On May 6, 2014, Michael Artz will be a free man, his term of probation expiring, his only charge on his record a misdemeanor charge for having a sexual encounter with a classmate less than two years younger, and no registration under Penal Code section 290. At some point, he would be able to get even that misdemeanor expunged from his record.
But to get there was a long, painful and arduous journey filled with rape allegations, a trial that saw him acquitted on that charge but found guilty on lesser charges, a long and painful sentencing proceeding, endless counseling, a period of incarceration at the local jail, the loss of his mother and then finally an appellate court overturning much of what remained of the charges, with Judge Stephen Mock on Friday dispensing with the last hurdle – the PC 290 registration requirement.
It was one of the more controversial cases that the Vanguard has covered, where a Yolo County jury found Michael Artz, a graduate of Davis High School, not guilty of forced oral copulation in a case involving another Davis High student who was 16 at the time. Mr. Artz had just turned 18.
However, they did find him guilty of two felonies, oral copulation with a person under 18 and contact and communication with a minor with the intent to have sexual relations.
The DA’s office convicted him in the press of far worse than the jury did, and ultimately Mr. Artz was ordered to undergo counseling and spent nine months in the Yolo County Jail.
Mr. Artz was found guilty of PC section 288a(b)(1), non-forcible oral copulation with a person under 18 years of age and of contacting or communicating with a minor in violation of PC section 288.3(a).
In addition to the jail time, Mr. Artz was required to comply with mandatory registration as a sex offender, pursuant to PC section 290 et al.
In February, the appellate court overturned Mr. Artz’ conviction under PC section 288.3, subdivision (a).
The court writes, “Defendant argues his equal protection rights were violated because section 288.3 makes it a crime to contact a minor with the intent to commit non-forcible oral copulation, but does not make it a crime to contact a minor with the intent to commit non-forcible unlawful sexual intercourse.”
The court writes, “The People concede this argument, and we shall accept the concession. The equal protection violation also affects defendant’s mandatory sex offender registration requirement for count 2, non-forcible oral copulation with a minor.”
According to the opinion filed by the Third Appellate District Court of Appeals, Michael Artz, 18 at the time, invited the 16-year-old to a party at his house. However, when she arrived there was no one else there. She would eventually orally copulate Mr. Artz while he took photos.
Writes the court, “On May 18, 2009, defendant contacted YM on Facebook and told her he would keep her secret that she had a girlfriend if she would orally copulate him again. Defendant contacted YM a couple of days later and wanted to know if she had thought about the deal he had proposed. He continued to text and call YM, threatening to release the pictures he had taken if she did not agree to meet him. YM went to the police.”
The victim made two pretext calls to the defendant where she “asked to buy the photos from defendant, but he said he wanted her to do ‘what we did last time.’ When YM pressed him to specify exactly what he wanted he said, ‘Sex.’ “
In a second call, the victim said that she did not want to have sex with him, “and asked if there were any other way to get the pictures he had of her. He told her he could not think of any other way. They arranged that he would pick her up at her house after school the next day (May 27, 2009). Defendant was apprehended as he neared YM’s house.”
The Vanguard covered this case more than a dozen times due to the lengthy sentencing hearing process and a controversy involving the DA’s press release that received regional attention (key articles: August 30, 2010, August 31, 2010, June 11, 2011).
In addition to overturning the third count, the appellate court properly noted that Count 2 was mischarged as a felony.
The appellate court wrote, “His felony punishment for the convictions in counts 2 and 3 violated equal protection. The People concede the issue. We agree as to count 2, and need not address the argument as to count 3 because we are reversing that count.”
“Defendant’s conviction was treated as a felony,” the court writes. “By contrast, non-forcible sexual intercourse with a minor in violation section 261.5 where, as here, the perpetrator is no more than three years older than the minor is a misdemeanor.”
The case was then remanded back to Judge Mock, who needed to determine whether Mr. Artz has to register as a sex offender under section 290.006 for a misdemeanor sex with a minor, a charge that occurred when he was, as stated, just 18 and the victim was a 16-year-old classmate.
The law here is actually absurd. Section 290.006 reads: “Any person ordered by any court to register pursuant to the Act for any offense not included specifically in subdivision (c) of Section 290, shall so register, if the court finds at the time of conviction or sentencing that the person committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification.”
