Mr. Artz had just turned 18 at the time of the incident and was just a year ahead of the victim in school. Yolo County Deputy DA Tiffany Susz was unable prove that the encounter was non-consensual, and instead was only able to prove that Mr. Artz received oral sex from a minor. For that transgression, he may now have to register as a sex offender for life.
In her opening statement, defense attorney Kathryn Druliner portrayed a much more complicated picture, fraught with ambiguities and inconsistencies in testimony. She began to outline samples of testimony that suggest the victim either was not unwilling, or failed to communicate her unwillingness. Further, Ms. Druliner described how the victim had also had an intimate relationship with another high-schooler, a girl, and that there was evidence that that was a secret the girls were trying to keep. Ms. Druliner mentioned Facebook conversations, cell text messages and phone calls (including some taped by the Davis Police), that did as much, or more, to cast doubt upon the defendant’s alleged guilt, as they did to inculpate him.
This opening statement produced a series of mostly-sustained objections by Ms. Susz, which resulted in the first of some of the interchanges between Ms. Druliner and Judge Mock, as described in an earlier Vanguard article. Ms. Druliner raised issues such as that the victim’s girlfriend should be as guilty as the defendant of an illegal relation with a minor, that the defendant indicated surprise (during a phone call that he did not know was taped) that the girls wanted their relationship to be a secret, and seemed oblivious to any notion that the victim may have felt forced in August 2008. Ms. Druliner pointed out that Mr. Artz did try to elicit more sex from the victim, using, at first, the threat of telling the girls’ secret (not of releasing photos), but he was not charged with that extortionary act.
Ms. Susz called the victim as her first witness, and had her describe the events of August 2008 in great detail. The girl had a very quiet voice, and mostly spoke hesitantly and tentatively. Even for Ms. Susz, she made statements that varied from her prior statements to the police and to her girlfriend. When asked to clarify, she often ended up saying that she did not recall. Her uncertainty about events could have been taken as compelling evidence of blocking out traumatic events, but the pervasiveness of it could also have been frustrating and confusing to the jury. Sometimes she changed her descriptions of what happened, during the testimony.
She described being invited to a party at the defendant’s home, and staying there alone in his house with him for hours before the event happened, despite the fact that no others showed up and Mr. Artz’ parents were not at home. She gave varying accounts of doors being locked or unlocked, the defendant with or without his clothes on, relative positions in a bedroom, the location of a camera, what his and her hands were doing, and whether or not she ever told him, aloud, to stop. After the act, she said she was crying, and Mr. Artz seemed surprised, asking her what was wrong and whether he had hurt her.
She left his house on her bike, and Mr. Artz loaned her a bike light. On the way home, she called her girlfriend, saying that she was upset, and so was the girlfriend. A few days later, the girls talked to Mr. Artz on the phone, and the girlfriend told him he needed to apologize and that he had wronged the victim. He was apparently very apologetic. The girlfriend advised the victim to stop talking to Mr. Artz at school, and the victim described just wanting to forget the entire incident.
In May of 2009, the victim heard from Mr. Artz on Facebook, and they exchanged comments on a somewhat-friendly basis, to the effect of she thought he forced her, he didn’t, and she wanted him to keep her secret about her girlfriend. The victim then told her girlfriend about these contacts, and the girlfriend urged her to go to the police. After a preliminary interview with a Davis Police Officer, she was interviewed by Detective Jeff Beasley, who then went to her home with her so they could use her home phone to make a “pretext phone call” to Mr. Artz, which could be taped without the defendant’s knowledge.
The transcript of that 5/21/09 call was rather choppy, as Detective Beasley was prompting her with phrases and sentences to say to the defendant. What was revealed sounded like a very teasing but explicit interchange. She was the first to ask about the alleged photos, but he did not deny their existence. He tried to get her to commit to meeting again, then she asked if he were going to lock her up again. He asked why would he do that, then she asked why he had made her [do this] before, he said that she had offered. She said that she didn’t recall that, he replied that yes, she had offerred [to give him] “a hand-job.” Then they talked about her sneaking out [to see him], and she said she couldn’t do that anymore, because of school grades.
For reasons that were questioned on cross-examination of Detective Beasley, the detective did not try to arrest the defendant that night, but allowed him to go away for the weekend. The defendant promised the girl that he would not release any photos, and that they could delay their deal. On 5/26/09, the detective and the girl performed another pretext phone call, in which the victim again brought up the photos, while the defendant seemed mostly interested in the success of being able to get together with the girl again. A meeting was set up for the following day, to exchange the photos for sex, and the defendant was arrested when he showed up, after school, on the victim’s street.
Upon cross, Ms. Druliner hammered the victim for clarification on the numerous conflicting statements. She wanted to pin down when the detective had learned the victim had a “romantic” relationship with the girlfriend, and if the defendant had known the identity of the girlfriend. In evidentiary arguments outside the presence of the jury, Judge Mock had decided that the term “romantic” was strong enough to convey the relationship’s level of involvement, enough to allow the jury to decide the facts without the prejudicial impact of “sexual.”
There were references to the existence of the relationship, in police interviews and the initial Facebook comments. The defendant did not refer to her by name, but his ex-girlfriend knew both of the girls. Ms. Druliner was able to establish that the victim had been invited by Mr. Artz’ then-girlfriend to his birthday party about two weeks before the 2008 incident, and the victim had actually spent the night.
The victim admitted, upon cross, that she and her girlfriend had referred to the incident as a “rape,” for lack of a better word, that she felt disloyal to her girlfriend, that she wasn’t mad at Mr. Artz (just disappointed), that she had not actually accused him, over the phone of having forced her. At one point she mentioned that she did not want to ruin her friendship with Mr. Artz, but she was disappointed in May that he had not gotten past the incident.
