I have seen Judge Stephen Mock handle quite a few trials in the last year and a half. His is now the long cause trial court, which means any trial that lasts more one week goes to his department.
I have seen him handle some cases well and others less well. It is important to understand that Judge Mock was a prosecutor prior to becoming a judge, and it is also important to understand that he is married to Ann Hurd who was at one point the supervising District Attorney and now, though technically retired, is still in the leadership.
From start to finish, Judge Mock could not have done a worse job at presiding over a case than what he did in the case of Michael Artz. It was clear from the start that Defense Attorney Kathryn Druliner was under his skin. He literally screamed from the bench, “I said sustained!” when Ms. Druliner asked him to explain his ruling on an objection.
His handling of the post-verdict and sentencing was abysmal. Mr. Artz last August was acquitted on the charge of forced oral copulation, and convicted of oral copulation with a minor and contact for the purpose of sex with a minor.
Mr. Artz was 18 when these two latter crimes occurred nine months apart, and the victim was 16, but only a year behind in school. From the start, the problem in this case was that the DA was using laws that were designed to protect 16-year-olds from older men and applying it to a case of peers.
But it gets worse and not better. Judge Mock allowed the sentencing to drag on for eight months. Mr. Artz took the stand in the sentencing was asked about the most intimate details in his life. His psychiatrists did the same. He was analyzed and scrutinized more like a laboratory specimen than a human being.
It was all under the guise of figuring out whether Mr. Artz represented a danger to women in the community. The case took turns down dark paths as it explored Mr. Artz’s apparent infatuation with legal online rape fantasy porn. The obvious inference was that life imitates art and that Mr. Artz’s infatuation and arousal with such material represents a danger to the community as some sort of sexual sadist.
By the time the case was finished, Deputy DA Tiffany Susz went from barely pregnant to maternity leave and Steve Mount took over.
Judge Mock allowed this to go on and on. The DA piled it on. Mr. Mount had argued that Michael Artz is in fact two-faced, citing that his words and actions do not match. He argued that Mr. Artz’ professed empathy was a sham, that he failed to articulate how it impacted the victim and that all he expressed was sorrow that he got caught and how it impacted his family.
On the question of whether Mr. Artz is dangerous, Mr. Mount argued that Mr. Artz is not stupid, but the victim is not now in danger. The real issue, he said, is whether Mr. Artz is a danger to women in the future. What would he do when he has the advantage – will he take advantage of the situation when no one will know, will he act out on his rape fantasies like in the videos and websites he was said to enjoy and be aroused by?
Meanwhile, sentencing, by its nature, puts a defendant in a horrible predicament. Mr. Artz clearly maintained that he did not agree with the charges against him, primarily the forced oral copulation of which he was acquitted, yet in that he had to show empathy for the victim and remorse for his crimes.
It is a catch-22 at its worst, where defendants who could be innocent nevertheless have to express remorse or face harsher sentencing.
Mr. Artz felt a lot of remorse and humiliation and embarrassment about this entire process. He felt remorse at what he had put his family through. He felt remorse about the inner demons he clearly has to battle, having them thrown out about the courtroom, and he felt remorse that the victim in this case very clearly did not feel the same way about their interactions as he did.
In the end, I think the victim was more torn about by her feelings towards Mr. Artz and her possible betrayal of the female adult who somehow escaped official prosecution and scrutiny in this case. I think the victim was manipulated by her female companion and somewhat by the Davis Police Department.
It is unclear to me that Mr. Artz initiated the idea of a trade of the photos, that no longer existed, for sex. If anything, the victim or the police planted the idea in his mind.
But the biggest travesty in this case, other than the length of the sentencing phase, is that Judge Mock allowed this to drag out so long that it bore no resemblance to the trial and they lost complete sight of the nature of this case.
From the start, this case was an ambiguous interaction between a confused 18-year-old male and a just as confused 16-year-old female. The male was charged under law really not designed to handle such interactions. The government got involved in people’s privates lives in ways that it should not have.
Mr. Artz on the stand looked more like a wilting violet than any kind of threat to the community. It looked like if you blew hard enough he would either fall over or wilt into a corner. The idea that this man could force anyone to do anything approaches the preposterous.
Judge Mock should have merely looked at his record, seen a clean sheet except for this incident, and given him probation. It was a no-brainer. In fact, that is what happened. He could have given the same verdict six months ago that he gave last week.
Instead, we went into areas that the government has no business or no right to go to. My reaction to much of this was TMI – Too Much Information.
To me, the height of the ridiculousness is the fact that the DA’s office filed for forfeiture of Mr. Artz’ computer. Remember this incident happened in 2008 and early 2009.
Often, law enforcement will seize cars and other things of value in drug deals. But here they are seizing what is probably at least a four-year-old computer which means it has limited to no value at all.
It is a sad case that was badly mishandled by the authorities involved. I am still left to ask why this had to go to this point.
A juror summed it up best, “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!”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]It is important to understand that Judge Mock was a prosecutor prior to becoming a judge, and it is also important to understand that he is married to Ann Hurd who was at one point the supervising District Attorney and now, though technically retired, is still in the leadership.[/quote]
Exactly what position does Ann Hurd hold currently in the District Attorney’s Office that is what you would consider to be a problem? I’m not understanding the “technically retired” reference…
[quote]Judge Mock allowed the sentencing to drag on for eight months. Mr. Artz took the stand in the sentencing was asked about the most intimate details in his life. His psychiatrists did the same. He was analyzed and scrutinized more like a laboratory specimen than a human being.[/quote]
So his psychiatrists did some of the probing of the defendant’s personal life, and hence were partially responsible for the intimate questions/dragging the case out, no? It was also a difficult case, with the judge not quite sure what sentencing was appropriate. Hence the need to investigate further. (Would you have preferred the judge pass sentence w/o any investigation?) Ultimately, as you yourself admit, justice was probably done and the judge gave the correct sentence. So I’m not quite seeing how the judge did anything wrong here…
[quote]I think the victim was manipulated by her female companion and somewhat by the Davis Police Department.[/quote]
The victim nor her female friend were on trial here.