Defense attorney Kathryn Druliner argued in her brief, “The court must remember when applying this compulsion/gratification aspect of the remand that it only applies to the section 290 registration question. Michael (Artz) has already been punished for having sexual relations with someone under the age of 18, even though it was consensual.”
She adds, “The only question with respect to the sexual compulsion and/or gratification — if the court gets that far— is whether Michael is the type of individual that law enforcement should keep under watch for the rest of his life.”
She would argue, “Even if the court finds that he did engage in the act for one of the two purposes outlined in the statute, such does not end the judicial discretion inquiry and finding.”
Judge Mock would ultimately order him to register under the condition of PC 290, but only until his terms of probation expired. That triggered a lengthy discussion as to how to do that.
Deputy DA Steve Mount would argue that there is a difference between the terms of probation and putting his name in the PC 290 registry and he confessed he did not know of any way to get him off that list once he was added to the list.
Judge Mock wrote into the order that upon the expiration of probation on May 6, 2014, he would be removed from the list.
In the end, Mr. Artz got the right result. He will complete his probation next year for what is now only a misdemeanor sex with a minor charge. Once that expires, he will be off the sex offender registration list and be able to resume his normal life.
Mr. Artz was never in trouble before, and by all accounts has been fully compliant with all of the terms and conditions of probation, including the rather onerous counseling requirements. Unfortunately, this is how the case should have been decided from the start and, instead, Mr. Artz spent 270 days in custody and several years of his young life dealing with a conviction which was overturned by the appellate court.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Perhaps I am in error and Robb Davis should feel free to correct me, but if ever there were a case appropriate for restorative justice, this would seem to me to be it. Imagine the anguish, energy, time and money that would have been saved had these two young people been allowed a process that would have worked through their different experiences of what happened with a goal of restoring the sense of confidence and self worth of each.
Especially correct given that the girl only pressed charges months later at the insistence of her female love interest who was also over 18. It was a strange case, the jury never bought her story and the DA’s office piled on charges inappropriately to exact punishment and misrepresented the verdict in the press.
Perhaps it would have made more sense for the court to declare him to be a minor, even though he was slightly over 18. He was obviously acting foolishly and immaturely, like a minor.
If the court can declare someone younger than 18 to be an adult, why not the other way around?
I look forward to the article relative to vindication as it pertains to the minor female victim in this case (since this pro-defendant article is silent concerning her vindication). She will forever be a survivor of a sexual offense committed against her by defendant, Michael Artz.
Was victim restitution ordered in this matter?
Will a civil suit be filed?
Even if the convicted defendant seeks relief pursuant to penal code section 1203.4 [change of plea/”expungement”] his record remains. He will have to honestly answer the question on employment applications (have you ever been convicted of an offense) or applications for licensure, political office and the like.
Nevertheless, the defendant’s conduct, noted in this case, speaks volumes about his character. For brevity sake, I won’t enumerate here, now.
Maybe he is willing or capable of change?
BR, public policy, perhaps?
A lot of things would have made sense. The DA was angry because they lost the case, the Judge was angry at the defense attorney who got under his skin. The appellate court really gave them a smackdown and the amazing thing was how much of it the AG’s office just conceded. Huge mistakes in this case, never should have come forward.
I must have missed that part. So a number of opportunities for learning what it means to assume responsibility for one’s own actions seems to have been lost. In which process, the adversarial process that was used, or restorative justice, does it seem more likely that Mr. Artz would come away understanding that it is never appropriate to “force” ( either socially, psychologically, or physically) someone into sexual relations and the adolescent girl to come away understanding that the best way to avoid an unwanted sexual encounter is to not put oneself into a situation where one can be exploited ? It would seem best to me to provide these lessons in a manner least likely to lead to ongoing resentment, shame or anger….
but then anyone familiar with my posts will know that I am not into the “punishment” aspect of justice but very much into education and restoration.
“I look forward to the article relative to vindication as it pertains to the minor female victim in this case (since this pro-defendant article is silent concerning her vindication). She will forever be a survivor of a sexual offense committed against her by defendant, Michael Artz.”
What was the sexual offense? That she was 16 and gave a classmate who was two years older oral sex?
“Was victim restitution ordered in this matter?”
She never asked for it, never wanted this case brought forward.
“Will a civil suit be filed?”
