In the original trial, enough complicating factors were presented that led two or three of the jurors to vote to acquit, much to dismay of the jury foreman. In a quick retrial, this time there was no such problem, and the jury convicted quickly on all counts.
The neurologist testified that the result of this condition is that the area of the brain, where impulse control is located, is impacted. In addition, the medical evidence suggests that sexual deviance may also be a symptom of the affliction.
According to the press release from the Yolo County DA’s Office, Mr. Sass, 43, of Woodland was convicted of eleven felony counts of child molestation, and one count of lewd and obscene conduct, for the crimes he committed against his 11-year-old step-daughter when she was between the ages of 8 to 10 years old. The jury also found that when Sass molested his step-daughter, he had engaged in “substantial sexual conduct” with her.
According to the prosecution, Sass molested his step-daughter for two years before she told anyone. In May, 2009, she told her mother about Sass molesting her. The victim’s mother confronted Sass. Sass confessed to the victim’s mother, his wife, that he had been molesting the victim for the previous couple years.
The victim’s mother reported to Yolo County Child Protective Services that Sass had molested her daughter. Child Protective Services immediately notified the Woodland Police Department, and the detectives started a criminal investigation. The victim was interviewed by a child interview specialist at the Yolo County Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center (MDIC), where she recounted the details about the numerous times Sass molested her.
The victim explained she did not tell her mother immediately because Sass had told her that he would go to jail if she told that he was molesting her.
The victim testified at trial about several incidents when Sass molested her. The DA’s press release reports that at trial Mr. Sass presented a medical defense, in an attempt to excuse his criminal behavior with his step-daughter. Mr. Sass claimed that he had a cyst on his brain and he had Lyme disease. He claimed that because of these maladies, his brain was so impaired that he could not control his impulses, which resulted in his molestation of his step-daughter.
Mr. Sass testified at trial, and both the neurologist and also a neuropsychologist testified for the defense, in an attempt to convince the jury that Mr. Sass had not acted “willfully” when he molested his step-daughter. The prosecution questioned witnesses and Sass about whether these alleged impulse control issues were present in any other aspects of his life.
None of the witnesses could point to behaviors that showed Sass had been acting impulsively. The prosecution called forensic psychiatrist Dr. Jason Roof, from the University of California Davis Medical Center, to rebut Sass’ defense.
Dr. Roof testified about the behaviors one would expect to see in a person who has an inability to control his impulses. Mr. Sass did not exhibit any of these behaviors that would suggest he had an impulse control disorder, causing him to molest his step-daughter.
District Attorney Jeff Reisig commended the efforts of the Yolo County Multi-Disciplinary Center, Woodland Police Department, and the medical professionals from the University of California Davis Medical Center for their hard work in this case. Reisig stated, “The verdict reflects the commitment of the jury to perform their civic duty in a serious case, and also demonstrates their ability to critically evaluate the medical and psychiatric evidence they were presented with.”
While the DA’s press release paints a very neat picture of the charges and the trial, the case was quite complicated, which in part explains the first trial ending in a hung jury. Ultimately, we believe the prosecution and the jury got it right in this case, but it was far from the clear-cut slam dunk that the DA portrays.
There were a number of problems with the prosecution, such as misconceptions and manipulations, as well as shortcomings from the defense side of the case.
All the medical experts at the trial, both from defense and prosecution, appeared to be thoroughly qualified and believable. All were highly accomplished in their fields. The big distinction between them was that only the defense experts were speaking from actual first-hand experience of having examined and tested Mr Sass thoroughly.
The prosecution expert, Dr Roof, was analyzing information provided to him during his testimony and in the reports of other doctors who had examined Mr Sass first-hand.
Dr. Wicks, for the defense, has been a psychologist for around 40 years. He testified that he had spent hours and hours putting Mr Sass through all kinds of tests while he was in custody. His results, which he explained in detail, seemed to be conclusive. He stated that the tests showed that Mr Sass had a general “significant impairment” to his brain functions, and that the left hemisphere showed more of an impairment than the right.
He stated that important parts of Mr Sass’s brain, including those which controlled executive functions, showed significant impairment, and this corresponded to the MRI scan that showed a lime-sized cyst in the region of the brain behind the left eye.
This was in addition to the testimony of neurologist Dr. Griffith, who found that Mr. Sass also suffers from a progressive brain condition in the frontal area of his brain that results from a bacterial infection , as well as from the effects of the pressure exerted on his brain by the cyst. The symptoms of memory loss, headaches, pain behind the left eye and tiredness are getting progressively worse. The sexual deviance is a more severe symptom, that has developed and progressed as well. We know that it has been happening in the same time interval as the other symptoms, and this was a fundamental point for the defense.
