Former sheriff’s deputy charged for alleged sexual assault in county jail 41%

By Jonah Owen Lamb11% George Kelly17%

7/17/2026, 11:01:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 12.4% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 377 faulty-reasoning hits from 443 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.9% and a BS Rank of 41% (12,176 of 20,540 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.30% of the article peer group.

A former San Francisco sheriff’s deputy was charged this week for allegedly sexually abusing a woman at the county jail. 
Damon Jones, 34, faces two felonies charges stemming from an alleged sexual assault in September. 
He was fired in October. 
He could not be reached for comment. 
The charges come after Deputy Nanette Musto, 52, was charged Monday in a separate case. 
Musto faces charges of battery and assault by a public officer for allegedly touching a trans inmate’s breast in July 2025. 
She pleaded not guilty. 
Jones allegedly engaged in sexual activity with an incarcerated woman in a bathroom at County Jail No. 2, where he was working as a deputy, according to San Francisco Police Department Chief Derrick Lew. 
Jones allegedly threatened the victim to discourage her from reporting the assault, Lew said. 
The alleged abuse was made public roughly a month later. 
Jones was fired, and the SFPD launched an investigation. 
Jones has been charged with felony sexual activity with a confined adult in a detention facility and with felony dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said. 
He was arrested Wednesday and booked into Solano County Jail. 
No arraignment date has been set. 
Jenkins said the investigation was initially handled by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, which was alerted by the woman’s public defender. 
Jenkins’ office asked the SFPD to take over the case after prosecutors raised concerns about the involvement of the public defender’s office in the sheriff’s department’s investigative process. 
The public defender’s office said in a statement that no criminal case would have been filed had it not been for the accuser’s courage in coming forward. 
“Our office remains deeply concerned about the safety of our clients in the jail, particularly our cis and trans women clients, who were also subjected to an illegal mass strip search last year. 
These incidents did not occur in a vacuum. 
They happened in a jail that is dangerously overcrowded with people who are not allowed access to even basic necessities like sunlight.” 
Despite the allegations of criminal misconduct in the jails, Jenkins said she believes Sheriff Paul Miyamoto runs a well-functioning department, though “we encounter bad actors” in law enforcement. 
Miyamoto’s department said in a statement that the “safety, security, and well-being of the people entrusted to our care remain our highest priority,” and noted, “We understand that public trust is earned through accountability, transparency, and a willingness to take decisive action when misconduct occurs. 
The filing of criminal charges demonstrates that the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office remains committed to holding our own accountable.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.3%Jonah Owen Lamb: 2.9%The San Francisco Standard: 2.8%Confirmation Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.9%The San Francisco Standard: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 1.6%The San Francisco Standard: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Jonah Owen Lamb: 5.1%The San Francisco Standard: 6.7%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.7%The San Francisco Standard: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 1.4%The San Francisco Standard: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 1.9%The San Francisco Standard: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.1%The San Francisco Standard: 1.3%Pessimism Bias1.8%This article: 12.4%Jonah Owen Lamb: 9.5%The San Francisco Standard: 7.7%Negativity Bias12.4%This article: 10.2%Jonah Owen Lamb: 3.4%The San Francisco Standard: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias10.2%This article: 6.3%Jonah Owen Lamb: 1.7%The San Francisco Standard: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error6.3%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.3%The San Francisco Standard: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 1.1%The San Francisco Standard: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.5%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Jonah Owen Lamb: 2.6%The San Francisco Standard: 4.2%Halo Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Jonah Owen Lamb: 1.7%The San Francisco Standard: 1.2%Recency Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 1.5%The San Francisco Standard: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.4%The San Francisco Standard: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.6%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 6.1%The San Francisco Standard: 5.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.3%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 3.3%The San Francisco Standard: 4.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.2%The San Francisco Standard: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 2.4%The San Francisco Standard: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.7%The San Francisco Standard: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.3%Jonah Owen Lamb: 1.6%The San Francisco Standard: 3.5%Anecdotal4.3%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 1.6%The San Francisco Standard: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.4%Jonah Owen Lamb: 2.3%The San Francisco Standard: 1.4%Unattributed Quote7.4%This article: 7.4%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.5%The San Francisco Standard: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection7.4%This article: 10.2%Jonah Owen Lamb: 3.3%The San Francisco Standard: 5.5%Biased Writer Voice10.2%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.2%The San Francisco Standard: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonah Owen Lamb: 1.1%The San Francisco Standard: 2.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

443 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers43%attributed speech251writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDerrick Lew • 34 words • 0.0% coverageDerrick Lew • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageBrooke Jenkins • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageBrooke Jenkins • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageBrooke Jenkins • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMiyamoto’s department • 45 words • 100.0% coverageSan Francisco Sheriff’s Office • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words23% of attributed speech53% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Miyamoto’s department: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-13.1 ptsWriter: 13.1%Miyamoto’s department: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-13.1 ptsWriter: 13.1%Miyamoto’s department: 0.0%0.0%

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.