In August of 2010, Michael Artz was found not guilty of the main charge in his case, forced oral copulation, but guilty of having sex with a minor and contacting a minor for the purposes of having sex.
The sentencing phase has gone on since mid-January and now figures to continue at least until April 22, when Judge Stephen Mock indicated that there would be closing arguments and then a ruling, but we have heard that before.
The DA’s Office has attempted to portray Mr. Artz as a sexual sadist due to his consumption of legal porn that depicted violence.
Dr. Michael Soulier, who evaluated Mr. Artz, argued that he fell short of the clinical definition, having not acted upon his fantasies.
When cross-examined by Deputy DA Steve Mount, who has taken over for Tiffany Susz who is on maternity leave, Dr. Soulier indicated that from a clinical standpoint the definition does not apply, because even though police intercepted Mr. Artz on his way to the alleged victim’s home, we do not know what would have happened.
Part of the definition of a sexual sadist would be arousal from the mere fact that the victim was being victimized., and there are several criterial factors that may be considered, in the evaluation of whether the label applies. As some of these factors were present, the doctor had to consider them. But the conclusion was that, despite some factors meeting criteria, this label did not actually apply to Mr. Artz. Dr. Soulier thus reiterated to Judge Mock on Friday that he had not been able to conclude that Mr. Artz had acted out any sexually sadistic fantasy, so he had rejected the label of sexual sadist.
Throughout these sentencing procedures, we have felt this to be a large and growing case of “TMI,” as they probe the psychological evaluation of a young man who is clearly troubled with a number of inner demons, including early childhood trauma from being abandoned as a small child in Vietnam, a severe case of dyslexia, depression, thoughts of suicide and also coping with the fact that both of his adoptive parents have terminal cancer.
Still, for much of the testimony from Mr. Artz in which he was resolute about what he had and had not done, but contrite about causing pain to the alleged victim through whatever misunderstanding they may have had, Mr. Artz looked less like the predator and more like a wilting violet who was caught in a moment of teenage hormones and caught up in a world of legal internet porn.
Even Judge Mock showed a good degree of ambivalence about how to proceed, stating to the parties that he has to determine whether Mr. Artz represents a continued threat to either the victim or the women in this community. He stated that, while he has more information in this than he gets in most sex cases, sex-related cases represent very complicated human behavior and it is very difficult to understand whether the individual is likely to engage in inappropriate sexual behavior in the future.
He further stated that he found Mr. Artz’s comments to be, at the same time, both disarming in their candor as well as bewildering.
The critical question is whether there is enough information, despite the evaluations and the testimony, to determine there is a low risk that Mr. Artz is likely to commit sexual offenses in the future.
Dr. Soulier had previously testified that Mr. Artz was considered a low to moderate risk for re-offense, according to assessment tools which consider factors such as his young age, the fantasies and his remorse/suicidal feelings, all of which are considered enhancements to the risk factor. But he also had said that he believes there is virtually no one who can be considered a “low” risk, according to these assessment tests, and that the assessments show Mr. Artz to be a low risk to others but at moderate risk for harming himself. While he found the porn consumption troubling, the fact that he had no previous criminal history was important.
This whole exercise actually demonstrates what I think is the futility of this approach. They are attempting to figure out, based on his responses to questions from lawyers and psychologists, whether he will re-offend – as though there is enough hard science behind this to make such a prediction.
In so doing, the government is intruding into realms that it has no business getting into.
The much simpler approach would be this: Mr. Artz has no other criminal history. No one else has accused him of inappropriate sexual acts or conduct. He has shown a good deal of remorse and some empathy, despite disagreeing at the core with the police report and the victim’s claims.
He is going to college and trying to learn from his mistakes. If he is granted probation, he will have the opportunity to turn his life around. If he goes to prison, he will likely be victimized due to his small stature and quiet disposition, and he will likely come out bitter and hardened, with the opportunities that he has now largely closed to him.
Moreover, Michael Artz the person does not resemble the picture that the DA was trying to portray, even yesterday. At times, he was unable to articulate the tensions between his thoughts and his actions, but at no time did he seem a threat to anyone.
I still believe, as I wrote in January, that the idea that Mr. Artz’ consumption of legal porn should be sufficient to label him a sexual sadist (a misuse of the clinical definition, according to Dr. Soulier) and to argue for prison time seems to be a dangerous overreaching of the government.
