WOODLAND, CA – A houseless accused person found himself headed back to jail following a pretrial conference last Wednesday here in Yolo County Superior Court that lacked, the defense claimed, conclusive evidence of guilt.
Judge David W. Reed remanded the accused to jail and set a $5,000 bail, despite defense counsel’s insistence there appeared to be no hard evidence the accused had violated the terms of his probation.
The defense also argued the bail was excessive—citing the Humphreys decision, and an inability for the accused to return to court due to his indigency.
The accused, appearing remotely in court, faces misdemeanor charges of unauthorized entry of a dwelling, trespassing on closed lands, resisting and obstructing arrest, possession of a controlled substance and possession of alcohol in an open beverage container.
Deputy District Attorney Nicholas Spatola explained to the court the accused is a danger to the community, citing video camera footage from the home of the victims—the accused’s ex-wife and her current husband—where the accused has allegedly appeared outside the house, violating the terms of his probation.
As a result, the victims expressed fear for their safety, asking for the accused to be taken into custody, said the DDA.
Deputy Public Defender Matt Lanthier argued the only alleged evidence of the accused’s probation violation in this case is extremely grainy home video surveillance that only indicates a man walking in front of the victims’ house but does not conclusively identify the accused as having appeared in the footage.
Judge Reed eventually ruled the accused was to be remanded into custody for posing a threat to public safety and specifically the victims. Judge Reed also ordered bail to be set at $5,000.
However, DPD Lanthier strongly opposed this, stating that per the Humphreys’ decision, bail should only be set at what is necessary for the accused to reappear for his next court date, and due to the fact that he had already appeared on his own recognizance/no bail, setting bail this high was unnecessary—DPD Lanthier instead suggested bail of $100.
DDA Spatola disagreed with DPD Lanthier, stating that if the court deems the accused to be a threat to public safety, the price for bail can be set as such, indicating the $5,000, and argued the accused was a risk to public safety.
Judge Reed agreed with DDA Spatola, despite continued persistence by DPD Lanthier on the excessive nature of the bail, and ordered the accused to return to court Wednesday afternoon at 1:30 PM, appearing in person.
DPD Lanthier protested this, explaining the accused is indigent and cannot appear to court in the afternoon for lack of transportation to arrive, as he had to appear remotely for his hearing Wednesday morning.
As Judge Reed maintained his order, the accused himself interjected, continuously insisting that he has no way to return to court and cannot appear then.
In response to the accused’s outbursts on camera, Judge Reed stated, “You are an adult and I am confident you can find a way” to come back to court. The accused interjected again stating he is homeless and does not have access to transportation and therefore cannot find a way to be present.
In regard to claims made by the accused, Judge Reed once again made it clear that it was up to the accused to be present at court.
