Redwood City man sentenced to 20 years for sexually abusing three children 4%

By Caelyn Pender0%

7/16/2026, 12:30:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic and Anchoring Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 22.6% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 152 faulty-reasoning hits from 442 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 17.2% and a BS Rank of 4% (21,132 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.60% of the article peer group.

REDWOOD CITY  A 69-year-old Redwood City man was sentenced to 20 years in prison for sexually abusing three children over the course of many years, prosecutors said. 
Sergio Emilio Perez-Juarez pleaded no contest in June to one count of felony forcible lewd act with a child and one count of felony continuous child molestation, both with allegations of being a serious and violent felony, according to the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office. 
Perez-Juarez also has to register as a sex offender and abide by 10-year no-contact orders. 
The case had been on the eighth day of a jury trial when one victim decided that she could not testify in the courtroom, prompting the DA’s office to propose a new plea deal to Perez-Juarez, prosecutors said. 
“Given the state of the evidence at the time the plea was entered, we think that this was a just outcome,” said Shin-Mee Chang, chief deputy district attorney for the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office. 
The trial could have sought charges that would have carried a life sentence, Chang added. 
She also noted that the prosecution could have prevailed in the trial with the testimonies of two out of the three victims, but that “it became a lot harder” without the other witness, she added. 
The victims were consulted before the DA’s office offered the new plea deal. 
The previous plea deal offer to Perez-Juarez included a sentence of 28 years in prison, prosecutors added. 
Gabriela Guraiib, Perez-Juarez’s defense attorney, did not respond to a request for comment. 
Shortly after moving into a garage room of the home of the first two victims in the case, who were sisters, Perez-Juarez began to molest the girls, according to authorities. 
The allegations against Perez-Juarez came to light years later  when the sisters were 16 and 19  and police were investigating allegations that Perez-Juarez was hitting their younger brother, prosecutors said. 
Between February 2014 and February 2020, Perez-Juarez committed multiple forcible lewd acts against the first victim, who was ten years old at the start of the abuse, according to court documents. 
Between August 2012 and August 2015, Perez-Juarez committed multiple instances of sexual penetration or oral copulation against the second victim, who was aged six years old at the beginning of the period of abuse, according to court documents. 
He was further charged with committing lewd acts against the victim between January 2020 and March 2021. 
Perez-Juarez also faced a charge of forcibly raping the third victim between January and June 2020 when she was 16 years old, according to court documents. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 1.9%East Bay Times: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Caelyn Pender: 0.5%East Bay Times: 0.3%Anchoring Bias3.8%This article: 7.9%Caelyn Pender: 1.8%East Bay Times: 2.6%Availability Heuristic7.9%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 1.1%East Bay Times: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.8%East Bay Times: 3.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.3%East Bay Times: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 3.1%East Bay Times: 7.9%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.2%East Bay Times: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 7.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 1.8%East Bay Times: 2.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.8%East Bay Times: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.4%East Bay Times: 3.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 1.4%East Bay Times: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 22.6%Caelyn Pender: 3.1%East Bay Times: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)22.6%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.5%East Bay Times: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 1.4%East Bay Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.8%East Bay Times: 8.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 2.5%East Bay Times: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caelyn Pender: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

442 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers30%attributed speech310writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageSan Mateo County District Attorney’s Office • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageShin-Mee Chang • 36 words • 0.0% coverageShin-Mee Chang • 15 words • 0.0% coverageShin-Mee Chang • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Shin-Mee Chang

41%flagged-word coverage
86 attributed words65% of attributed speech38% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.