No one knows exactly when or how he got the bacterial infection in his brain or when the cyst formed, but we know that his symptoms, including the sexual deviance, all emerged together. The cyst rests adjacent to the sexual center in the brain. The bacterial encephalitis preferentially infects the front of the brain, though the infection may be throughout the brain. It produces fluid-filled pockets where neurons have died out. These spaces are visible and were identified by the radiologist who did the MRI scan.
It is too much of a coincidence, argued the defense and Doctor Griffith, that all this is happening to Mr. Sass near the centers that have been scientifically identified to be the centers of sexual behavior and impulsivity. As Doctor Griffith said, sometimes the most that can be stated is a descriptive explanation of the condition, rather than a solid biological model. Science knows that behaviors emerge from the brain and that they are associated with specific locations in the brain, but science does not know how exactly interactions happen to create behaviors.
The fundamental problem is that the origin of behavior cannot be pinpointed to the moment. Not even in a normal person can we clearly explain how and when words are formed for speech, for example. So explaining how someone’s normal function has been deviated to create abnormal sexuality is even harder. However, brain science up to this point has used indirect methods to ascertain relationships, such as medical events that correspond to changes in behavior.
The defense was able to build on this testimony in the second trial, with the testimony from Dr. Wicks who did not testify in the first trial.
DDA Tiffany Susz had some interesting moments in this second trial. First, she appeared to have difficulty fully comprehending the medical testimony. She questioned Dr Wicks about the level of Mr Sass’s impairment. At one point, she spoke about a hypothetical patient who showed “100% mental impairment.” She persistently used that term until the doctor had to interrupt her and say: “The only people who are 100% mentally impaired are the deceased.” She then ceased to use that term.
During her questioning of Dr Roof (the prosecution’s expert), she again showed limited understanding of what the expert was saying.
The expert had explained an example of an extreme state of impulsivity that could exist in a person, in which the person would appear insane and out of control to everyone, doing each and every thing that came to mind.
Ms. Susz took this extreme example to be the only possibility of impulsivity that could exist, and began to compare Mr. Sass’s conduct to it. She went through a list of questions asking whether that extreme example could be considered genuine iimpulsivity if there were some deliberation and some restraint.
Of course, the doctor responded that if there were deliberation and restraint, the extreme impulsivity would not be present. Later on, Ms. Susz stated that we all have impulsiveness, such as when we take a third slice of pizza when we should stop at the second slice.
This mishmash was confusing, and left a false impression that impulsiveness was either normal or extreme. When the opportunity came, the defense attorney stood and cleared it up. He asked the doctor whether impulsiveness in people can be put on a spectrum, going from mild to extreme and with all the intermediate possibilities.
The doctor agreed and stated that impulsiveness is not black or white, but has a gray area with a large range of possibilities, and that a person with impulse control problems would not necessarily display these behaviors constantly, as in the extreme example.
After the abuse was reported, the victim was taken to the MDIC. Here the victim was interviewed by a forensic counselor and the interview was taped. It is from this video that the entire list of charges was formulated. The interview was played in its entirety for the jury. The victim was seen clearly explaining what had happened to her – at times using a doll to refer to body parts.
This was a clear change from the first trial, which relied simply on the victim’s live testimony.
Why, then, was this 11-year-old girl required to appear in court again and give live testimony, which gave the jury very few details of what had happened, compared to the video of her forensic interview?
It seemed that she should not have been required to get up on the stand in a courtroom full of a couple dozen people, to recount, for the second time this year, what had happened to her. She was clearly very uncomfortable, and mostly answered with “I don’t remember” or “Can you repeat the question?”
The video was the basis for all the charges, and we believe she should not have been put through live testimony. It was apparently calculated for the emotional impact on the jury.
The same problem existed with detective Francisco DeLeon of the Woodland Police Department, who was assigned to investigate this case. He testified for less than 15 minutes at the start of the trail, yet sat beside Ms. Susz for 5 days afterward.
Eric Sass testified on his own behalf. He went to Dr. Griffith in April of 2010 because he, and the mother of the victim, believed something was wrong with him. For several years his memory had been getting progressively worse. This began even before 2002, but had gotten worse and worse.
Mr. Sass was asked if he had touched the victim inappropriately in a sexual way and he said “yes I did.” He said he would be with her and would “find my hand on her leg and her behind,” and that he didn’t know why it was happening. The first such incident that he could remember he stated to be about 2008, but said that he doesn’t trust his memory on that.
