By Lea Barrios
SACRAMENTO- Two men did not receive $0 bail due to protective order violations, with one receiving $20,000 bail for allegedly ignoring a domestic violence stay-away order and another being denied release after returning to his parents’ home to allegedly retrieve his mail and important documents.
In response to the COVID-19 infection risk of incarcerated people considering poor health conditions and prison overcrowding, the California Judicial Council has released temporary orders for courts to follow in considering pretrial or early release, bail, and court procedures. Among the orders, they have put an Emergency Bail Policy that sets bail to $0 for all charges, with the exception of certain crimes or conditions such as violent felonies, and they have allowed for the use of virtual meetings such as Zoom to hold hearings that cannot be continued, such as arraignments. The Sacramento County Superior Court is one courthouse that has been having virtual meetings available on YouTube.
The remote arraignments were conducted by Commissioner Kenneth Brody through Zoom and were live-streamed on YouTube.
During remote arraignments, the defendant Vincent Mallory was charged with the felonies of endangering the life or health of a child, and felony child abuse after assaulting his child. Two arraignments were for violating protective or restraining orders.
On the day of the incident, Vincent Mallory’s girlfriend was outside when the defendant allegedly assaulted his six-year-old child by picking them up by the neck and slamming them to the ground. The girlfriend heard the child being thrown to the floor, returned inside, and fought off Mallory by biting him and kicking him in the testicles.
Public Defender Samira Ali, who represented the defendant, requested that Mr. Mallory be released on his own recognizance and noted that he is a disabled veteran.
Assistant District Attorney Kelly Clark objected to the defendant being released because of concern for the child. Additionally, he has prior bench warrants from 2003 and 2005.
Commissioner Kenneth Brody granted pre-trial release to Mr. Mallory on the conditions that he complies with Child Protective Services and obeys a restraining order that requires he has no contact 
with the child.
The next defendant, Gabriel Ortiz, was charged with contempt for attempting to violate a protective order appointed by the court based on domestic violence. The court found that he did not obey their order to stay away from said person.
Samira Ali asked that his bail be set at $0 per the California Judicial Council’s Emergency Bail Policy but the court set his bail at $20,000.
The Emergency Bail Policy stated it “is intended to promulgate uniformity in the handling of certain 18 offenses during the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic.” While most charges are eligible for $0 bail, the order also notes that courts are still allowed to deny bail under Article I, Section 12, or 28(f)(3) of the California Constitution.
The Emergency Bail Policy also includes a list of exceptions such as the violation of a protective or stay-away order, serious or violent felonies, and disobeying the domestic violence court order. Courts are not prevented from listing a higher bail price from these exceptions.
The last defendant, Mark Thompson, was charged with willful and knowing violation of a restraining order. His parents have a restraining order against him and called the police when he was at their home on April 15. He said he was there to get his mail and was looking for an important document. Samira Ali asked that he be released because he is 19 years old with no prior charges.
The District Attorney’s office was opposed to his being released, and cited another incident when he was arrested on April 1 for being at the house.
The court found that he has a pattern and doesn’t have the ability to control himself nor to respect the restraining and no-contact orders.
Article contributed to by Danielle Silva.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