Nope
See Megan’s law website for current list of Yolo sexual offenders…
“In the end, Mr. Artz got the right result. He will complete his probation next year for what is now only a misdemeanor sex with a minor charge.”
This young man did some really bad stuff to this girl. In the end, he probably got about what he deserved, in spite of the drawn-out nature of justice.
You use the word “minor” many times in describing his offenses and minimize the impact of his actions against her. Have you considered that his very offensive acts with a minor might result in long-lasting, serious effects in her life?
Do I understand your write up that the 270 days time he did was for convictions that ended up being overturned? If so, why would the court impose this when the case was on appeal? It seems the sentence should have been held up during his appeal.
What are the “rather onerous counseling requirements” you feel he was required to undertake? Don’t you feel counseling might help keep him from committing sexual crimes and threats of blackmail against minor girls and women in the future?
Mr. Artz successfully argued that the law “makes it a crime to contact a minor with the intent to commit non-forcible oral copulation, but…(not)…unlawful sexual intercourse.” (Shades of Bill Clinton, in reverse!) Wouldn’t you also agree–even though this technicality got him off–that “the law here is actually absurd.”
It seems as though you approve of absurd laws that result in reversals but are fine with absurd laws that impose penalties on a guilty party.
“This young man did some really bad stuff to this girl. In the end, he probably got about what he deserved, in spite of the drawn-out nature of justice. You use the word “minor” many times in describing his offenses and minimize the impact of his actions against her. Have you considered that his very offensive acts with a minor might result in long-lasting, serious effects in her life?”
I think the worse part was her being used by the police, DA, and by the 18 year old female to push this case through. It’s worth noting that other than the original testimony, neither she nor her family has appeared in court.
“Do I understand your write up that the 270 days time he did was for convictions that ended up being overturned? If so, why would the court impose this when the case was on appeal? It seems the sentence should have been held up during his appeal. “
I guess that’s just part of the system. One of my questions is why they wouldn’t convert the time in custody to off-set the remainder of the fines, but I’m not an attorney so I don’t know how all of that works.
“What are the “rather onerous counseling requirements” you feel he was required to undertake? Don’t you feel counseling might help keep him from committing sexual crimes and threats of blackmail against minor girls and women in the future? “
I feel like the chance that he would have ever done anything like this in the future was extremely remote under any circumstances.
The law here looks like someone wrote it on a bar napkin. If they think it’s important to have it on the books, they will need to re-write it. I’m surprise the court hasn’t thrown it out yet.
“What was the sexual offense? That she was 16 and gave a classmate who was two years older oral sex?”
What offense was charged? It seems like there must be some law against an adult having sex with a minor?
“The DA was angry because they lost the case, the Judge was angry at the defense attorney who got under his skin.”
Where do you come up with this kind of stuff? What are your sources as to the truth of these charges? And, if true, what difference would it make? I don’t charge you with malfeasance when you get angry.
“What offense was charged? It seems like there must be some law against an adult having sex with a minor? “
There is, however given the age gap, the DA mischarged it as a felony, the Judge didn’t catch it, and court reduced it. Given that was the only crime he was convicted of, it seems at least debatable as to whether he should have charged this.
“Where do you come up with this kind of stuff? What are your sources as to the truth of these charges? And, if true, what difference would it make? I don’t charge you with malfeasance when you get angry.”
It’s my speculation based on how the case was handled post conviction, the very misleading press release, and the handling of the sentencing process. Do I know this for sure? No.
I’m not a public official, however, if I get angry and act rashly, you’re the first to call me on it – as you should.
So are we supposed to feel sorry for the defendant when he:
[quote]According to the opinion filed by the Third Appellate District Court of Appeals, Michael Artz, 18 at the time, invited the 16-year-old to a party at his house. However, when she arrived there was no one else there. She would eventually orally copulate Mr. Artz while he took photos.
Writes the court, “On May 18, 2009, defendant contacted YM on Facebook and told her he would keep her secret that she had a girlfriend if she would orally copulate him again. Defendant contacted YM a couple of days later and wanted to know if she had thought about the deal he had proposed. He continued to text and call YM, threatening to release the pictures he had taken if she did not agree to meet him. YM went to the police.”
