By Maeve Haggerty and Bryan Miller
MODESTO, CA – Judge Maria Elena Ramos Ratliff postponed bail review in 13 arraignment hearings last Thursday here in Stanislaus County Superior Court, despite Deputy Public Defender Steven Brian Miran Balogh’s insistence that further detainment prior to conviction violated the rights of the accused.
The accused persons were left in custody because they could not pay bail, and the courts’ refusal to conduct a bail review.
In one case, the accused was charged with a non-violent misdemeanor of drug possession and false identification, yet bail was set for $8,200. In another case the accused was charged with a misdemeanor, that has a maximum sentence of six months, and bail was set for $800.
DPD Balogh continuously addressed the issue of the denial of bail review at the time of arraignment by citing the ruling of the California Supreme Court case of Humphrey which was decided three years ago.
In Humphrey’s case it was decided that every individual accused of a crime in the state of California had the right to a bail review at the time of their arraignment. This was something that Judge Ratliff continuously denied for several reasons including the lack of presence by the prosecution.
Judge Ratliff cited the criminal records of three accused in her decision to set bail at $5,000, $7,000, and $8,200 respectively. DPD Balogh noted past crimes the accused have already served time for are not sufficient grounds to detain pre-trial.
In one case, the accused was charged with two misdemeanors and the judge opted to keep the original bail that had been set for $10,000. Upon learning the accused is unhoused, bail was reduced to $2,000. When DPD Balogh requested a more affordable bail, Judge Ratliff refused, noting the court had reason to believe the accused would not return to court for trial if they were released.
During multiple hearings, DPD Balogh insisted that only certain circumstances allowed for detainment without conviction, that the accused had the right to bail review that day, and that Humphrey’s decision forbade using unaffordable bail as a means of detaining the accused.
The public defender asked the court to state the legal and constitutional basis for their actions in court multiple times. However, Judge Ratliff did not respond to these questions.
Bail review was set for either April 8 or April 10, leaving the accused in custody for an additional four to six days.
Many bail reviews were pushed back to April 10 after DPD Balough expressed that if bail review did not happen the day of the arraignment, the cases would need to be transferred to another attorney, making bail review on April 8 impossible. DPD Balough concluded by stating that the Public Defender’s office is “exhausting their resources.”