Yet there was Steve Mount, hammering away at Michael Artz yesterday on cross-examination, still trying to trip him up.
Lest we forget, Mr. Artz was acquitted on the main crime and the only charge of any forcible sexual act. The two crimes that he was convicted of, which the jury has expressed discomfort with, involve an 18-year-old and a 16-year-old, have nothing to do with claims of forced sexual acts and contain no sustained charge of violence.
Unfortunately at this point, it is anyone’s guess where this case goes. Judge Mock has allowed the sentencing proceedings to get away from him. This should have been ended long before now. Hopefully on April 22, we will finally have a resolution so that Mr. Artz, his family, the victim and this community can move on.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I agree with the acquittal on the main charge but to try and gloss over the conviction of the charge of contacting a minor for sex is the only farce here. I pulled up some archived articles on this case and Artz had sex with the minor and THEN contacted her after the initial sexual liason and told her that he had video and photos from their first encounter that he would put on the internet and distribute at her school if she did not engage in more sexual activites with him. That is the behavior that is disturbing in my opinion. I am not of the belief that he should go to State Prison but I certainly think some County time coupled with a LARGE dose of court ordered counseling is appropiate. The behavior of contacting the minor in this case and attempting to blackmail her into more sex through the threat of releasing photos/videos is pretty scary and certainly seems to me to be a precursor to worse acts in the future if not dealt with.
I think a probation arrangement that would require counseling and other interventions would be more appropriate than jail time.
Having watched this whole thing, I still think that mainly Artz is guilty of being a horny teenager who made some very poor decisions. Probation seems appropriate, counseling certainly, there is some talk that anti-depressants might cut back on some of his inappropriate sexual impulses, but now you are starting to get the government too far into the realm of the private for my taste.
The contact was on Facebook, and was after the girl had said hi to him at school several times, and they had had brief casual conversations. He thought there was nothing wrong (he had been bewildered when she cried after the incident, he had tried to talk to her afterwards to apologize if he had done something wrong, but the girl’s girlfriend had intercepted).
I am in NO WAY advocating for court ordered drug prescribing. After following the case I think that a sentence of 6 months in County followed by probation and mandated counseling is appropiate.
I do disagree with your “horny teenager making bad decisions” analagy…we were all there at one time in our lives and I can tell you that in my opinion there is a HUGE difference from a horny teenager trying to get laid and contacting a person and telling them that you have video/photos of them and that unless they have sex with you the photos/video will be put on the internet and distributed at their school.
I don’t see what six months in county jail does for him – he’s either a danger to the community or he’s not. That’s not going to change in six months and might be hindered given the lack of services.
As for the other, I understand your point, but I think they had played a bit of a cat and mouse game earlier and he thought this to be an extension of that. The other factor is that the pretext phone calls was pretty close to entrapment because she was instigating at least some of it. It is not completely clean, but it certainly looks like at several times she suggested something that he agreed to rather than he coming up with the idea on his own.
The Facebook contact was much more ambiguous than the pretext call.
if Bogeys’ comment about the events that took place is remotely accurate, then the girl did not really consent to sex. consent under duress is BLACKMAIL. And blackmailing another person (let alone a sixteen year old girl) into sex is considered rape in my book, the Jury’s decision not withstanding.
I would also like to point out, that the victim in this whole scenario is not the defendant.
Musser: There are two different incidents. The sexual act occurred in the first. The alleged blackmail in the second.
“I would also like to point out, that the victim in this whole scenario is not the defendant. “
That’s because you weren’t at the court room at all for this.
[quote]I would also like to point out, that the victim in this whole scenario is not the defendant.[/quote]
That kind of talk will no longer be accepted here. The only recognized victims here are those being charge by Reisig.
It is my understanding that the victim has been unwilling to talk to Probation about this case during the sentencing process and voice concerned during the trial about how far this whole thing has gone and that the two remain friends. That one of the key witnesses in the case was the victim’s adult girlfriend, who was also having an intimate relationship with the victim (but was not charged). That these two individuals (the victim and the defendant) were fellow students at Davis High School at the time. That the defendant was aquited of forced sex. That the defendant was only found guilty of sex with a minor (because he had turned 18). That in my opinion, this was – at the most – a misdemeanor due to the closeness of their ages. This case makes me worried for our teenaged children and makes me ashamed of my community.
