client, on David’s first Artz article 8/30.
Damage from DA false press release on Artz? People defending the DA’s office have focused on the wrong thing. Not only did the press release have the wrong “sextortion” fact, but Jonathan Raven went much further in communicating to Channel 10 (TV) which televised the information, that “according to court records Artz invited a 16 year old girl to his house for a party and forced her to orally copulate him.” That is a lie. Court records do not show that. The jury verdict shows the opposite. Raven knows that. The damage is obvious in the blogging on the Channel 10 blog that followed where many wrote in expressing their desire to see Mr. Artz raped and worse in Prison. This is not the only problem but to me, one of the most serious problems with hyperbole/malice/bad faith/bad loser/ whatever in this arena.
Whatever you think of an 18 year old boy trying to get a 2nd blow job from a 16 year old girl who was willing to give him one 9 mos. earlier, he is not the East Area rapist, yet all 290 registrants are lumped in the same category. IF the 3d count were not unconstitutional or if Mr. Artz had not been acquitted of the overcharged count 1, he would have to look over his shoulder for the REST OF HIS LIFE for Joe sixpack who is on his internet and sees his neighbor’s name on the Megan’s Registry, with an address 2 streets over. Joe Sixpack, of course, has a 9 year old daughter and a gun and he knows nothing about Artz or why he is on the 290 registry.
“but Jonathan Raven went much further in communicating to Channel 10 (TV) which televised the information, that “according to court records Artz invited a 16 year old girl to his house for a party and forced her to orally copulate him.” That is a lie. Court records do not show that. The jury verdict shows the opposite. Raven knows that.”
A number of years ago I met and talked with Jonathan Raven at a Davis Human Relations meeting. Mr Raven agreed to take some of my concerns back to the DA – that was about 9:00PM. He claimed he could not make any decisions on his own, he had to take issues back to his boss first. The next morning I made a followup call to Mr. Raven and he basically claimed we did not talk about the things we had discussed less than 12 hours earlier. My take was either Mr. Raven is the most forgetful person I have ever met or he is simply a dishonest person.
Alphonso,
“Mr Raven agreed to take some of my concerns back to the DA – that was about 9:00PM. He claimed he could not make any decisions on his own, he had to take issues back to his boss first.”
What were your concerns?
“The next morning I made a followup call to Mr. Raven and he basically claimed we did not talk about the things we had discussed less than 12 hours earlier.”
That evening (9 pm) Raven told you he had to speak with the DA before even considering your concerns and you called Raven the next morning to follow up? Did you really expect them to have addressed your concerns first thing the very next morning?
And, as a trial attorney I do a chronology, cast of characters, index, etc. to figure out my case. Well I have had to do that here and imagine my interest when I found a reasonable comment by JustSaying at 8:58 AM on the Gang blog. If I were putting this before a jury, I would show them that this comment, the only reasonable one from that name I could find, occurred exactly one hour after my post with some comments I would rebut if I were him.
There is an evidence code section that says if one makes an accusation and the other, knowing of its nature and meaning, does not deny it, then the accusation can be deemed admitted. Makes sense doesn’t it? If you accuse your 2 yr old of dipping his fingers into the blueberry pie, when he has pie all over his face, and he does not deny it but walks away — you know you have a pretty cagy 2 yr old who is GUILTY.
super…man: I think Alphonso’s point is that Raven disclaimed even any memory of the conversation; not that he had not had the chance yet to talk to Reisig. Those are 2 very different things.
Kathryn,
“I think Alphonso’s point is that Raven disclaimed even any memory of the conversation; not that he had not had the chance yet to talk to Reisig. Those are 2 very different things.”
I understood his point, but the fact that Alphonso would call the next morning when only speaking to Raven the night before is a little presumptuous, IMO.
Why on earth would Raven deny talking to him, I wonder? I guess if I had some context and additional information about their conversation that might help. I mean, why would he just flat out lie about having the conversation with A.? Do you think he was just trying to get rid of Alphonso and told him “yeah, yeah…I’ll talk to my boss…”? Still, why not just tell him, when Alphonso called, “Look, he [Reisig] isn’t going to go for this/change that…” What does Raven care if this guy feels his questions have or have not been seriously addressed by the DA’s office?
Was his conversation with A that night the only one Raven had or was it the last of a dozen? After having conversation after conversation, maybe he honestly didn’t remember having the conversation with A. I don’t know J. Raven, but it seems like a lot of people are not very impressed with him, professionally and personally…not just in Yolo County.
Personally, I think he’s not so great at damage control and public relations, which I think are some of his more important duties as the Asst. Chief DDA in charge of administrative matters. What do you think? Just inept or lacking the instinct desired for a person handling the office’s image?
After reading that report about the Gutierrez shooting of which he is listed as one of the two authors(you should read it, you will laugh), I’m not too surprised by some of the Raven stories told by those who have worked with him and know him.
