TORRANCE, CA — In a pretrial hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court in Torrance on July 17, 2025, Judge Maria Byrum denied a request to reduce bail for an accused man who allegedly violated a domestic violence restraining order within 24 hours of its issuance.
The hearing posed a stark question between criminal justice reform and family safety. The judge’s decision followed arguments by Deputy Public Defender Alistair Robertson for modified release conditions under the California Supreme Court’s In re Humphrey (2018) decision, which prohibits pretrial detention solely based on inability to pay bail.
Deputy District Attorney Christopher Mellone opposed the request, citing a pattern of abusive behavior by the accused toward his elderly parents.
According to the accused’s testimony, he had been living with his parents since finishing college. Now unemployed, he is seeking to apply for SSI (Supplemental Security Income), for which he would likely qualify due to a disability. Robertson requested a reduction of the $20,000 bail and asked the court to consider issuing a new restraining order with lesser restrictions.
Police were called to the home the day after the original order was issued. DDA Mellone said the accused allegedly jumped the fence into the backyard patio and began making threats, violating the stay-away and no-contact provisions of the order.
Mellone said the incident was not isolated, noting that the elderly parents had sought the restraining order after years of alleged abuse.
The accused’s mother testified that her son refused psychiatric medication and described multiple incidents of verbal and physical abuse. In one instance, she said, the accused allegedly yanked open a car door while his father was exiting, causing the elderly man to fall and strike his head.
“My son’s mental health has been declining over the years,” she testified. “But we cannot keep him in the house any longer. He needs to live somewhere else with better help than we can provide.”
Robertson’s bail motion was based on three points. First, he argued his client was suddenly homeless after being served with the restraining order. Second, he said the $20,000 bail was excessive for someone unemployed and potentially eligible for SSI. Third, he contended the violation was based on confusion over service requirements.
“My client believed that only sheriff’s deputies could enforce the order,” Robertson said.
Judge Byrum interjected, “But restraining orders do not have to be delivered by sheriff’s deputies. Can you remind me who can?”
Robertson replied, “Yes, you’re right, it is anyone over 18.”
“Correct,” Byrum said. “That claim does not hold much weight.”
The judge acknowledged the Humphrey decision requires courts to weigh a defendant’s financial situation and consider alternatives to incarceration. But she said the safety of the victims remained the top priority.
“The court considers Humphrey, but also emphasizes that it took only one day to violate the temporary restraining order,” she said. “There were verbal threats, the previous battery charge, the parents stating they are afraid of the [accused]. If a new court protective order is issued, it may also be violated. I worry for the safety of the victims.”
“Considering that there are no options available for a less restrictive measure, the $20,000 bail still stands. I have considered his inability to pay, but we cannot protect the victims otherwise.”