Ms. Druliner confronted her with conflicting statements, such as about her position in the bedroom, what his hands and her hands were doing, and whether the bedroom doors (there were four) were locked. When asked which was it, she stated that she didn’t think things would go this far, or that she would have to be so specific.
Ms. Druliner was able to raise doubt about Mr. Artz’ and the girl’s actions during the incident, as she demonstrated that no one had enough hands to be doing all that was alleged at once, and that perhaps the victim was actually helping. There was also testimony about her possibly telling Mr. Artz that they shouldn’t do anything, because they were both “in relationships.”
The People then called the girlfriend, who described their relationship and “best friends, and more…” She had been in Catholic school, and did not want her parents to know about the relationship. She described the first phone call from the victim, in August 2008, the phone call they made to Mr. Artz, and the call from the victim in 2009, after the Facebook contacts. By then she was off to college, but came back to Davis around the end of May, probably talking to the victim at that time.
Upon cross, Ms. Druliner questioned her about her trip out of the country in June and July, and suggested that it was possible that she was interviewed on 5/23/09, rather than 7/23/09, as Detective Beasley had “read between the lines” by the time of the 5/21/09 interview and pretext phone call. About the 2009 phone call from the victim, she admitted that it could have been quite long, perhaps 1.5 hours. Ms. Druliner tried to question her about her possible fears of being prosecuted for having sex with a minor, but objections were sustained.
The People then called three police officers, first Sgt. Paul Doroshov, who detailed all the electronic equipment seized in the warrant search of Mr. Artz’ parents’ house. In the defendant’s car they found condoms, lubricant, a camera and a thumbdrive. Sgt. Doroshov had performed moving surveillance of the defendant, following him from school to his home, and then to this rendezvous.
The next witness was Officer Mark Daniel Herman, a forensic electronics expert, who examined all the seized materials, and all the text and Facebook messages. He found nothing of the defendant and the victim, but did find a porn site visited from one of the home computers that told a story of a sex act coerced by threat of releasing incriminating photos.
Detective Jeff Beasley was the next witness for the prosecution, and described how he was called into the police station to interview the victim of a sexual assault. After that 5/21/09 interview, which was eventually established, upon cross, to have been around 6:30 to 8:00pm, he went to the victim’s home with her, so they could call the defendant and attempt to elicit a confession. Setting up a meeting was postponed until after the weekend, at which time the detective could be better prepared, have backup, and have a search warrant. He then described the second pretext phone call, and subsequent arrest. He said that he wanted to be sensitive to the family, in their neighborhood, but his definite priority was to remove a dangerous predator from the streets and to recover the sensitive child porn (photos of the victim).
The cross examination of the detective was very lengthy. Ms. Druliner established that a search warrant can be obtained at night, if necessary, that apprehension of a suspect can be done with only a little backup (like during a DUI arrest, an arrest at a bar fight, and so on), and that it was a contradiction to allow a dangerous sexual predator to roam the streets so that the detective could be better prepared. She quizzed him on why he did not investigate the possible significance of the victim’s gay relationship (and possible alternative motives for the complaint), why he did not think that an extremely long phone call between them a few days before could be relevant, why he did not attempt to get their cell phone records from the cellular providers, and why he kept none of his notes from the interviews and the pretext phone calls. He destroyed his notes, saying that was normal procedure.
She wanted to know when he had first learned of the girls’ relationship, trying to coordinate that with the responses the girls had given. She wanted to know why he had not explored how well the defendant and the victim had known each other prior to the 2008 incident. She quizzed him extensively about what the victim had told him in interview, which certainly seemed in places to vary from what the victim said on the stand, or what her girlfriend had said that she told her (in the “fresh complaint”).
She quizzed him about the Facebook chat not mentioning photos, but only the secret. She asked him why he had not asked all the questions she was asking now, like why the girl didn’t leave when she passed the front door, but instead “backed into” the bedroom. And why he did not ask her about Mr. Artz’ statements during the pretext calls, that suggested he did not know what she was talking about, regarding being forced or locked up. The detective said he saw no inconsistency.
The detective made some good points, such as about the confusion of the victim’s description of details of the event. He pointed out that he thought that the victim was remembering his and her positions and hands over time, and not necessarily all at the same time (as Ms. Druliner had established the impossibilities of only two hands doing several things at once, in the cross of the girl).
The defense called Mr. Artz’ mother Janine, who described the bedroom in question, and its four doors. One opened into the garage, another to the patio, and both of those had locks, opening from the inside and without a key. The other two opened into the house, and did not have locks. Next was Mr. Stanley Artz, who described a conversation he observed at the courthouse, on recess during the victim’s testimony. She was in deep conversation with Detective Beasley, who was also a witness. It should also be pointed out that Detective Beasley was allowed to sit in the courtroom during the entire proceedings, as he, as an “investigator” to the prosecution, was exempted from the witness exclusion rule.
Anthony Gane then testified to a time and distance study between the defendant’s and the victim’s homes. DDA Steven Gill testified that in a June 2010 interview, the victim told him that Mr. Artz could definitely have known the identity of the victim’s girlfriend, and he cited four reasons. She had told him that the two girls were always together, that the girlfriend was friends with Mr. Artz’ then-girlfriend, that there were rumors and that the victim thinks she actually slipped and said something, at the time of the incident (beyond just that they were both “in relationships”).
