By Joshua Liang
Woodland – The jury trial of Martin Arturo Rios, a Davis resident charged with indecent exposure in a public area, resumed in Department 13.
According to eyewitness reports, the defendant had been openly masturbating in front of different women over the course of both 2017 and 2018, with more than one witness only noticing Mr. Rios after he had been staring at them for an unknown period of time.
The trial resumed with the court dismissing one of the jurors for the remainder of the trial. The remaining jurors were told not to speculate while an alternate was sworn in to fill the empty seat.
The first witness was then called forth. After being sworn in she told the court she was a resident of Davis, having worked as a realtor in the city for more than eight years.
On the morning of April 19, 2017, the witness reported to the jury that she had made the 911 call at around 9 AM. She had been sitting in her car parked at the parking lot of Whole Foods on First Street. The witness had reported she had been talking with her husband and was dressed in fitness attire as she had been planning on going jogging.
During the conversation, the witness began noticing a vehicle parked around eight spaces to her left. The driver’s side door had been open and a man with his pants down around his legs was situated out of the door frame. When asked what the individual was doing, she replied that he had been masturbating in broad view of the witness. The defendant’s car was described as a sedan of a dark color.
The witness stated that the defendant had been the only occupant of the sedan, which had been parked perpendicular to her own vehicle. She reiterated that the defendant’s legs had been situated out of the driver’s door at the time of the incident, giving her a clear view of the defendant’s penis.
The witness clarified that during the brief time she had been exposed to the defendant’s genitals, it appeared that his penis had been erect and it was clear what his intentions were as his hand 
could be seen moving up and down the shaft. Based on the above information, the witness concluded that the defendant had been masturbating.
At the time of the incident, there had been other cars in the parking lot, although the witness confided that she had not given a thorough glance to determine if any of the vehicles had been occupied. The witness went on to describe the defendant as wearing a hat at the time of the incident and identified him in the courtroom as wearing a black T-shirt. The witness recalled that she had been in the parking lot for about 15 minutes while the defendant purportedly masturbated. She went on to state that, throughout the ordeal, she was unable to ascertain any facial expressions by the defendant. She surmised that she did not know whether the defendant ejaculated at any point. Trying not to draw attention to herself, she called the police and, shortly thereafter, the defendant left the scene in his sedan. Sometime after the police responded, the witness made a positive identification at the police station. The witness surmised that the account was a fair reflection of what had occurred in the parking lot.
The witness stated that her description of the defendant at the time of the incident was that of a white male in his early twenties. She made it clear that prior to April 19 of 2017, she had had no prior contact with the defendant and had no previous knowledge of his living conditions or whereabouts. The court dismissed her from the stand.
The defense then called their own witness to the stand. Identified as a painting contractor, the second witness stated that he had never given testimony in court. Having run his own painting business for more than 14 years, the witness stated that he used his check book to keep track of his business.
After reviewing his notes for the day of June 15, 2018, the witness testified that he had been working two jobs at the time. Stating that his business mainly serviced the greater Sacramento area and he was aware that the city’s expansions had made morning traffic more hectic. The witness was unsure when he started work that day, stating that he was not “an early bird.”
The witness stated that he had the defendant under his employ during that time. He testified that the defendant’s attire during work sessions consisted of white pants, as they primarily handled white paint on jobs. He stated that Mr. Rios had facial markings and a lip ring, stating that he personally disliked the ring as he believed in maintaining some semblance of professionalism when on jobs. The witness stated that the defendant had already had the lip ring when he had first been hired. Mr. Rios and the witness had done hundreds of jobs together.
He also stated that he had worked with contractors on painting jobs other than with the defendant. The witness stated there was a realm of possibility that they had begun work at 9 am on June 15, although it remained highly unlikely as the witness preferred to start work before then. He stated that Mr. Rios would always arrive before him and never afterwards. The witness also confirmed that he believed the defendant to be a reliable worker and believed it was safe to assume he did not want anything bad to happen to Mr. Rios. He also affirmed that his beliefs about the defendant were based primarily on his own previous experiences with Mr. Rios.
The court then dismissed the jury for a break and planned to reconvene on September 18 at 1:30 PM.
Great headline! Should be seminal for discussion about jerks… and their court proceedings… should get a rise from many… can’t wait for coming updates…
Really? Is this newsworthy? Whatever…
What City? In Davis, don’t believe there was a Whole Foods on Second Street… perjury? Inaccuracy of reporting?
