By Mella Bettag
SACRAMENTO – It’s no secret that Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Savage is not a fan of the state Judicial Council’s “zero bail/low bail” mandate to keep county jails as empty as possible to reduce the chances of COVID-19 taking hold.
Last week was no different.
Judge Savage heard four different motions to reduce bail because of the ever-growing COVID-19 crisis, and in each case, his approach was the same—only look at past violations, and go from there.
During the coronavirus crisis, bail has been a very hot topic. On April 6, the Judicial Council passed an emergency bail schedule as a method of lowering jail populations in light of the pandemic 
and its disastrous effects in prisons and jails.
The Council mandated that after April 13, California courts had to give zero dollar bail to all people who were awaiting pre-trial for misdemeanors or non-violent felonies in custody, and weren’t shown to pose a danger to society.
Along with other emergency measures, the zero dollar bail has significantly decreased jail populations. According to the Sacramento Bee, California county jail populations have decreased to about 70 percent since February.
Despite the success of the measure, the Judicial Council recently voted for the emergency bail schedule to expire on June 20, leaving individual county courts to determine what approach they will take for bail.
In front of Savage last week, Christopher Williams, represented by Assistant Public Defender Theresa Huang, was the first defendant to request emergency bail in Sacramento Dept 62. Huang wanted to re-address bail because she had just been notified about a change in her client’s case; his charge changed from a robbery to an “Estes” robbery (from a 1983 shoplifting case that was upgraded to a robbery), basically shoplifting with force against a shopkeeper.
Huang also emphasized that the defendant was becoming more worried about his health within the increasingly infected and unprotected jail. Huang noted that there is currently a COVID-19 spike within the jail, indicating worsening conditions for her client—at least four positive cases came back early last week.
Deputy District Attorney Cody Winchester vehemently argued against the emergency bail schedule, citing the defendant’s past history of evading law enforcement, and violating probation.
Judge Savage denied the defense motion, to which the defendant reacted, asking to address the court. After being advised not to by defense counsel, Williams left the courtroom dejected.
In the case of Michael Brown, Judge Savage took a different stance.
Defense Attorney Larry Pilgrim asked for a reduction in Brown’s $750,000 bail for several reasons, including that the emergency schedule allowed much-needed bail relief during a crisis in which staying in jail is more dangerous than ever before; second, that one of the strikes against his client had been removed, making his charge, and therefore bail, less harsh; and third, Pilgrim had received several letters in support of his client’s temporary release. Brown’s brother, Justin Brown wrote to assure the court that the defendant would have a safe, drug-free environment to stay in after he had posted bail.
And the victims of the case had also written Pilgrim in support of Brown’s release, stating that they were “friends prior to the incident.”
DDA Winchester suggested a partial reduction to $350,000, but noted the details of the incident and the defendant’s past record do not support his proposed reduction.
Winchester stated that the defendant had stabbed two of the three victims during an argument gone sour, and that he had a previous record of police evasion, robbery, and grand theft. According to Winchester, Brown had had one bench warrant but no probation violations in his record.
Judge Savage decided that because of Brown’s consistent records of good probation, he would reduce the bail to $100,000.
The final cases in which bail reduction was requested involved co-defendants Alejandro and Lamberto Cardenas-Cortez, represented by former DA candidate and US Attorney Todd Leras and Dina Santos respectively.
The defense believed the Cardenas-Cortez brothers were overcharged, and charged with attempted murder because of “a fistfight [gone] bad,” and therefore their bail should not be as high as a normal assault case.
The incident occurred after the teenage brothers fought a minor who had threatened Lamberto on social media. Both sides had weapons and allies, and by the end, both the minor’s father and his neighbor, who had been fighting alongside, had been stabbed. Lamberto Cardenas-Cruz also sustained major head injuries.
Santos also brought up that it had been nearly three years since the incident in question, and, throughout that time, there had been no contact between the parties involved. She maintained that it would stay that way if the brothers could make bail.
Leras and Santos believed that because of COVID-19 in the jail, the peace between the defendants and the victims, and the violence on both sides of the fight, the bail should be reduced to something more typical of an assault—between $50,000 and $100,000.
Prosecutor Jennifer Gong told a different story, saying Lamberto initiated and escalated the fight, and that both brothers had a violent nature and had severely injured the victims.
After hearing both sides, Judge Savage decided to reduce both brother’s bail to $100,000 with a no contact order, citing consistent court appearances.
Judge Savage did not mention COVID-19 as a cause for bail reduction, and, true to form, did not reduce any bail to zero dollars.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