In her closing argument, Ms. Susz reiterated that the defendant had had oral copulation with a minor, that that was illegal, and that he had forced her. She said he threatened to use pictures, to get her to submit to more. She went through the elements required to establish each of the charges, which had already been read by the judge. The intent was to familiarize the jury with the jury instructions before the closing arguments. The elements of Count 1, oral copulation by force, fear etc, require that the defendant committed such an act with the person, that the other person did not consent, and that the act was accomplished by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate injury. Threat of releasing embarrassing photos qualifies as duress, and oral copulation need only have slight contact.
Count 2, oral copulation with a person under 18, requires that the defendant participated in such an act with another person, and that the person was under 18 at the time. Consent is not a defense. Count 3 is contacting a minor with the intent to commit certain felonies, requiring that the defendant somehow communicated with a minor, that he intended to commit the offense (the sex act with the minor, including that it may be considered rape), and that the defendant should reasonably have known the person was a minor.
Ms. Susz stressed that Counts 2 and 3 are unrefuted, although the defense would try to show that his intent was not proved. Further, the porn story found on his computer reveals his intent, and he had plenty of opportunity to abandon his plans.
Going more into the jury instructions, she reviewed the definitions of beyond a reasonable doubt, and leaving an abiding conviction. She then went on to say that comparing conflicting evidence, understanding all the hearsay objections and their special rules, and the 57 exceptions was definitely a monumental task. She stressed that they need not bother about why some evidence was allowed in and some wasn’t, why some objections were sustained and others weren’t.
She then went over the instructions on adoptive admissions, which would be very important in this case. Embedded in the repeated conflicts in testimony were failures to state certain things, which can be considered to be admissions. For instance, in the pretext phone call, when he said that she had “offered [the hand-job],” she did not say “no, I didn’t.” And when he said that no, he didn’t [force her], he did not know the detective was listening, He had no reason to lie, and she did.
As to possible motives for inconsistent testimony, Ms. Druliner submitted that the victim willingly participated, and if she didn’t like it, she did not communicate that. The charge of a forcible act in Count 1, she said, simply was not proved, and only the lesser-included count of battery could be possible. But to consider that, the jury must first acquit the defendant of the greater charge.
She talked about circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, and the inference that may be derived from a set of circumstantial facts. If there are two reasonable interpretations, the jury must choose the one that tends to disprove guilt. She discussed prior statements as evidence and the defendant’s right not to testify, and suggested that the victim lied to the detective, so the jury should consider not believing anything she said. Ms. Druliner reviewed Detective Beasley’s seemingly inept investigation, and suggested that he had some motive to delay the arrest, to have the interview with the girlfriend and to allow the girls to have the weekend together. Why he would do this is unclear, and she said the jury must decide for itself, and reminded them that they are the judges of credibility.
She reminded the jury of a point of law, that once a sexual act begins between a man and a woman, the burden shifts to the woman to communicate “no,” to say that she changed her mind. Returning to the inconsistencies, she pointed out that “failure of memory” is indicative of lack of credibility, and she reviewed all the verbal interactions and physical gestures that had been testified to, painting a picture which simply did not demonstrate that the defendant knew she wanted to stop.
Commentary
Tomorrow we will run our interview with Defense Attorney Kathryn Druliner. This was a complicated case, certainly. The victim’s feelings were undeniably complicated, and made the issue of force ultimately impossible to sustain. What we do know is that the victim went to Mr. Artz’ house when she knew (at least, as soon as she arrived) that his parents were not there. If she thought others would be at his home, she also did not leave when she realized they would be alone. The act itself was ambiguous.
At times she seemed reluctant, but she also offered him a hand-job and went back with him to his sister’s bedroom after (or as) he disrobed. There was obviously some regret there, but did it have to do with him using force, or her own insecurity about her own sexuality and her relationship with her romantic girlfriend?
At times, it seemed like the victim was more the victim of a tug-of-war with her girlfriend, and later Detective Beasley, pulling the strings. We will have more on that tomorrow.
One thing we learned from the jury is that they did not want to convict on any of the charges. The age of consent laws are really set up to avoid situations where young girls are manipulated and victimized by older men. In this case, we are talking about classmates who ran in the same social circles. Adding to the ambiguity is the fact that Mr. Artz was held back a year in kindergarten, so while he was two years older than the victim on the calendar, he was only one grade ahead. Basically we are treating a senior having sexual relations with a junior the same way we would a 30-year-old with a 16-year-old.
While it seems likely that Mr. Artz, with a clean record otherwise, will avoid prison time, he may well have to register as a sexual predator for the rest of his life. Again, this was a law that was set up to protect children from serial child molesters in the neighborhood, or women from dangerous rapists. It is not a law that was set up to protect the populace from seniors in high school receiving “blow jobs” from juniors. We will have more on this, but Ms. Druliner, and other attorneys we talked to, believe there is a reasonable chance that this law may be thrown out as unconstitutional. But for now, Mr. Artz will be treated the same as a child molester or rapist.
We will get more into questions as to how thoroughly the Davis Police Department and DA’s Office investigated this case. However, one strange aspect of this case is the fact that we never did see the parents of the victim. They never showed up in court. And in fact, Detective Beasley described going over to the parent’s house with the victim on the night of 5/21/2009, and the parents were going out for the evening. Detective Beasley introduced himself to the parents, and they proceeded to leave.
So here is a Police Detective going to the house of a high school student, and the parents did not bother to stick around to find out what was going on. That seemed very strange. It does not go into the question of guilt or innocence, but it seemed out of the ordinary.