Goodness, something is getting lost in all this discussion. Teen sexting, that sort of thing. We have oversexed society to such a degree, that now 8 year olds are being targeted by Abercrombie and Fitch for the sale of padded bra bikinis. Internet porn is freely available to 18 year olds, porn which is graphic and often violent. Television and the movies portrays teen sex as nothing more than a handshake – “hookups” for a few minutes to have sex w a perfect stranger is no big deal. Oral sex isn’t really sex. Adultery is rampant in today’s society, and courts do not lay any blame on adulterers, but instead encourage no-fault divorces.
So along comes a mixed up kid like Artz, who has watched a lot of internet porn. And anyone is surprised he has acted out on the fantasies portrayed thereof? It would be surprising if he didn’t. But the problem here is one of deterrance. The DA’s stated point in pursuing this case so vigorously was to deter the latest craze of posting sexually explicit pictures of underage children on the internet. That was the real “crime” if you will of what Artz did – threatening to post sexually explicit pictures of an underage girl on the internet. Apparently pictures that never existed, if I remember my facts correctly.
Kids do not understand the paradoxical position society is taking on teen sex. On the one hand adults are sending the message – if it feels good, go for it. Sex is wonderful, downplays the consequences of promiscuity, and sexualizes everything, and I mean everything – cars, household cleaners, clothes, ad nauseum. Take pictures of yourself having sex if you want. But if you dare to post those same pictures over a cell phone or over the internet, we will prosecute you for trafficking in child porn. Does this make sense to anyone, or am I the only prude who thinks society is going to hell in a handbasket with this sort of mixed message which is completely confusing/ruining our teens?
I have no love for Artz’s conduct. I think he was setting out to become a sexual predator the way he was going. But then look at the Navy Tailhook Scandal – some males particularly have the attitude that if a female gets caught in their web, she is fair game. Artz certainly has been brought up short – but does he really get that what he did was wrong? What should be his sentence? I certainly wouldn’t want him preying on college students should he go to school… I’m torn on this one… I don’t envy the judge in having to deal with sentencing in this case…
It is not necessarily true that he acted on any of the fantasies – and one of Dr. Soulier’s points was that Mr. Artz could not be classed as a sexual sadist, mainly because it appeared that he had not acted on the fantasies.
DMG: don’t see what six months in county jail does for him – he’s either a danger to the community or he’s not. That’s not going to change in six months and might be hindered given the lack of services.
Well, I think the 6 months in County is what is called punishment for his actions. I think that the punishment coupled with the counseling may actually help this kid. I am not sure why you are trying to downplay the photos/videos…Artz is the person who tried to use them to obtain a second sexual liason with the minor. You may call that a horny teen trying to get laid…I call it disturbing, thankfully the jury did as well.
DMG:
“Musser: There are two different incidents. The sexual act occurred in the first. The alleged blackmail in the second.
lets talk about the second then: Question: did the defendant threaten to post nude photos of her if she did not perform sex acts on him?”
“That’s because you weren’t at the court room at all for this.”
The Jury was, and they convicted him. He had sex with a minor. He’s not allowed to do that.
Many kids Michael’s age see and understand the deep hypocrisy in our culture – on the one hand we celebrate and encourage all the behaviors that ERM condemns (impulsive behavior, thoughtless conduct, instant gratification) and then create legal structures (sexual sadism, sexual predators) that have little basis in an understanding of human behavior and psychology. The criminalization of sexual behavior and the moral outrage that accompanies it does not help our kids mature in responsible adults who can constrain their behavior and reflect on what they do.
To those who think six months in the slammer will help – think about the 70% recidivism rate we have in California. A lot of good all that time in prison has done!
Michael wasn’t “setting out to become a sexual predator.” That’s absurd. Come on, he had no history of anything before this set of incidents. Even from a legal standpoint it’s an indefensible statement.
Pardon my lack of outrage at the conduct of this boy. Having raised two teenage boys in Davis in the last ten years I have little sympathy for any of the parties in this fiasco. Michael should have known better (obviously he didn’t) and the girl also should have known better. Let’s face it, the level of sexual tension, activity, and gameplaying that goes on is not healthy. And leads to unfortunate situations like this. If our DA were really interested in deterrence, maybe he could invest some of his department’s funding in prevention programs.