[quote]A juror summed it up best, “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!”[/quote]
And the lesson here is young men need to keep their pants zipped.
Elaine:
Ann Hurd was the supervising Deputy DA. She then retired. But she is still working as exhibited by the Arreola article. I have flow chart of the DA’s office that shows she is still a “team leader.” So she must be a contract employee right now.
With respect to your second question – it’s not the outcome that is in question, it is how we got there. I think the Judge could have made his decision based on far less information, that would have saved money and hardship for all involved.
“It is important to understand that Judge Mock was a prosecutor prior to becoming a judge, and it is also important to understand that he is married to Ann Hurd who was at one point the supervising District Attorney and now, though technically retired, is still in the leadership.”
FWIW, my understanding is that she was the Chief Deputy DA for DA Reisig. She then retired (she likely received a ‘golden handshake’ as many longtime county employees did) and was literally rehired as a DDA IV shortly after, according to what I’ve read. As to whether that makes her a leader of some sort presently, technically, I would say no. She is not now a supervisor, but it’s difficult to know what role she effectively plays.
It would seem wise to seek her opinion and judgement given her experience, though. To my knowledge the post, since she left it, of Chief DDA has been left vacant.
“How this is legal is beyond the wildest of imaginations. Think about it, she directly supervises people over whom her husband will sit in judgment on. At one point, I saw her sitting in the entry room to the courtroom, just out of the view of the judge”
Maybe it has an appearance of conflict, but I don’t think it is. What would you suggest though, one of them must resign? I don’t think she directly supervises anyone now and depending on her past positions, she may have never “directly supervised” attorneys while her husband was a superior court judge in Yolo County.
[quote]Mr. Artz on the stand looked more like a wilting violet than any kind of threat to the community. It looked like if you blew hard enough he would either fall over or wilt into a corner. The idea that this man could force anyone to do anything approaches the preposterous.
[/quote]
Speaking of preposterous, this is one of the most preposterous articles you’ve ever written and that’s from a field of legendarily ridiculous contenders.
“It is a catch-22 at its worst, where defendants who could be innocent nevertheless have to express remorse or face harsher sentencing”
Bingo! That is exactly what is going to determine which end of the sentence that will be sentenced. I think it is totally wrong and a serious injustice to sentence someone to the maximum sentence allowed as a first offense. They have it tiered for a reason and the judges think that it depends on “remorse”. Technically a jury can convict an innocent person. The person is not permanently convicted until they have gone through the appeal process and in the middle is the Judge who plays God.
Furthermore, it was for his “remorse” or possibly crocodile tears the reason Pedroia, a convicted pedofile received such a light sentence? Pedroia confesses and receives a light sentence and then there are cases such as Artz which leave me scratching my head.
If Ann Hurd retired and is receiving a pension she should not be allowed to work as a consultant-its double dipping and a big problem with the politics of this state.
I agree with you that this case should never have gone to trial. This is not the only time that this law has ruined the lives of teenage boys around this country. The fact that sentencing should take so much time from a court system that is always complaining about too many cases and needing more money is ridiculous.
Steve Mount likes to drag things out as long as possible at trial, its his way of trying to confuse the jury and to deny the defense their equal time.
“It is a catch-22 at its worst, where defendants who could be innocent nevertheless have to express remorse or face harsher sentencing”
I agree with David and Technichick on this one. When a person has been wrongfully convicted as in the Ajay Dev case and that person continues to claim their innocencen, then they get the book thrown at them.
When have you ever heard of a person getting 378 years for a crime that had no physical evidence that a crime even occured? Ajay Dev got 378 years because he claimed he was innocent at the sentencing.
A truly innocent person would not show remorse. They would show shock for what happened and continue to fight for their innocence.
To: Sanity Defense. Bravo! Bravo!
It makes me sick to my stomach when I realize how judge Fall and DDA Steve Mount sabotaged an innocent persons’ life. How they both worked together to lead the jurors to believe in wrongful conviction. They will never admit that they made a mistake by ruining an innocent life. They cannot afford to do the right thing because of their own political gain. This is not justice. Cash for convictions no matter what the REAL truth is the motto. God help them and see that the Appelate court reverses this wrongful conviction. To find out more you can see the story on http://www.advocatesforajay.com
To Sanity Defense: Thanks for your input Jeff
To OSD: Thanks for your input Raven.
I also want to point out that if Ann Hurd did retire, receive the golden handshake only to be reappointed is a clear example of how undermining and crooked the DA’s office is. Does that sound legal or even moral? To be paid to leave office as a cost savings for the count, only to stay, grab the cash and the county has no savings at all? I wonder how those people who were laid off must feel. Maybe if she would have retired, someones job could have been saved.
Not only does the County have no savings when Ann Mock retires and comes back; they actually pay more. She comes back with her retirement pay and then gets paid as a retired annuitant. More money than if she had not retired. This is done with retired Judges that come back and Corrections guards and Sheriff’s deputies, etc. Bad for taxpayers, good for them.