The other point that we will be looking into are comparisons between this case and the Noori case from last December, where the defendants were acquitted by a jury, of 63 counts. That case also involved Davis Police Detective Jeff Beasley and has resulted in a federal law suit against Detective Beasley and the Davis Police Department.
–David M. Greenwald reporting
Another case of who cares about the facts, the DA just wants his high conviction rate. Forget justice, forget the fact that two kids may have made bad decisions, forget that this goes on everyday all across the state, we have 1000s of underage kids having babies every day and not one investigations about how old the dad is and to get on welfare they don’t even ask and if the parent says they do not know who the father is, it stops there and this underage kid is given state aid. Why are these investigated? Probably NO Grant money for these crimes so DA Reisig looks the other way. What a cowardly guy he is choosing to go after these kids for his headlines and conviction rate.
Kudos for the jurors for seeing this and sending another message to DA Reisig that people are getting tired of his “put everyone in prison, who cares about the facts attitude.”
You won’t see this story in the local papers? If Mr. Reisig does not do a press release it does not get reported, wonder how many times things like this happens and goes unreported?
Roger… so it’s good that this goes on all the time and the jury doesn’t believe prison should apply… so you’re good with his lifetime sentence as a registered sex offender?
This makes me wonder how many 18 year old DHS students have had sex with younger classmates. I imagine the number is more than a few, each year. Would we be better off if all of those people were gathered up, convicted of felonies and registered as sex offenders?
dmg: “While it seems like that Mr. Artz, with a clean record otherwise, will avoid prison time, he may well have to register as a sexual predator for the rest of his life. Again, this was a law that was set up to protect children from serial child molesters in the neighborhoo, or women from dangerous rapists. It is not a law that was set up to protect the populace from seniors in high school receiving “blow jobs” from juniors.”
So I am assuming you are OK with an 18 year old male coaxing a 16 year old to his house, when his parents aren’t home, and then the 16 year old is considered “fair game” for sex? (Especially in light of the general situation in which the 18 year old male is usually considerably stronger physically than a 16 year old female.) Frankly, I don’t think it is clear here whether there was force or not, and I’m not so sure the victim was certain either. In a situation like this, a young girl is at an extreme disadvantage, and may have felt it was better to give in than to fight back. That will tend to bring up feelings of guilt in the victim that she “asked for it”, so she really doesn’t have the right to cry rape/claim she was physically forced.
This exact scenario played out here in Davis a few years ago, with a guy who would frequently pick up college girls at the graduate and take him to his apartment. He would start kissing them in a way that didn’t allow them to say “no”, then force them to have sex. Because they didn’t technically say “no”, and weren’t physically bruised bc he was so strong, there was no proof of forcible rape. This creep nailed a number of victims this way, and was accused of multiple rapes, but was acquitted. Why? I suspect the jury figured if the girls were stupid enough to go to a guy’s apartment, they assumed the risk/knew what he expected and went willingly.
I also understand that young girls can entice young men, then cry rape. But here in this case (Mr. Artz), the defendant clearly lured the girl to his house for one purpose – sex. He knew how old the victim was. Had this girl said “no”, I have my doubts this guy would have taken “no” for an answer.
What I find so ironic about all this is the message we are sending our youngsters. With shows like “Three’s Company”, the message is that it is OK and perfectly safe for a girl to room with a guy (a friend of mine’s daughter was raped by a male roommate), so being alone with a guy in a house without his parents would be nothing in comparison. Teens are also given the impression from TV and movies that casual sex is no big deal. Yet the law (if young men even know about it) says young men are not to have sex with minors – girls of age 16 or younger. Such mixed messages are very harmful.
An example of this is “sextortion”. Teen girls are lured to show their bare chests on their video cams to some sexual predator who is online in some Internet chat room. Young college girls are encouraged to do this all the time with the Girls Gone Wild videos. Those same young girls are later contacted by purveyors of porn, and extorted into posing for porn publications/movies with the threat that the bare chested pictures will be published on the Internet if they don’t comply.
Young males are caught up in this problem too. When young teens engage in sex, many are taking sexually explicit pictures of themselves via cell phone. Young men are then sending the pictures over their cell phones to each other – a form of adolescent “bragging”. Nevertheless, these same young men can be found guilty of trafficking in child porn if their girlfriend is underage. As a result, these young men can find themselves having to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
Some clearer boundaries need to be laid out for teens, both men and women. They need to more fully understand the dangers of indulging in certain behaviors that can have far reaching consequences – not encouraged to indulge in sexual free-for-alls.
correction: “…pick up college girls at the Graduate and other bars around town…”
correction: “…and take THEM to his apartment…”
[quote]”It should also be pointed out that Detective Beasley was allowed to sit in the courtroom during the entire proceedings, as he, as an ‘investigator’ to the prosecution, was exempted from the witness exclusion rule.”[/quote] What’s the purpose of this type of exception? I’d think we wouldn’t want the most involved (arresting?) officer listening to all the questioning and therefore able to “adjust” his testimony to meet the prosecution’s needs.
Good reporting job, David. It’s almost as though we were there for the trial–not that anybody really would want to be. These are difficult cases–tough to assure that Justice prevails.
dmg: “It should also be pointed out that Detective Beasley was allowed to sit in the courtroom during the entire proceedings, as he, as an ‘investigator’ to the prosecution, was exempted from the witness exclusion rule.”
js: “What’s the purpose of this type of exception?”
It was up to the defense attorney to object…
But, Elaine, on what concept is it allowed in the first place?
The defense attorney definitely objected to this exception to the witness exclusion rule.