The victim made two pretext calls to the defendant where she “asked to buy the photos from defendant, but he said he wanted her to do ‘what we did last time.’ When YM pressed him to specify exactly what he wanted he said, ‘Sex.’ “
In a second call, the victim said that she did not want to have sex with him, “and asked if there were any other way to get the pictures he had of her. He told her he could not think of any other way. They arranged that he would pick her up at her house after school the next day (May 27, 2009). Defendant was apprehended as he neared YM’s house.”
[/quote]
I think it would have made more sense for the court to declare him a minor and have the case go to juvenile court. He was just barely older than 18.
Growth Izzue, of course, we should feel sorry for this young man.
In spite of David’s effort to excuse what he did to this girl, Artz made a series of terrible, criminal choices when he barely was an adult himself. He spent years fighting the possibility of many more years in prison. He’s lucky that the law distinguishes between contacting minors for non-forcible oral copulation (bad) and for unlawful sexual intercourse (good). And, he’ll have to live with his decisions–not an easy task, I’d think.
The Vanguard attempts to make this a case of a couple of high school kids just giving in to their raging hormones (in spite of the devious “party invitation” that led to the sex). But, it’s more a case about following that up with threats to publicly humiliate the girl (complete with photographs) if she didn’t keep servicing him. As we’ve read, similar threats and this kind of Facebook humiliation has led to suicides. It was all about power, not about casual teen sex.
The coverage in other outlets and the county news release ( http://www.yolocounty.org/index.aspx?recordid=1430&page=26 ) suggests this wasn’t as benign an situation as we’ve read here, that the “pretext calls” weren’t some out-of-the-blue entrapment effort, for example.
Still, we need to feel sorry for both the perpetrator and the victim when they’re both kids. And, we need to help youngsters learn to decide to act differently than these two did. And, until medwoman’s nirvana arrives, we need to prosecute those who break our laws or change the laws.
This was a case which was about 2 teens having sex and then the girl feeling bad about it afterward. She held no ill will toward Michael and so testified. She testified she was still his friend. Men are from Mars and Woman are …venus. She admitted under oath that she failed to communicate — after playing sexually explicit food game with him (9 1/2 weeks Movie)–that she did not want to do the sex act. Michael knew how to take no for an answer as a prior girl was set to testify, but the Judge would not let her because he sided with the DA who thought the testimony was not relevant. The difference between the girls was the difference we all see in people, one very passive and not wishing to say no, the other very clear about what she did not want and communicated directly.
Just Saying: People often serve their sentence while their case is on appeal. I had one who did 3 years in state prison and got out and the court reversed the conviction.
Adreamer: You are wrong on so many things. One example: an employer is not allowed to ask if you have been convicted of a misdemeanor — only a felony. And if they do you don’t have to answer. Also you talk about 1203.4 just expunging the conviction but the charges still are on the RAP. This information is very closely regulated and not available to the public– unlike the 290 registry. For those of you who complain about David being pro-defense, I have practiced law for 23 years in at least 7 jurisdictions and never have seen such teaming up by the DA and Judge.
@kathryndruliner: I don’t doubt what you are saying, but what, in your opinion, would be the motive for the DA and the judge teaming up on the case?
I am old enough to know that I cannot determine other people’s motives for what they do. However, the trial turned so negatively toward the defense with the Judge making objections for the prosecution, refusing to allow me to approach the bench to explain what hearsay exception I was offering evidence under (there are 47) and the Judge did not have the police reports or the defense reports that the prosecutor had under reciprocal discovery. Then after definitively stating he never put a time limit on closing arguments (when the DA asked if he would) he came in the next morning (in the middle of my 1.5 hour closing argument) and told me he would cut me off after one more hour. I did not use the hour, but was amazed at the change. I always wonder why things happen and cannot let my mind rest until I find out so 2 weeks after Michael was acquitted of the serious charge (rape), and I knew count 3 was unconstitutional and would be reversed, I still wondered. So I googled Judge Mock. Much to my surprise I found out he is married to a semi retired chief deputy da. HMMM. There is also the grant problem where the sex prosecution unit gets more money for charging more serious crimes and then getting convictions. They get this money from the state and use it to supplement their budget… they don’t get it if he is acquitted, or if it resolves for a lesser charge (like extortion). So, my wife is not liking the way this trial is going and $$$?
Does anyone else think things could get interesting if Judge Mock happens to read this blog?