As he was asked about his memory of certain events, he kept repeating that he does not trust his own memory and that if the victim says it happened, “then I believe it.”
Another interesting point is that Mr. Sass actually stopped in March of 2009, and was not discovered until June of 2009. He was apparently able to stop the behavior by avoiding being alone with the victim.
Mr. Hedberg had asked for a mistrial early on because Ms. Susz, in her opening, had mentioned that there is something known as Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, a theory in which children will not tell anyone that they are being abused. She stated that the victim in this case did not tell anyone for a while and that the doctor will testify to this and “corroborate” other evidence that this happened.
Mr. Hedberg objected to the word “corroborate” being used. Judge Fall sustained it. At recess, the judge stated that they would have a hearing the next day. At the hearing, Mr. Hedberg basically said that this syndrome, because it is not a recognized diagnostic tool and involves non-evidence, cannot be used as proof and that the word “corroborate” implies that it is evidence and it is proof.
Judge Fall said that “corroborate” can have an informal meaning and a legal meaning, implying that it was not necessarily taken in the legal way by the jury. Judge Fall stated that the jury instructions state that they cannot use it as evidence of the defendant’s guilty. He denied the motion for a mistrial.
Commentary and Analysis:
There is a good deal of medical evidence to suggest that Mr. Sass indeed is suffering from a brain ailment and affliction. However, in my view, the testimony of what took place suggests a great deal more intentionality on the part of Mr. Sass than a simple reading of the medical evidence.
In short, Judge Fall allowed the medical testimony to go toward the question of whether the act was willful. At several points, Tiffany Susz for the DA attempted to link willfulness to specific acts. For instance, she argued Sass masturbated in to the toilet in front of the victim instead of on her, and that this was to prevent leaving DNA evidence on her.
This was really an absurd argument and one that even the prosecution’s expert, Dr. Roof, denied under cross-examination when he stated that first we have to know what the goal of the person was. If we don’t know what the end goal was, then we can’t guess as to what point the person willfully stopped. For some people, the goal is not penetration and for some it is not to masturbate onto another person.
Also, if Mr Sass’ intention was to avoid leaving DNA evidence, then the logical thing would have been for him to deny that any of these events ever took place. It makes no sense to avoid leaving DNA, only to then admit to everything.
For me, though, the convincing point was testimony I saw in the first trial from the victim. She described in fairly classic and typical terms the act of “grooming” – and not as was misapplied in the Michael Artz trial. Mr. Sass was instructing and teaching his young victim.
That was not an act of impulse control, but actually a fairly well-planned and coordinated effort. He was also fully aware of the consequences of his actions at the time of the actions.
Thus, Mr. Sass was not only instructing the young victim on sexual behavior but he was informing her of the consequences (his own punishment) if she reported his behavior. These encounters do not demonstrate something unusual that would suggest the actions of a man suffering from an ailment. We could overlay the details of the acts with the details of others’ molestation acts, and they would be basically identical.
Based on that, there seems to be a level of sophistication and premeditation that did not comport with the defense’s explanation.
To complicate the matter, Mr. Sass financially supported the family and, in fact, continues to do so to this day. While the mother did remove him from the home, even she seemed to sympathize with him.
As we mentioned previously, Mr. Sass actually stopped his actions quite a bit before he was actually caught. We can go back and forth on the fact that Mr. Sass stopped his behavior well before he was actually caught. Does that suggest that he did have control over his impulses, or simply that he was able to avoid the temptation?
Moreover, how is the temptation a manifestation of his lack of impulse control, or is there a secondary problem with the brain impacting sexual impulses?
All of that said, this was a complicated case. Mr. Sass seemed genuinely remorseful. He was contrite on the stand, and even compelling. However, in the final calculus, I think he had enough control over himself at the time of the incident that he needs to be held accountable for his actions and he needs to be put into prison to prevent himself from harming anyone else.
He will face 28 years in prison, which is fair compensation for what he took from his young victim.
—David M. Greenwald reportin
dmg: “He will face 28 years in prison, which is fair compensation for what he took from his young victim.”
Of which he will probably only serve 14 years… Fair compensation you say, for the victim’s lifetime of emotional pain and suffering, which will effect every aspect of her life forever?
This guy knew exactly what he was doing, knew the consequences, did what he had to protect himself by subtly threatening the victim (You will have no father if I go to jail, and then where will you be?), covered his tracks, etc. If he were truely remorseful, why not seek out assistance for his problem rather than continue the sexual molestation?