[quote] It’s almost as though we were there for the trial[/quote]
That’s an incredibly naive statement. You were “there” for the parts of the trial and the spin on the trial that David is interested in portraying. You who want to automatically uncritically agree with all of David’s opinions, that’s your right. But at least you could admit that it’s opinion and punditry we’re talking about here. Many of us took away a completely different view of the behavior of the parties in that trial.
The judicial watch is starting to rank right up there with JFK and UFO conspiracy theorists. Now he’s got the entire Yolo County court system, DAs and public defenders, colluding and so unprofessional that they are incapable of doing their jobs by virtue of the fact that they live in the same county.
Apparently only David is capable of discerning what actually happens in any given situation. The arrogance is really unbelievable.
I often wonder what makes people so willing and able to believe that others are corrupt… and I have come to the conclusion that it’s because they lack ethics of their own. They are more than willing to twist and distort the facts to serve their needs so it’s natural for them to assume that others do as well.
As for the Druliner interview, you really could spare us all. I mean golly gee, what do you suppose she will say?!?!?!?!?
“So I am assuming you are OK with an 18 year old male coaxing a 16 year old to his house…”
I’m okay with it, or I’m not in favor of criminalizing it and attaching a lifelong sexual predator status to it?
“As for the Druliner interview, you really could spare us all. I mean golly gee, what do you suppose she will say?!?!?!?!? “
You don’t have to read it. I found it fascinating myself.
I often wonder what makes people so willing and able to believe that others are corrupt… and I have come to the conclusion that it’s because they lack ethics of their own. They are more than willing to twist and distort the facts to serve their needs so it’s natural for them to assume that others do as well.
OK, but then how do you explain the outcome of the case? Are you suggesting the Jurors somehow distorted and twisted the facts?
The jurors who spoke afterwords said that they had felt bad finding the defendant guilty of Ct 2 and Ct 3, but that he was definitely 18, and she was not. They found that the People did not prove force or duress, to BARD anyway.
The 2 years of age difference means that he is guilty of a misdemeanor, not a felony. There needs to be a greater separation of ages for it to be a felony. Someone convicted of a misdemeanor does not have to register as a sex offender.
Davis High School boys should pay attention to this case. They need to be given the tools (words, questions, etc.) to use to make sure that their sexual partners are consenting. If they get any inkling that the partner is not into it, they need to stop, get up, put on their clothes and leave. Once they turn 18 years old, they need to cease activities with anyone under 18 and only date girls/guys their own age or older.
Ryan: I was there, he was convicted of a felony. And according to both attorneys, he will have to register as a sex offender. I think it’s a fairly recent law that was passed by the voters a few years ago that makes this so.
When I read about how brain maturity (especially with respect to decision making) isn’t complete until ~24-25, especially in males, it makes me wonder the appropriateness of punishments in these cases. Drinking laws are set at 21, and you can’t rent a car on your own until ~age 25.
Here is the Yolo DA version of the same case (a press release dated today)
Davis Man Convicted by Jury in “Sextortion” Case
Posted Date: 8/30/2010
Press Release
Davis Man Convicted by Jury in “Sextortion” Case
(Woodland, CA) – August 30, 2010 – On August 27, 2010, a Yolo County jury convicted Michael Hien Artz, 20, of Davis, of oral copulation with a 16 year-old girl and later communicating with this same 16 year-old girl via Facebook and the telephone with the purpose of forcing her to have sex with him, an act that has come to be known by law enforcement as “sextortion.”
In August 2008, Artz invited the 16 year-old girl to a “party” at his house. When she arrived at his house, no one else was at this “party.” Artz made the 16 year-old girl orally copulate him and he took photographs and video during the incident. Nine months later, around May 18, 2009, Artz initiated contact with the girl through Facebook, a social networking website. When he contacted the 16 year-old girl, he threatened to expose a secret if she did not agree to have sex with him or orally copulate him again. Over the next few days, Artz telephoned the girl at least twenty times and sent her numerous text messages continuing to threaten the girl, and stated he would blackmail the girl by posting photographs and video of the oral copulation from August 2008 on the Internet or at her school if the girl did not agree to have sex with him and orally copulate him again. On May 21, 2009, the girl reported the sextortion and the August 2008 oral copulation to the Davis Police Department.
Davis Police Department Detective Jeff Beasely was the lead investigator on this case for the department. Detective Beasely had the girl return Artz’ telephone calls while he was present to tape the conversation. During two taped telephone conversations, Artz repeatedly told the girl he had photographs and video of the oral copulation from August 2008, and demanded that if she did not meet him to have sex with him and orally copulate him, he would post the photographs and video on the Internet and at her school. When the girl told Artz that she did not participate willingly in the August 2008 oral copulation, Artz told her, “That’s alright,” and that he “did not care.” The girl also asked Artz if there was any other way she could get the photographs and video back. Artz told her, “I can’t think of any.” He also told the girl, “Hate me all you want. Until I go off to college, you’re mine.”
After the telephone calls, the Davis Police Department had the girl arrange for Artz to come to her house in Davis with the photographs and video so they could obtain the photographs and video he claimed he had. Once Artz turned his car on the girl’s street, the Davis Police Department pulled Artz over and arrested him. They found condoms, sexual lubricant, a camera, and a computer thumb drive on him when he was arrested.
Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig commended the efforts of the Davis Police Department, specifically lead Detective Jeff Beasely, and also Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Tiffany Susz for their hard work in investigating and presenting this difficult case to the jury.