As a point of information, I would note that serial masturbation is not a crime; although, indecent exposure is. I’m sure that comes as a relief (so to speak), particularly to the Vanguard’s adolescent readers.
As you were.
You get to the crux of it… indecent exposure…
Perhaps the headline and text should have focused on that… but that doesn’t “sell papers”, or ‘hits’…
Or, authors/reporters…
I note, Eric, that testimony of Whole Foods, on Second Street, bothers you not a whit… apparently…
Just an adolescent observation, of course…
Maybe he was just poking a little fun at folks. (Sorry, couldn’t control myself.)
Neither could he, apparently… or, perhaps he was in control, with thing well in hand…
By the way, is this sort of indecent exposure a misdemeanor or a felony under the penal code?
The article doesn’t say whether misdemeanor or felony.
First offense is a misdemeanor, second offense is a felony per Penal Code section 314.
Thx…
Although I don’t expect you to know, Eric, based on the article, will assume it’s not a first offense, so likely, treated as a felony…
I appreciate the info…
Being identified as the author of this column is almost as bad as being named the defendant. How about we kill this totally worthless story and save everyone any more disgust and embarrassment than what has already happened?
Are people actually reading the article? The jury hung on the charges yesterday.
You did NOT just say that . . .
I know you find this hilarious, but this actually in my view a serious case of miscarriage of justice.
I’m not sure how you conclude that, at least based on the article. The testimony of the “alibi” witness was pretty vague and non-specific. No info is provided on what led the police to this individual.
In what sense? That it was charged (as a felony?), or that the jury failed to convict?
If you view it that it should not have been charged as it was, the jury acted ‘justly’. No problem, no miscarriage.
If you view it as jury error, a miscarriage, please so state.
Please be clear as to what constitutes, in your view,
Remedies? What should transpire moving forward? In your view…
You realize, of course, you just plowed fertile ground for more bad puns/innuendo [hung jury], as did the ‘reporter’ in the follow-up (references to him wearing “a hat” (double meaning))…
I agree with Phil’s previous comment… along the lines of ‘newsworthiness’…
This is a poster child for ‘article cleanup’, much like ‘thread cleanup’…
As Eric pointed out, the case is about “indecent exposure”, not “masturbation” per se.
BTW… a good verbal ‘defense’ for women/men being confronted by such behavior, is to say, “very nice… does that come in Men’s sizes?” [credited to Strange de Jim, via Herb Caen, many years ago]
Except that while the criminal charge is “indecent exposure” the overt act was “masturbation” and therefore the subject matter
The M-word is better for generating ‘reader interest’, to be sure. Two threads now… not one, with an update… interesting choice. I’m sure the VG will come up with another as to whether charges are re-filed, or if the County comes at it again to get a handle on this type of behavior… not sure a successful prosecution on the matter, as charged, is within their grasp…
“It felt so nice he did it twice”
Seriously, DG, why did you not answer WM’s Q? I honestly don’t know what you meant by that, and the series of questions WM asked were exactly what I was gonna ask. Cause I really can’t even guess what angle you are taking on this. You apparently think it’s so obvious what your view is that you don’t need to answer. We should just know?
Sorry – Alan – the reason I didn’t answer the questions that Bill posed is that I went home after a long week feeling under the weather and this is the first time I have seen them.
The problem with this case is one of identification. They used a non-blind six pack photo line up which as Gocke argued, will actually be no longer in use precisely because it’s unreliable.
What’s the evidence that this guy did it? Her identification. We know that’s unreliable. I’m actually surprised they got 10 jurors to vote guilty, the credibility of the identification is in serious question. Michelle did a really nice job with her article breaking this down.
OK, thanks. It’s hard for me to know without being in the courtroom, but having served on a jury once and sat in on a trial that I was rejected from the jury from — nothing would surprise me.
The second case I was rejected because when questioned I answered honestly about my distrust and dislike of YONET (and my disagreement of the marijuana laws in place at the time), having had several acquaintances busted by YONET with some pretty heavy-handed tactics (relative to the offense) over the decades. Several friends had wanted (after the fact) for me to lie in order to stay on the jury and ruin the verdict, but I, possibly foolishly, believe in the integrity of the justice system, at least as far as my role in it.
The result, a guilty verdict against a marijuana trafficker, was clearly impossible to conclude from the evidence given. The prosecutor told me (when I spoke to him after the trial) that he was surprised by the verdict. However, he also shared with me evidence the jury was not allowed to hear in court that made it clear the guy was guilty. So the jury apparently got that evidence through telepathy.
Mostly this experience made me want to stay out of the system.