[quote]There is also the grant problem where the sex prosecution unit gets more money for charging more serious crimes and then getting convictions. They get this money from the state and use it to supplement their budget… they don’t get it if he is acquitted, or if it resolves for a lesser charge […][/quote]
Wow, that’s what I needed to know. Thanks.
We have to get the money out of this. I don’t understand how we ever “let the money in” in the first place. Outrageous.
kathryndruliner, thanks for being here to provide some inside info. A few additional questions:
1. What is the law regarding the ages of the two and the differences in the two? Can we presume your client was prosecuted because he was an adult and she was a minor. Does the law excuse an adult if a minor does give consent for a sex act, given this situation?
2. Why would a judge allow someone to testify just to make the point that he stopped when she said to stop in another situation? How’s this situation different than any other crime that someone did not commit before he allegedly committed it this time? “Teaming up” seems excessive–don’t judges make such calls for both sides all the time?
3. Is there any way to keep an 18-year-old out of jail while appeals are underway? Although the charges for which he was convicted are really serious, it seems as though incarceration could be delayed for a reasonable period because of age, posting bond, etc., as appeals go on.
4. How much of this 270 days ended up representing his final sentencing after the appeal? David suggests giving credit for the excess days to pay off a cash fine, which also seems reasonable. What was is final fine amount?
Finally, what’s your opinion regarding the potential “restorative justice” rather than trials for he-said/she-said cases?
[quote]The coverage in other outlets and the county news release ( http://www.yolocounty.org/index.aspx?recordid=1430&page=26
) suggests this wasn’t as benign an situation as we’ve read here, that the “pretext calls” weren’t some out-of-the-blue entrapment effort, for example.[/quote]
The accuracy is in question of both the news release and the coverage by the other outlets (none of whom were in the court and all of whom rely on the DA’s account.
“Does anyone else think things could get interesting if Judge Mock happens to read this blog?”
I think Judge Mock is smart enough to know better than to read stories about the cases that he presides over.
I totally agree with the restorative justice point you made and as a former child sex assault prosecutor in Sacramento (back when victims were treated as such and not just pawns for the DA). There is a statute for bail pending appeal, but it is rarely successful because the trial judge decides whether to grant it and the defendant has the burden of proof by a clear and convincing evidence standard that he is likely to prevail on appeal as well as 2 other factors not really relevant here. Judge Mock never got the point that count 3 was unconstitutional so he would not have granted bail pending appeal. I have only seen it happen once in my entire career– and it was not my case. You have to understand the judge ran the trial and instructed the jury, heard and denied motions (all present here) and you are asking him/her to say they were wrong. Not gonna happen. In fact, Judge Mock still pretends that the Court of Appeal remanded count 3 to him and he is again in lock step with the DA (without the defense attorney being present– ex parte communication). The way they handled this so it would not be appealed again since Mock said he would require Michael to register at the first appearance after the court of appeal sent the case back for him to exercise his discretion and state the reasons. Also, the DA arrogantly said he didn’t need to file a brief – I doubt the Court of Appeal would find that respectful .This da (bureau chief!!) thought the property the cops took pursuant to the search warrant, which they now have to return, was forfeited. This is absurd as forfeiture requires notice
to the defense and an opportunity to be heard. It allows the government to take instrumentalities of a crime
Like, for example, a drug dealer who uses his autos and computers for his criminal conduct. It is hard to even imagine someone who is a bureau chief was so ill prepared that he thought the computers and many, many other things that were taken when Michael was presumed guilty, from his parents (he lived with them) were used as having anything to do with consensual sex. Even worse, the da file would have revealed that the da already agreed to return the property, it was just a matter of listing what could be released before the reversal. Mike’s problem (and his dad whose photos and personal billing records were on one of the computers) was I ended my representation of him after the sentence. It then went to CCAP for the appeal, I worked with the appellate attorney . Mike, being completely broke due to this overcharged case, took a public defender until he and his dad re-hired me for this issue after reversal. So, the return of property got lost in the cracks.
Let’s also not forget that the D.A. declined to bring charges against John Pike, so there is corruption there. We need to clean it up and get those corrupt folks out of there (and also make sure that Judge Mock is not re-elected).
Ah, the lawyer-like response:
kdruliner opined: “[quote”…This was a case which was about 2 teens having sex….”[/quote]
Or in the alternative KD, a male who had reached the age of majority (AN ADULT) and a female minor/juvenile.