“Of which he will probably only serve 14 years…”
I don’t think that’s accurate (I thought minimum was 85% of the sentence), but even it is, he’d be nearly 60, a registered sex offender, he’d have a rather bleak outlook.
The Child Sexual Accomodation Syndrome (CSAAS) is a very limited form of testimony allowed and not in the way Ms. Susz suggested to the jurors in her opening statement. It CANNOT be used to bolster a victim’s account. It can only be used to disabuse jurors of notions that a person claiming abuse would have behaved a certain way if (s)he were really abused.
Moreover, it does not appear that Ms. Susz called an expert who would be required to testify that late reporting by the victim does not mean the molest did not occur (that is all that is allowed). If she did not, then even the mention in her opening statement is misconduct and [if she were a defense attorney one would say] unethical.
There is a very specific and very serious Supreme Court case on the issue and it is impossible to believe that someone in a sexual assault team does not know about it. Even if she doesn’t know that someone who is suffering from “100 % mental impairment”.
I have learned that Dr. Urquizza testified. He testifies often in these cases for the prosecution and he does so contrary to the case law. In fact, the last trial I had with him I took him thru his resume and got him to admit that contrary to the posture he took on direct examination he had not done any clinic hours (treated any children) in years. He is a traveling expert. He blurs the lines established by the Court (and Dr. Roland Summit who first published the CSAAS study) between a diagnostic tool and one merely used (the proper use) to debunk some commonly held misperceptions about how a child would react.
Dr. Summit was so concerned about how his first published work was being used by people [like Urquizza] that he published another article saying in essence ‘whoa, I never said this could be used to say a child had been molested, just to say that, for example, late reporting or inconsistent reporting does not mean a [hypothetical] child was NOT molested.
Urquizza does not draw this distinction and that is [again unfortunately for the taxpayers] grounds for appeal of this man’s conviction if the proper objections were made and it sounds like they were from the article. Oh, well. I just had a case I defended in 1998 reversed by the Federal Ct of Appeal on Habeas and the United States Supreme Court denied Cert of the government’s appeal of the 9th Circuit reversal. Now 12 years later, the victims are dead. And all that money for appellate lawyers on both sides. Hmmmm.
erm: “Of which he will probably only serve 14 years…”
dgm: “I don’t think that’s accurate (I thought minimum was 85% of the sentence), but even it is, he’d be nearly 60, a registered sex offender, he’d have a rather bleak outlook.
From article on internet: “In state prisons, the actual time served was about 55 percent of the overall sentence.”
Read more: Sentencing and Corrections – Sentencing And Time Served – Offenses, Prison, Laws, Convicted, Strikes, and Months http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/468/Sentencing-Corrections-SENTENCING-TIME-SERVED.html#ixzz14Gvs1YrZ
THE VICTIM GETS A LIFETIME SENTENCE W/O PAROLE…
ERM,
Child molesters will serve 85 percent of their term. My two nieces and two other girls (who were the molesters nieces)were being molested by the same man. He got a sentence of 20 years in Yolo County last year and when my sister inquired about how much time this animal would serve they told her 85 percent of his time which is 18 years and five months. I am glad you feel sorry for the victims because the County of Yolo sure does not. They were all gung ho about this case in the beginning and once they got him to take a plea deal of 20 years none of the victims(including my 2 nieces)have heard anything from Yolo County about their well being. Yolo County is all about conviction, not the victim. My two nieces is proof. Yolo County has not offered my sister any counseling for the girls, she was taking them to Sacramento for their counseling. Yolo County has not even gave her a phone call to see if the girls are in any type of counseling. You are right, the victim(s) get a lifetime sentence W/O parole.. but what should be added to that is that Yolo county does not care…
Interesting article as well as some interesting comments. Thanks for taking the time to cover these trials.
Valerie: You hit the nail on the head. Years ago when I was a child molest/ abuse prosecutor in Sacramento we were with our victims before, during and after trial. In fact one I remember well was a sweet, beautiful little girl terribly molested by her step-dad, abandoned by her mom who sided with the step-dad. She was about 6 or 7 at the time. The case was hard because they only lived in Sacto for a year and the girl had to establish jurisdiction by finding the house they lived in and all she knew was it was yellow. But a dedicated cop and I worked hard pre-filing to find it, it had been painted blue, but there was flaking paint and we saw yellow underneath. He plead and went to prison. 10 years later I read she was hit by an auto and in the UCD med center in serious condition. I was then a defense atty but went to see her, not expecting her to know me and she didn’t. But guess what…. the same cop was there to visit her at the same time. Sacramento was (and I hope still is) so different from what I saw in, at least, the Artz trial.