Elaine,
I think you make a number of good points about our society and it’s role in these kinds of cases. I also think there is another point that has not been addressed. Our society does not have a definite point at which an adolescent is determined to be a fully functioning adult member of society. Many cultures have a distinct rite of passage. Before the rite, one is considered a child. After, one is an adult with all the privileges and responsibilities. In our society we have chosen to ignore that our teens are physiologically adults. We frequently have not prepared them for the emotions, potential dangers, and responsibility of sexual behavior.
rdcanning: Michael wasn’t “setting out to become a sexual predator.” That’s absurd. Come on, he had no history of anything before this set of incidents. Even from a legal standpoint it’s an indefensible statement.
Artz was 18 when this incident happened. I would certainly say that his actions were concerning and disturbing enough to warrant some serious counseling to hopefully avoid him progressing from feeling that it was perfectly ok to threaten to release photos of the girl for more sex.
How you could condone the activity of Agtrz is very troubling. The boy contacted the girl and threatened to distribute photos of their first sexual encounter if she did not agree to have sex with him again…How can you condone that type of behavior?
As I said – both should have known better. I don’t condone threats – but what did he threaten – distribution over the internet. Check out tomorrow’s NY Times for the story of what happened to several Washington teens for sexting – they were charged with distribution of child pornography – as the article points out – a 3rd degree felony. Yet it is perfectly legal for those of us over 18 to sext. What’s the message we send to kids? Should we put Michael through the spectacle of a trail and threaten him with jail/prison? I think not. As you say “concerning and disturbing enough to warrant some serious counseling…” Yes, I agree.
“I call it disturbing, thankfully the jury did as well. “
Actually the jury was disturbed more by the law than the actions of Artz. They would have acquitted him on all charges if they felt they could have and they said that much.
“The Jury was, and they convicted him. He had sex with a minor. He’s not allowed to do that.”
The Jury was unhappy that an 18 yo was charged for sex acts with a 16 yo classmate because they felt those laws were designed more for a wider age range not essentially peers.
Moreover, the jury has not been in the court during the sentencing phase, I think it gives you a different view of this whole thing if you watch Artz himself and recognize that this guys isn’t a threat to society.
“Moreover, the jury has not been in the court during the sentencing phase, I think it gives you a different view of this whole thing if you watch Artz himself and recognize that this guys isn’t a threat to society.”
then I will repeat my earlier question, which went unanswered: in your mind, did Artiz tell this girl that he would post nude photos of her if she did not do sexual favors for him?
That’s a more complicated question, which I thought I had addressed at some point. He had a pretext conversation with her. At some point there was a suggestion of pictures for sex. What is less clear is who first suggested the idea. Since I have never gotten to actually see the transcript, I am unsure that he said it or she said and he agreed and there is a huge difference.
I heard the pretext phone calls, played in court, and in the 1st one (5/21/09) she, with Det. Beasley at her side prompting her, was the one to bring up the issue of photos. She also was the first to bring up the the idea that if she did something with him again she could get the photos.
rdc: “Yet it is perfectly legal for those of us over 18 to sext. What’s the message we send to kids?”
If an adult sext’s pictures of underage children, an adult can be prosecuted for trafficking in child porn… it is not perfectly legal to sext graphic pictures of children having sex…
Probation — the appropriate sentence.
Probation seems fitting, as would community service.
EMR is correct if the sexted photo is a minor that’s transmission of child pornography. If not, it’s not a crime. I was not precise enough. And as the NY TImes article points out, it doesn’t matter how old one is, if you sext a picture of a minor, it’s still illegal.
Medwoman: why don’t we just give him a taxpayer funded deluxe hotel suite why we’re at it?
DMG: “That’s a more complicated question, which I thought I had addressed at some point. He had a pretext conversation with her. At some point there was a suggestion of pictures for sex. What is less clear is who first suggested the idea. Since I have never gotten to actually see the transcript, I am unsure that he said it or she said and he agreed and there is a huge difference”
then forgive, me but if the facts of the case are not so clear to you, then how can you say this person is not a threat to anyone? I find this behavior deplorable. when someone tries to pin you down, the situation is “complicated”. yet when someone makes an argument: “you did not see the trial” – a royal cheap shot.
Musser: I disagree that it was a cheap shot. It’s not just the trial but watching Artz on the stand I think changes the way you would view this situation.
As Highbeam describes, I was not there the day that the transcript was played of the pretext phone call and she was, it is pretty murky whether he instigated the contact and it appears that she first mentioned the idea of the trade of photos for sex, if that is the case, then it is not blackmail but entrapment – she planted the idea in his head under the direction of the police. That is why the jury in the end acquitted him of the forced charge, but felt that the other two charges – contact / communications and oral copulations with a minor were applied.