Sextortion cases are on the rise nationwide. District Attorney Reisig said: “Unfortunately, some advances in technology have also created new ways for sexual predators to target and take advantage of our children. Cases such as this demonstrate the depravity of certain new age criminals and also the increasing need for families to educate themselves about the real risks to children using the Internet, texting and other modern communication methods.”
Artz faces a maximum sentence of 4 years 8 months in state prison. The Honorable Stephen L. Mock will sentence Artz on October 15, 2010.
For more information, contact Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven at
530-666-8180.
Ryan: I was there, he was convicted of a felony. And according to both attorneys, he will have to register as a sex offender.
This is just wrong. Perhaps his attorney was so focused of defending him on the rape charges, that the age difference was overlooked. If there is a greater difference in age than two years (3+), then it would be a felony. Because they were so close in age, then it should have been a misdemeanor.
“Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or
three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” – Ref. 261.5(b)PC.
He was convicted under PC 288A(b)(1) – Oral cop w/ person under 18
(a) Oral copulation is the act of copulating the mouth of one
person with the sexual organ or anus of another person.
(b) (1) Except as provided in Section 288, any person who
participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is
under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.
OK. So they convicted him of child molestation…a high school student having sex relations with another high school student. This just boggles the mind. WTF.
I agree completely.
The initial act of oral copulation would, it would appear, never have even come up if this young man not tried to “force” the girl into having sex, or oral sex with him with threats of videos and photos of the first encounter. Attempting to “Force” this girl into performing sexual acts with him under threats is disturbing behavior…sounds like the jury got it right to me.
The forcible part of it they did not find to be proved.
What the jury basically said was the they did not believe that he should be convicted of anything, but they felt that the law compelled them to convict. They did not think a crime was committed.
Ryan: Just talked to Druliner, have the full story tomorrow, but apparently I got it wrong, it’s the third count the PC 288.3(a) that carries the lifetime sex offender, that was passed by the voters a few years ago and makes it a crime to have contact with a minor for the purposes of obtaining some sex act. She believes it’s unchallenged in the courts and will be thrown out as unconstitutional. But apparently the sex act did not lead to the lifetime sex offender status, the third part did. She also said that Sac county to her knowledge has never charged anyone with a PC 288.3.
Did the photos and videos not exist? I ask because I find it strange that he was not charged with possession of child porn…which photos and/or video of a 16 year old performing a sex act would have been.
None were found, although both of the teenagers referred to them.
None were found.
Double Bogey: I just looked up the jury instructions for 288.3 that they used, it is what I thought, that he contacted a minor with the intent to orally copulate as charged in 288A(b)(1). To prove that they had to show that he contacted or communicated with a minor and that he intended to commit 288A(b)(1) and that he knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a minor. This count was not in dispute and the jury felt statutorily compelled (according to them) to impose a guilty verdict even though they believed the age difference insufficient.
I was one of the jurors for this case. This case made me sick to my stomach everyday!
We had to follow the law on the 3 counts! We could not go with our feelings! There was no question she was a minor on count 2! Count 3 he clearly said and wrote things to her that made it illegal! Do I think he is a rapist? NO WAY! But he was a stupid 18 yr old that did some stupid things that will follow him forever! I am sick about that! I was one of those people that talked to the lawyers afterword’s! But as a young person you have to know the laws when your 18 yrs old! You are a adult and if you choose to have sex with anyone under 18 it is illegal! Not for one minute did I think he forced her! She was dating a girl that was 6 months older then Michael and THAT was OK! Makes me sick!
Sounds to me like this was consentual. Why did she just not leave if she was uncomfortable? He obviously did not force her to give him a “handjob”. Does anyone know how old the girlfriend was at the time of the incident? Sounds to me like the girlfriend may have wanted the other girl to report this so it assures her that she has no more communication with the defendant. This kid is doomed for life. Looks like Reisig got another one under his belt. Yolo’s crooked DA back in action.
The girlfriend was 6 months older then Michael!! And it was made clear that the girls spent many weekends together! But she wasn’t charged!
dmg: “”So I am assuming you are OK with an 18 year old male coaxing a 16 year old to his house…”
I’m okay with it, or I’m not in favor of criminalizing it and attaching a lifelong sexual predator status to it?”
You left off an important part of my quote “So I am assuming you are OK with an 18 year old male coaxing a 16 year old to his house, when his parents aren’t home, and then the 16 year old is considered “fair game” for sex?” This sort of attitude is what allowed the Tail Hook scandal to happen. What message does that send our young men? As long as the guy can lure a girl into his web, she is fair game? Once in the net, her “no” means nothing? That is a dangerous game you are allowing young men to play, and is a step backward for women…
I’m not okay with it, but I don’t think everything rises to the level of criminal conduct, particularly criminal conduct that carries with it lifelong consequences.
db: “The initial act of oral copulation would, it would appear, never have even come up if this young man not tried to “force” the girl into having sex, or oral sex with him with threats of videos and photos of the first encounter. Attempting to “Force” this girl into performing sexual acts with him under threats is disturbing behavior…sounds like the jury got it right to me.”
I couldn’t agree with you more… this guy is a sexual predator.
dmg: “What the jury basically said was the they did not believe that he should be convicted of anything, but they felt that the law compelled them to convict. They did not think a crime was committed.”
Thank goodness juries are required to follow the law, and not necessarily the particular world view of a juror or blogger.
shetazz: “The girlfriend was 6 months older then Michael!! And it was made clear that the girls spent many weekends together! But she wasn’t charged!”
The police are trying to stop “sextortion”. As far as I am aware, the girlfriend was not trying to extort sex from the victim.
The police set up the “sextortion” case. This was a case of two high school students fumbling their way through sexual activity and doing a very poor job of communicating to one another.
