By Alana Bleimann
SACRAMENTO – One day this past week, in Sacramento County Superior Court, Dept. 60, Judge Scott Tedmon heard more than 40 cases surrounding domestic violence incidents.
In one case, Sacramento defendant Jerald Matlock admitted to sending letters to his victim while he has a no-contact order in place. Matlock was present in court, in custody, and agreed to continue the hearing over Zoom.
Before the hearing even started, Deputy District Attorney Renishta Lal said that there were outstanding bail issues on the case. Currently, Matlock has a no-contact order regarding his female victim and bail standing at $50,000.
Traditionally, a no-contact order requires the defendant to have absolutely no contact with their victim(s). These forms of contact include direct and indirect forms of contact.
Lal requested a $50,000 bail increase for a total of $100,000 after new evidence provided by the victim.
The morning of this hearing and the day before, Lal was presented with emails from the victim stating that Matlock had sent the victim letters in the mail and left voicemails in her inbox.
The contents of these letters or voicemails were not discussed in court, but the victim expressed to Lal that she was “very afraid for her safety.”
She was so afraid that she thought Matlock would come directly to her house if he were released.
The victim also expressed her worries about the community’s safety, further justifying Lal’s request for a higher bail amount.
These multiple forms of threatening contact would violate the defendant’s no-contact order.
On the other hand, Assistant Public Defender Samantha Ting made a point that the victim’s concerns may not be valid because the defendant presented counter-evidence.
In fact, Matlock received nine different emails from his victim, one of which stated, “Thank you for not calling me,” a statement that would undermine the victim’s earlier accounts of letters and voicemails that made her frightened for her safety.
Lal and Ting continued to debate the circumstances of the case and considered Matlock’s socio-economic standing and history of mental health.
Ting claimed that Matlock could not afford his current $50,000 bail amount, and raising the bail would “be out of his reach.”
In addition to this issue, Matlock has struggled, said Ting, with his mental health.
With these matters taken into consideration, Judge Tedmon denied the prosecution’s request to increase bail to $100,000.
Rather than reprimanding the defendant with further monetary figures, Judge Tedmon reminded the defendant of the condition of the no-contact order and how imperative it is to stay away from the victim in both indirect and direct forms of contact.
By agreeing to these terms and apologizing for his actions, Matlock admitted to violating his no-contact order and also to receiving emails from the victim.
Judge Tedmon set the matter for further proceedings for early December of this year.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
