The question of wrongful convictions is a vexing one.  The best data and research seems to be in the area of death penalty cases.  Death penalties cases are both a good and bad test area for exposing wrongful convictions overall in the system.  They are good because there has been a lot of scrutiny and focus on death penalty cases.  Appeals are automatic.  Data is prevalent.

On the other hand, the death penalty cases also expose the most biases in the system.  For instance, the difference between whites and blacks receiving death sentences is far greater than the white versus black discrepancy in the overall criminal justice system.

I do not wish to pile on at this point.  I understand local newspapers are hurting and I understand, as Woodland Daily Democrat Editor Jim Smith communicated a few months ago, that the lack of resources mean practicing journalism in ways that local papers would prefer not to do.

Back in June, Jim Smith acknowledged the problematic nature of simply re-printing press releases.  Mr. Smith writes, "Years and years ago, The Democrat -- like many other newspapers -- had a policy of not publishing a "press release" from any public agency until it had been "fact checked." Preferably, the release was taken and rewritten with appropriate attribution provided, as well as reviewed for background information with a trip to the agency, or office, in question if necessary."

The Yolo County District Attorney's Office picked the wrong case on which to issue a distorted press release.  Unlike some attorneys in Yolo County, Sacramento-based Kathryn Druliner does not accept the system as it is and will not drop the matter.

We reported on Friday that a Yolo County jury acquitted Davis resident Michael Artz of forced oral copulation, while convicting him of both having oral copulation with a minor and of having contact with the minor, seeking sexual contact.

---

The press release from the DA's office that distorted the record by never mentioning Mr. Artz's acquittal, was reproduced verbatim by the Sacramento Bee, Woodland Daily Democrat and other news organizations.

The title of that press release, also reproduced by the various media, states, "Davis Man Convicted by Jury in “Sextortion” Case."

"According to Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven, the incident began in August 2008, when Artz invited the girl to a "party" at his house.  When she arrived at his house, no one else was at this "party," according to Raven. "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."

While the DA focused on the "sextortion," it was never charged and tried.  Artz was convicted of unlawful conversation seeking sex, under California Penal Code 283.3 - not extortion or blackmail.  While some are now claiming there is no provision under the law to charge such a crime, the fact that the crime was not charged also means that it did not have to be contested by the defense.

The Bee's retraction on Thursday morning read, "Because of incorrect information in a Yolo County district attorney news release, a story on Page B2 Tuesday included incorrect charges as part of the conviction of Michael Hien Artz, 20, of Davis.  Artz was convicted of oral copulation with a person under the age of 18 and contacting or communicating with a minor with the intent to commit rape or oral copulation."

Our sources indicate that the District Attorney's office is up in arms over the correction, but the defense attorney is apparently not happy either.

The Bee's correction fails to address the major inaccuracy of the Yolo County DA's press release which stated at least three separate times that Mr. Artz forced the minor to commit a sex act.  Mr. Artz, however, was acquitted of committing any forcible act.

As I have pointed out several times, P.C. 288.3 was not related to the use of force in the sex act.  The jury instructions made that very clear and that was, of course, beneficial to the prosecution in the case because it lowered the threshold of proof.  To get a conviction on 288.3 , they only had to show that Mr. Artz contacted a minor with the intent to orally copulate.

To prove it, the burden was to show that Mr. Artz contacted or communicated with a minor, and that he intended to commit 288A(b)(1), oral copulation with a minor, and that he knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a minor.

So, while the Bee's retraction angered the DA's office, it did not fix the major problem.  It did not state that Mr. Artz was acquitted on the charge of forced oral copulation, and it inaccurately described the conviction on the 288.3 charge, contacting a minor with the intent to have oral copulation.

That said, at least the Bee stepped up to correct something.  Hopefully other news organizations will follow along. The big problem that remains is that the media simply takes press releases from the DA (and other entities) and reproduces them without questioning their accuracy, generally without attempting to contact the other party.

Amazingly, the Vanguard gets accused of bias, when most of the time we have fully attended the jury trials that we report on, have heard both sides of the conflict, and have tried to present those sides accurately.  We draw our own conclusions and write them out, but that's in addition to the core of the issue from both sides.

I understand local newspapers lack resources.  In that case, they should either print a disclaimer that the story primarily came from a press release OR they should not print stories that have not been verified for accuracy.  That is in their best interest because, obviously,  printing inaccurate stories will destroy the credibility of the newspaper in the eyes of its readers.

A couple of months ago Jim Smith, the Editor of the Woodland Daily Democrat, issued a heartfelt editorial on the state of his paper and why they choose to re-print press releases.  I feel for him and the rest of the industry.  But since then, he has not taken one step to improve his coverage, either by using a plain disclaimer or by just having his reporter attempt to contact the defense attorney before they run the DA's press release.  Seems simple and not overly burdensome - but to no avail.

---David M. Greenwald reporting