This boy is not a sexual predator, by any definition. Elaine, you’ve lost my respect.
Elaine: this guy is an 18 year old kid who made a mistake with a classmate.
[quote]The police are trying to stop “sextortion”. As far as I am aware, the girlfriend was not trying to extort sex from the victim. [/quote]
Actually the girlfriend was probably manipulating a lot of the situation. She may not have been extorting sex from the victim, but she certainly pulled a lot of strings here.
Also the police did not stop sextortion, they got the guy for having sex and asking for more sex.
E Roberts…I know that! That is what I said! She wasn’t charged!
The girlfriend was 6 months older then Michael!! And it was made clear that the girls spent many weekends together! But she wasn’t charged!
David:
I am not following your logic on this…The story posted above clearly shows that this young man was attempting to “trade” these non existent, embarrassing photos of their first sexual encounter for another sexual encounter…How do you not see the issue in that? I really am trying to understand where you, and others, are coming from on this but I can not get past the obvious…If what is printed above is accurate how is that behavior ok?
You seem to think that the only way something can be seen as not okay is to see it as a criminal matter. What I saw and heard was two kids, both of them with raging hormones, giving mixed signals about their intentions. So its a confused situation to begin with.
Then the girlfriend and a police detective enter the picture and push this girl to go to the authorities on what happened. They have a conversation, with the detective writing her little notes of suggestions, and she says at one point, so if I have sex with you, you’ll destroy the pictures and he said yes. One of the reasons I think Druliner wanted Officer Beasley’s notes was to show that this was orchestrated by him and that this was entrapment.
The other point is that they never charged him with making threats or extortion? Why? The only charge they had was 288.3 which is making contact for purposes of having sex, why would they charge the generic one rather than the stronger extortion or force?
If you read the comment by Sanity Defense who I believe based on this and other posts is in the DA’s office, he says they couldn’t. “He “extorted” her for sex and if it could be punished under extortion statutes, it would be. This was flat out blackmail. Which is why he’s considered a sexual predator and why he completely deserves to have a sexual registrant label for the rest of his life. “
Well why couldn’t they? He never explain. Does he believe perhaps they couldn’t sustain the charge? If it’s flat out blackmail, why not charge him with that?
He says well that’s why he’s considered a sexual predator, he’s under the law considered that because he was convicted as an 18 year old under 288.3. Not because he blackmailed her. That was never charged. I wonder if perhaps one reason is the issue of entrapment and opening another can of worms. All speculation because he never explained why they couldn’t.
But remember the jury did not even think he should be convicted under 288.3, they did it because it was the law. So they were unconvinced I believe on this point.
Was there any evidence either by pictures or recording presented in front of the jury or is this all hearsay by the police officer? If there was no actual evidence shown or heard in court and it is all hearsay then why did the jury have to find him guilty for them counts? I personally know that the police lie and the DA’s will do anything for a conviction. I am glad that David writes these articles, so that the public really knows whats going on in the Yolo County justice system. Keep up the good work David!!!
They played two audio recordings played to the jury of conversations between the victim and Mr. Artz.
dmg: “Also the police did not stop sextortion, they got the guy for having sex and asking for more sex.”
What? This guy threatened to expose the nonexistent pictures for more sex. That is not “asking” for sex, that is extorting for sex.
They did not get him for that, did they Elaine?
dgm: “The only charge they had was 288.3 which is making contact for purposes of having sex, why would they charge the generic one rather than the stronger extortion or force?”
It isn’t making contact for the purposes of sex, it is communication with the intent to commit a crime…
The audio recordings were obviously coersed by the detective, and Reisig ran with it from there. Wrong doing by the Yolo County justice system day after day. Please, people wake up to whats really going on, you may be next.
Specifically a sex offense, in this case, PC 288A(b)(1).
The jury instructions were very specific.
[quote]To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:
1. The defendant (contacted or communicated with/ [or]
attempted to contact or communicate with) a minor;
2. When the defendant did so, (he/she) intended to commit PC 288A(b)(1) involving that minor;
AND
3. The defendant knew or reasonably should have known that
the person was a minor.[/quote]
That’s it. This is the law that was written basically in response to the internet predators detailed on Dateline where they were having conversations on the internet with minors in order to have sex with them. There is nothing about coercion or blackmail in this statute, they didn’t have to prove coercion or blackmail, coercion and blackmail were never mentioned in the jury instructions. The only count that dealt with force or threat was the first count.
dgm: “You seem to think that the only way something can be seen as not okay is to see it as a criminal matter. What I saw and heard was two kids, both of them with raging hormones, giving mixed signals about their intentions. So its a confused situation to begin with.”
This was more than raging hormones and confused kids. What “mixed signals”? The defendant lured the girl to his house, when his parents weren’t home, for the express purpose of having sex with a minor who he knew was a minor. It is not clear to me whether their sex was consensual or forced. However, the defendant told the girl he took pictures, and used that to try and extort more sex from her. In my book, that makes this guy a sexual predator.
Was she 18 when he contacted her on Facebook? Was she 18 when she was “coersed” to talk to him on recording? If so, they were two adults having a conversation. Is this not correct?
[quote]The defendant lured the girl to his house, when his parents weren’t home, for the express purpose of having sex with a minor who he knew was a minor. It is not clear to me whether their sex was consensual or forced. However, the defendant told the girl he took pictures, and used that to try and extort more sex from her. In my book, that makes this guy a sexual predator. [/quote]
You really don’t have enough information to make the statement he lured the girl or that the express purpose was having sex. I sat and listened to her testify for nearly seven hours and I don’t think I can make a statement either way as definitive as that.