What is the magical difference that you conceive had he done this a month earlier?
You’ve got to draw the line somewhere.
It’s not magical at all; it’s the law.
If the law specified 17 (and everything else remained the same), he’d be even more dastardly by your reckoning. If the law called for 19, he’d be completely innocent.
There’s no magic in prosecutors and the courts following the law. What would you would have them do other than that?
So David, if the law made it twenty and the guy was twenty and 1 month would you also be saying “What is the magical difference that you conceive had he done this a month earlier?”
Even if true GI, that you have to draw a line somewhere, why there? The law is there to prevent adults from taking advantage of children. In this case, you have two members of a peer group, who are classmates.
Right, David. Usually those laws are not enforced with teens who are within three years of age to each other when one of them is over 18.
Okay David, let’s put it this way, are you saying that you would be lenient towards a high school senior that received sex from your sophomore daughter and also attempted to extort her for more sex?
I have two daughters and I know I wouldn’t be so forgiving.
I don’t think I would a guy’s life ruined for what Michael Artz did even if it was to my daughter. I would favor a restorative justice approach rather than a punitive one.
[quote]”[u]Vindicate[/u]: To clear of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt with supporting arguments or proof….”[/quote]I’m struggling with your attempt to document Mr. Artz’s “vindication” as well as the efforts to shift responsibility for his actions from him to the minor and to law enforcement.
To my mind, he was lucky to have some of the charges reversed, but that doesn’t change what he did–just that certain charges were not appropriate.
You argue that there was something wrong with the news release and other media stories, but make no effort to list the shortcomings.
I definitely sympathize with the young man’s plight, with his lengthy fight and apparent (?) extra jail time served during the appeal. But your rationale bounces around and your basic point is vague.
She was 16; he was over 18, and they were in the same class? And, what do you mean they were “members of a peer group”? And, why would either of these things make his actions okay?
He was an adult, taking advantage of minor child (and, much more seriously, repeatedly threatening to put on the Internet photos he took of her giving him a blow job), right?
As you say, the sexual act law “is there to prevent adults from taking advantage of children.” Too bad it wasn’t an effective deterrent in this case.
Please be specific about how you think the law should be changed to keep these actions from being a crime.
Would you be fine with this behavior until the person talking a child into performing sex, photographing it and then threatening exposure if more sex wasn’t forthcoming was, say, 19 years old? Would you want the law changed to allow someone up to 20 to do this without penalty? Up to 21?
How young do you think a minor victim should be in order to escape blame for an adult sexual aggressor’s actions? Under 18? Under 15-1/2?
Just Saying:
Here are links to the original stories that have a lot of detail. My recollection of the incident is that he never actually photographed it, they ended up with this facebook interplay where he made statements that clearly were foolish, and then he got trapped on the phone with a pretext call. All of which was incredibly stupid.
Also I have my original interview with Druliner where she predicted that Count 3 would be removed. (You’ll note you commented there, also Ryan Kelly correctly stated that Count 2 should be a misdemeanor).
Yolo County Jury Finds Davis High Grad Not Guilty of Forced Oral Copulation ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3702:yolo-county-jury-finds-davis-high-grad-not-guilty-of-forced-oral-copulation&Itemid=100&cpage=30[/url])
Defense Attorney Talks About Davis Rape Case, DA’s Misleading Press Release ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3703:defense-attorney-talks-about-davis-rape-case-das-misleading-press-release&Itemid=100[/url])
Bee Issues Correction on DA’s Artz Press Release ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3709:bee-issues-correction-on-artz-story&Itemid=100[/url])
“they ended up with this facebook interplay where he made statements that clearly were foolish.”
I would say blackmailing someone to have sex with you is a lot more then foolish, (this is the most disturbing part of this story to me.) If restorative justice is the goal why do you consider counseling onerous?
KD are you saying that CA peace officer candidates do not have to disclose to their employers?
Also, Law Firm of Richard Glen Boire [With 22 years of expungement experience” claiming we are “seasoned expungement experts….”] Says:
“Once your conviction is expunged, you can lawfully answer that you have never been convicted of the crime. For government jobs, licenses, and law enforcement questions, you will need to disclose the case, but you can note: “Case Expunged Pursuant to PC 1203.4.”