BTW, I just got around to responding to your post in the Mock thread.
[quote]”Just Saying can see how I would have gotten irritated? Read his (her?) remarks which came close to calling for my deportation (I am a citizen) for defending my client, on David’s first Artz article 8/30.”[/quote] Deportation of attorneys?! Wait a minute, is this one of those “what do you call 1,000 trial lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean” jokes?
When I went back to the 8/30 article to see what I wrote that was so disrespectful to offend you, I couldn’t find anything remotely close to what you describe here. So, I reread the following stories I found by searching for “Artz.” Again, I just can’t find anything to which you might be referring.
August 27–“Mock Explodes”
August 30–“Artz NG of OC”
August 31–“Druliner Talks”
Sept. 1–“DMG Reviews 6 Mos.”
Sept. 3–“[u]Bee[/u] Makes Correction”
Sept. 14–“[u]Democrat[/u] Defends Policy”
Sept. 16–“DA Responds to [u]Democrat[/u]”
Oct. 14–“Defense Seeks Mock Disqualification”
Oct. 18–“Sentencing Delayed”
Oct. 20–This post…. [quote]”I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don’t make, although I might.” (Anne of Green Gables)[/quote] I’m willing look again if you’ll be more specific. It seems like almost all of the derogatory attorney stuff in the Artz coverage has been aimed at the DA and the prosecutor. Given what we know about this case, it seems like the defendant was fortunate to be found not guilty of the forced OC charge, thanks to good lawyering.
[quote]”…imagine my interest when I found a reasonable comment by JustSaying at 8:58 AM on the Gang blog. If I were putting this before a jury, I would show them that this comment, the only reasonable one from that name I could find, occurred exactly one hour after my post with some comments I would rebut if I were him. There is an evidence code section that says if one makes an accusation and the other, knowing of its nature and meaning, does not deny it, then the accusation can be deemed admitted.”[/quote] Not so fast there, counselor. I don’t admit to nuthin’, but appreciate that you’ve judged only one of my recent observations as “reasonable.” The rest, perhaps, you graded illuminating and on point?
With respect to your concern re. my failure to more promptly respond to your 8:58 a.m. deportation accusation, I think that I’d just moved on before you wrote and then I didn’t get back to this page for awhile. That my response on the gang trial story got posted “exactly one hour after” your post here is strictly happenstance. That’s it: coincidence, merely this and nothing more.
Distracted ok, but still no response to false press release to Channel 10 and the inevitable result on Mr. Artz if sent to Prison? My remark about adoptive admissions was not limited to deportation accusation and that was —seems silly to have to say this— a joke.
Plus, I pointed to the August 30th article and your vitriolic comments about my defense of Mr. Artz; they are there for all to see. I need not repeat them.
[quote]”…I pointed to the August 30th article and your vitriolic comments about my defense of Mr. Artz; they are there for all to see. I need not repeat them.” [/quote] I posted only two comments about David’s story, “Yolo County Jury Finds Davis High Grad Not Guilty of Forced Oral Copulation”:
08/30/10 – 09:05 AM — Questioning Det. Beasley’s exemption from witness exclusion rule.
08/30/10 – 10:03 AM — Follow-up to exclusion rule question.
Of the two dozen uses of your name, David made all but one of them. My “vitriolic comments”? Insufficient evidence. I do not recall making any comments that could be so labeled, and I plead not guilty.
I don’t have much to say about any “false press release to Channel 10.” I’m against false or misleading information being peddled as fact or as the whole story. And, I agree with those who call on editors and other media people to do their jobs rather than just unquestionly run releases that show up in their mail.
With respect to your question re. result on Mr. Artz if he’s sent to prison, I’m not sure I understand your point here. Whacko Channel 10 bloggers won’t have any effect on some judge’s sentencing decisions or on his treatment if he receives a prison sentence. What’s the “inevitable result” about which you’re concerned?
kathryndruliner: “OK: I where did I get the impression that ERM was putting herself out as legal expet? 8/31/10 posting “Attempt to communicate with intent to commit a crime is not protected speech” This is incorrect or drug and prostitution stings would not be necessary, just phone call monitoring.
When did I say I was a trial lawyer 9/1/10 posting “lawyer, briefly as trial attorney.. 3 1/2 years ..civil proceedings… ” and then went on to offer opinion based on that experience/expertise on Vanguard reporting.”
You apologize for personally attacking me, then continue. You quote things, but do not attribute what articles they are from, so it is impossible to verify the accusations. Worse, you quote snippets which are probably taken out of context, if they are even accurate at all. I don’t know why you feel the need to personally attack anyone that disagrees with you, but the rule of thumb here is to attack the opinion, not the person, which has been clearly stated to you. Enough said.