He invited her over to his home, he had done this before, they were friends in the same social circle. She thought there was a party, there wasn’t. They watched some dumb comedy. She kept interrupting the movie and irritated him. They then talked for awhile, both flirting with each other possibly. He clearly was interested in her, but it’s not clear if the express purpose was for having sex.
There were all sorts of things that happened that portrayed mixed signals.
He told the defendant he took pictures and he may have taken pictures, but they were never found. The issue of extortion was not charged, the DA is now claiming they couldn’t, I don’t buy that, I think it would have brought into the question of entrapment and I think she brought up the idea of a trade first and he went for the idea.
I don’t see the guy as a sexual predator, I see him as a horny teen, I don’t think the law was written to regulate 18 and 16 year olds. If he’s clean the next ten years, would you still think he should be a registered sex offender unable to teach in schools?
Valerie, when the second incident happened she was about to turn 17. She just turned 18 this June, and the initial incident happened two years ago.
dgm:”If you read the comment by Sanity Defense who I believe based on this and other posts is in the DA’s office, he says they couldn’t. “He “extorted” her for sex and if it could be punished under extortion statutes, it would be.”
You made the rules for this blog, which allows anonymous posting. Who is behind the anonymous postings is irrelevant, frankly, bc it doesn’t take away from the argument, no matter where it came from…
What does that have to do with the main point that I making?
dgm: “You really don’t have enough information to make the statement he lured the girl or that the express purpose was having sex. I sat and listened to her testify for nearly seven hours and I don’t think I can make a statement either way as definitive as that.
He invited her over to his home, he had done this before, they were friends in the same social circle. She thought there was a party, there wasn’t. They watched some dumb comedy. She kept interrupting the movie and irritated him. They then talked for awhile, both flirting with each other possibly. He clearly was interested in her, but it’s not clear if the express purpose was for having sex.
There were all sorts of things that happened that portrayed mixed signals.”
Adding material after the fact is not helpful to the reader…
He invited her over when the parents were not home; he had condoms and a camera in his car. And you want to tell me he didn’t have sex in mind? She thought there was a party – clearly she didn’t have sex in mind.
dmg: “I don’t see the guy as a sexual predator, I see him as a horny teen, I don’t think the law was written to regulate 18 and 16 year olds. If he’s clean the next ten years, would you still think he should be a registered sex offender unable to teach in schools?”
How do you not see him as a sexual predator, if he threatened exposure of the pictures to extort more sex? What was it he said “Now I own you”…
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one 🙂
Just as an aside, if you feel so strongly that this 18 year old was harmlessy caught up in a needless legal entanglement, then you should agree with my original premise. Teens need to be educated about the consequences of their sexual activity and not be given mixed messages by movies/television/magazines. This guy is lucky there were no actual pictures, or he could have been charged with trafficking in child porn…
[quote]Adding material after the fact is not helpful to the reader… [/quote]
It would have been a very long article if I included every detail – your a lawyer you know how long trial transcripts are from 4 or 5 days of testimony. And yet even now you think you have enough information to make up your mind.
“he had condoms and a camera in his car.”
What teenager doesn’t?
“And you want to tell me he didn’t have sex in mind? “
He was an 18 year old boy, how could tell you that. But having sex on his mind is a far cry from “express purpose to have sex” there is no evidence of that.
“How do you not see him as a sexual predator, if he threatened exposure of the pictures to extort more sex? What was it he said “Now I own you”…”
Because I don’t see him as a sexual predator, I see him as a horny teen.
[quote]Just as an aside, if you feel so strongly that this 18 year old was harmlessy caught up in a needless legal entanglement, then you should agree with my original premise. Teens need to be educated about the consequences of their sexual activity and not be given mixed messages by movies/television/magazines. This guy is lucky there were no actual pictures, or he could have been charged with trafficking in child porn… [/quote]
For some reason you seem to believe that criminal system is the only way to deal with problematic behavior, I just don’t agree with that. I don’t think that helps him. I don’t think that helps her. And I don’t think we can afford it as government or a society. We need to learn to handle things outside of calling the police and I honestly believe the more we have these ridiculously tough laws, the less people are going to use the police to report crimes.
And btw, yes he is lucky because you know they would have charged him with whatever they could reasonably have charged him with and then some.
Because I don’t see him as a sexual predator, I see him as a horny teen.
The problem I have with trying to protray this guy as a “horny teen” is the method at which tried to get laid…Sexual assault is more about power than sex…this guy was using the non existent photos/video as power over the girl to get sex…that is disturbing and criminal…I am glad that he has to register as a sex offender, hopefully he will get the help he needs to learn how to engage in a proper relationship…if not, at least if he gets caught doing something in this same vain…his punishment will be much more severe.
erm: “he had condoms and a camera in his car.”
dgm: “What teenager doesn’t?”
I assure you, there are many teens who do not carry condoms and cameras in their cars…
Forget all this stuff..what about South Carolina. and the new Democratic hopeful for Senator…ALVIN GREENE FOR SENATE..
HE JUST GOT INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY FOR FELONY PORNOGRAPHY CHARGES…
The CRIME???? He showed some pornorgraphy to a woman in the computer lab at school..
Being that he was a very black black man, and she was a very white white woman in the dirty south, she felt compelled that the police should know about this potentially life threatening situation..
I mean comon..how you going to go to prison for showing porn to a grown woman. You think it’s bad here….go to South Carolina..
AND ONE LAST PLUG,,,,,ALVIN GREENE FOR SENATOR.