SAN DIEGO, CA – At an arraignment Monday in San Diego Superior Court, a man accused of gang-related robbery with the use of force was denied bail, despite his not guilty plea and the prosecution’s admission that the sheriff’s office did “not even know what happened” and lacked medical evidence on the victim’s injuries. Judge Euketa Oliver ruled that the accused posed a safety risk to the victim, citing alleged gang ties and accusations that the man attacked the victim because he believed the victim was a “rat” or “snitch.”
Deputy District Attorney Mary Louise Wright argued she was presenting information that the sheriff’s office did not know at the time of booking. She described the accused and a co-defendant pulling the victim from his apartment while yelling “rat,” then beating him while stealing items from his pockets.
Wright acknowledged that the prosecution “has not been able to follow up on any additional injury” other than that the victim was bleeding when the alleged assault occurred.
She argued that because the accused had known gang affiliations and called the victim a rat, he intended to target the victim for “snitching” and would likely continue to hunt him down if released. This emphasis on gang activity, Wright said, showed that the accused posed a continuing threat.
Wright also claimed that the accused had a history of failing to appear for court dates.
Deputy Public Defender Jeremy Fredricksen-Aguilar countered that the accused missed court because the sheriff never transported him. However, he did not address the prosecution’s claim that the case was gang-related and that the victim would be at risk if the accused were released.
These arguments convinced Judge Oliver to side with the prosecution, despite Wright admitting she did not yet have sufficient evidence to prove the accused satisfied all elements of assault.
Under Article 1, Section 12 of the California Constitution, bail can only be denied when the facts are evident and the presumption is great that the accused committed the crime, and when the court finds clear and convincing evidence that the person’s release would likely result in great bodily harm to others.
Despite the lack of evidence required to deny bail, Judge Oliver said, “We’ll show that the issue of bail was reserved,” and set the next hearings for Oct. 6 and Oct. 13 for the preliminary proceedings.
