By Alexander Jimenez
ALAMEDA, CA – After a defendant’s multiple failures to comply with the court’s protective orders, a hearing Friday in Alameda County Superior Court was set to discuss increasing bail to adequately protect a victim from repeated domestic violence incidents.
Defendant Joshua Edward Cartwright had five pending cases and was set for trial, until a new case emerged regarding the same victim. Visible on the victim, injuries were apparent with two black eyes and other unspecified injuries.
Prosecuting attorney Jake O’ Malley had alluded to a technicality in which the previous judge from Dept. 705 had ordered that if the defendant picked up a new case he would be held on no bail.
However, the new case that had been picked up occurred before the court date and had not been filed at the time. Thus the courts were not aware of the new and sixth case and thus did not consider it regarding making a no bail contingency. 
Concerning the protection of the victim, O’ Malley proposed that if the courts were not inclined to hold the defendant on no bail, that bail on the previous five cases be raised on all charges.
“I don’t think the victim is being adequately protected as it is with the defendant out of custody,” said Deputy District Attorney O’Malley.
Judge Jason Clay clearly indicated that the issue would be about raising bail and not discussing the possibility of holding the defendant on no bail.
Defense attorney Daniel Milechman objected to raising bail, arguing that bail was sufficient in all cases and further stated that Cartwright had already posted $90,000 worth of bail, all which are misdemeanor cases, suggesting the defendant is “very limited of…being able to afford bail.”
The judge interrupted, noting that the problem is Cartwright picking up new cases.
Once again Milechman argued that the $90,000 bail was sufficient and that Cartwright was looking to move on from the cases.
But Judge Clay questioned that assertion, saying “if bail was sufficient then he would not keep getting new cases right?”
Milechman said Cartwright had not picked up any new cases since posting the majority of bail, explaining that “since $70,000 has been posted in May he’s gone three months without picking new cases or new charges” and has complied with the majority of the court’s orders.
According to court staff, the defendant was remanded by the sheriff’s department but was never booked on the newest case and was released.
After a brief moment of silence, the judge asked for any last statements regarding bail, in which Milechman addressed Cartwright’s unstable employment and financial situation. It appears that Cartwright earns money from various temporary construction jobs but is lacking stable income and thus has no money to post additional bail.
Considering the protection of the victim in this matter, and the fact that all six cases were against the same victim, the judge concluded “the current status quo is not protecting that victim,” noting the seriousness of the nature of domestic violence cases and the repeated violations of the court’s protective orders.
The judge fully acknowledged the significance of the defendant’s criminal record and inability to follow court orders given the repetitiveness of these cases. But he also considered the defendant’s inability to pay bail.
“By clear and convincing evidence the court finds that no less restrictive condition of release would be sufficient to protect the victim in this matter,” noting that the most recent case involves visible injuries to the victim.
Based on the judge’s lengthy statement, bail was increased by $20,000.
Cartwright will return to court on Aug. 10 for either proof of posted bail or be jailed if bail has not been posted by that date.