My case has never been and easy one to decide on. it isn’t black or white but a very dark shade of gray. What I have done is a horrible thing I have not denied that. It is what I think about everyday. I will work all my life making amends for what I have done but I don’t know if it will be enough.
If I am to be sent to jail for 4 years 8 months or be allowed probation. I will except what ever decition with my head held high. All I ask is for justice. I don’t know what I deserve. All I can do is give a voice to my story.
I have gotten up on the stand many times over the last few months and shown the world my heart. I have told the truth from the start and I have no reason to lie. how could I look in my parents eye’s and not be the man that they raised me to be.
I ask all those who comment on my stories good or bad to come to my sentencing hearing to see for yourself what type of person I am. I don’t ask for your pitty or your scorn. I just would ask you to see with your own eyes. hear with your own ears. Instead of believe what you read.
oh sorry for my spelling I’m not very good at it.
4/22/11 2pm Dept 3
David,
until you have the full text of the conversation, you do not know whether it is entrapment or not. But I sure am not going to defer to your judgment on it I need to see the full text.
My next question is directed at Mr. Artz,
you tell me you did a horrible thing, yet you do not state what that horrible thing is. if you truly want to make amends for what you did, then say in your own words exactly what it is that you did as best as you recall. Replay the conversation between you and the defendant as truthfully as you remember it from start to finish, and the events that followed there. But if you want to ask the readers anything, then the readers want complete honesty mr. Artz. Just what EXACTLY happened. Just the facts please.
Musser:
Highbeam was at the entire trial and posted: “I heard the pretext phone calls, played in court, and in the 1st one (5/21/09) she, with Det. Beasley at her side prompting her, was the one to bring up the issue of photos. She also was the first to bring up the the idea that if she did something with him again she could get the photos. “
That was the confirmation I needed, I was not in court that particular day and did not listen to the calls.
I second Michael’s comment. There are too many people offering opinions about the very difficult decision that Judge Mock will make. This is the tsunami following the earthquake. What happened between Michael and his classmate was not the crime of the century but the politics of the County have made it so, whether because he was acquitted of count one and the DA’s office are sore losers or due to a position taken on a grant application or due to the intense public interest, I sure don’t know. One thing that people either don’t know or have forgotten is that regardless of the sentence imposed Michael will have to register for the rest of his life as a sex offender. That is a horrific punishment in addition to whatever Judge Mock imposes. All I know is that in 20 yrs I have NEVER seen anything like this. One case I had in Sacto in 1994 involved a 24 year old man having intercourse with a 12 year old girl who lived next door and he was given probation by the judge. At this point the only person that matters is Judge Mock and he appears to have the proper focus and judicial decorum.
kd: “There are too many people offering opinions about the very difficult decision that Judge Mock will make.”
What are you saying here, the public should not express an opinion on this case in this blog?
kd: “One case I had in Sacto in 1994 involved a 24 year old man having intercourse with a 12 year old girl who lived next door and he was given probation by the judge.”
And do you think that was a proper sentence for the crime, and is the reason your client should only receive probation?
kd: “At this point the only person that matters is Judge Mock and he appears to have the proper focus and judicial decorum.”
I would agree with you… this is a difficult case for any judge to wrestle with in sentencing, and for many reasons, not the least of which is that a young 18 year old’s life is in Mock’s hands…
The lesson I would hope Mr. Artz takes away from all this is the wisest course of action is to keep one’s pants zipped and focus on one’s future as an honest and productive citizen. Sexual gratification with the wrong person and/or in inappropriate ways can have terrible consequences that are not worth the risks involved. This is what we need to be teaching our young people in sex education above all else… rather than sex ed classes handing out condoms like they were candy… SOCIETY NEEDS A WAKE UP CALL ON THE ISSUE OF TEEN SEX AS IT RELATES TO OUR NEW TECHNOLOGICAL AGE…
dmg: “Highbeam was at the entire trial and posted: “I heard the pretext phone calls, played in court, and in the 1st one (5/21/09) she, with Det. Beasley at her side prompting her, was the one to bring up the issue of photos. She also was the first to bring up the the idea that if she did something with him again she could get the photos.”
Is entrapment by law enforcemnt being claimed here? I haven’t heard of any such charge…
DMG: “That was the confirmation I needed, I was not in court that particular day and did not listen to the calls.”
then get highbeam to post the transcript. I want to know exactly what was said, not highbeam’s interpretation of events.
I want you all to know that I will not answer any questions directed at me until a decition has been made. I didn’t start writing to answer your questions.
I didn’t state what horrible thing I did due to the fact that it involves sensitive information about my victim. I have already started to make amends for what I’ve done by telling my story in my own words to the judge in the court room.
As I have said before if you want to see and hear it first hand come to my court date.
I do not have the transcript of the pretext phone calls. I listened to them in court, and took detailed notes, even quoting what she said, then what he said, etc. You may ask defense counsel for confirmation (I am not sure if she has the transcripts), you may ask the DA’s office, you may pay to get your own copy of the transcripts. This was the best that we could do, and any reporter sitting through a trial will report on what he/she sees or hears.
Entrapment was not charged – the detective is not on trial, and Mr. Artz was never accused of entrapping himself, or anyone else. Any consideration of entrapment would be as a defense.
I don’t think ERM has enough to do. I also don’t think it would be wise to give her any information. She should come to court if she wants to learn first hand. Also, anyone with an open mind can see Michael’s remorse, respect for his victim (his words) and his wisdom in not engaging in debate. I don’t know many adults that would be as wise.
Oh, and ERM, I was the prosecutor on the 24 yr old man who had intercourse with the 12 yr old girl and was fighting for 3 yrs state prison (low term) and shocked that he got probation. But he did and by a very wise Judge… I still don’t know why.
A few points:
Mr. Artz – you ought not post on this blog period for the reaons you cited including the one you did to begin with.
highbeam – you are connected to the defense – the only source of information that readers on this blog get are through the lens of the defense council, so it would be remiss of me not to take it with a grain of salt.
Druliner:
Elaine Musser is my mother, I am not her, I’m sorry if my name confuses you.
Second, if you think the outward appearance of remorse is enough to really have a window into someone’s soul, then I have beachfront property in Massachussets I’d like to sell you for a dirt cheap price. Hence the expression “a sucker is born every minute.”
Highbeam works for me.
[quote]”Highbeam works for me.”[/quote] Who is Highbeam?
What is Highbeam’s job for you?
Does Highbeam draft any articles that end up published under your byline?
Does Highbeam post the same way the rest of us do; do you review Highbeam’s posts before they appear?
Why does Highbeam use a pseudonym?
Are you Highbeam?
Do you or any other employees/volunteers pose as ordinary blog participants?
Do you agree with me that this secret practice is unethical?
KD, exactly when did your client first express remorse w/o being prompted?
Just Saying…nice…
I find it extremely disturbing that many of the posters go out of their way to critique the Vanguard, however they do not comment on the Davis Enterprise basically reprinting police & district attorney press releases. The Superior Court is open to the public. If you truly believe that the Vanguard is slanted than go to Court and observe for yourself. The Judicial Watch started because so many people were complaining about Yolo County Judicial System that the Vanguard decided to send in people to sit every day in court and see what was going on.
I think those of you who keep attacking the Vanguard simply don’t want to believe that “Our Great Country” could have some major flaws. One thing our Founding Fathers knew was that EVERY government needs public scrutiny. The Vanguard is providing a very important window into the Courts that has not been provided by the public nor the other media outlets, which we have unfortunately relied on too much and not our own sense of civic duty.
Michael will probably be sentenced today and that is why I have looked at this site.
Just saying: You are critical of Highbeam using a pseudonym. Is “Just Saying” on your paycheck?
ADRemmer: You insult me as an officer of the court by your implication that I have presented perjury in preparing Michael to express remorse when that was not always his feelings. You do not know what you are talking about. He called the girl immediately after the incident to see how she was because she had left his home after the first consensual sex crying. But her older, lover girlfriend intercepted the call and told him never to call her again. When taken to the police station he wrote 3 letters of apology to her which are in the possession of the court and the DA. He tried to commit suicide right around the time of his arrest and was put on a 3 day 5150 hold. He met with a probation officer immediately after the trial and cried. He has met with two psychs for the court and been intensively interviewed and both have seen him cry and both have given him extensive testing and both have recommended probation. I was there for all of this. You do not know what you are talking about so you should not talk.
Michael was not sentenced as arguments (and delay due to other matters Judge Mock had to handle) caused the case to go to 4:30 at which point the court called a recess. The matter continued to May 6th at 3:00 in Dept.. 3.
All of you critical of the Vanguard should see the move (true story) conspirator.