By Emma Phillips
WOODLAND – Co-defendant Armida Contreras—facing felony drug charges with her husband—was adamant that she doesn’t “sell drugs” and repeatedly stated that while on the stand in Yolo County Superior Court on last Thursday.
In the end, it didn’t matter how much Contreras denied the accusation, the court ultimately didn’t believe her.
Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays asked the defendant how much money she makes selling drugs while trying to determine how she came up with the funds to pay a bondsman $4,000 to bail her husband, John Dunham, out of custody.
Contreras was called to the stand to explain in more detail about her income, specifically how she would use that income to pay the initial $4,000 and subsequent monthly payments to a bondsman to post Dunham’s bail.
The defendant explained that she received a loan of $3,000 from her brother-in-law, and another party loaned her $1,000 to make the $4,000. She arranged payment plans to pay these parties back in a timely manner.
Deputy Public Defender Monica Brushia, representing Dunham, provided documentation of the check from Contreras’s brother-in-law, proving the legitimacy of these funds.
Contreras will now have to make monthly payments to the bondsman of $250 per month until she has paid him in full, as well as pay back the parties from whom she received loans.
DDA Hays began her questioning of Contreras by asking her about the various sources of income and monthly expenses. Based on Contreras’s answers to questions about work, social security, car insurance, rent, and cell phone bills, Hays concluded she only has a $220 surplus each month, less than the required $250.
Contreras then went on to explain her extenuating circumstances. She claimed she cleans houses in addition to her current job to make extra cash. She also has an understanding and supportive family which is more than willing to give her money in times of need. She disclosed that her identity was stolen, which is why her money from social security is delayed, and this matter is currently under investigation.
Contreras also indicated that her husband (whom she had just bailed out of jail) has two different job opportunities that can bring in cash flow, despite his current battle with cancer.
Hays didn’t buy it. She fired a set of questions at Contreras: “How much money do you make selling drugs?…When was the last time you sold drugs?…Have you ever sold drugs?”
Contreras answered each question calmly, “I don’t sell drugs.”
Defense Attorney J. Toney objected to the questions and advised Contreras not to answer them, but she insisted.
Hays requested to play a jail call between Contreras and her husband to prove the sale of drugs. The defense objected, claiming it inappropriate for the People to bring up a jail call during these proceedings. Judge Timothy L. Fall allowed DDA Hays to proceed.
Hays pointed to multiple places in the jail call transcript that talk about meeting at a bridge in Winters to sell drugs. She specifically recalled the section where Contreras claimed people owe her money and she will get it, meaning she has a source of funds not yet mentioned in her testimony.
Hays also pointed to proof in the transcript that these sales/transactions will continue into the future, with more funds coming into Contreras’s life that were not mentioned in her testimony.
Toney then advised Contreras to evoke her 5th Amendment right, causing her testimony to be stricken from the record per request of Hays.
PD Brushia then asked the court to consider prior information from Contreras’s daughter, claiming proof of employment for Contreras and the fact that her daughter has cosigned the bond with her mother. She submitted that the court has what it requires to conclude that the payments came from legitimate means.
Judge Fall concluded that the sources of income at present are not something that the court finds legitimate, claiming they don’t show sufficient funds to cover the bond. Defendant Dunham was placed back in custody, the bond was exonerated, and bail is now set at $500,000.
PD Brushia requested that Judge Fall lower the bond, recounting that Dunham has always appeared in court and he does not pose a “flight risk.” If convicted, Dunham would be sentenced to an additional two years and eight months, and he does not expect to live that long due to his cancer.
Judge Fall decided the bail will stay at $500,000 unless the client can come up with legitimate funds to cover a lesser bond than stated. Dunham and Contreras will appear in court on October 21 at 9 a.m. in Dept. 11 to resume court proceedings.
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:
