COURT WATCH: $10K Bail Not Enough? Judge Hikes Bail to $35K  

LOS ANGELES, CA – At a preliminary hearing Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the Deputy Public Defender asked the court to go off the record to discuss a matter involving an increase in the accused’s bail bond value.

The accused testified that in his previous hearing, the judge set the bail value to $10,000. A month later the defense questions why the accused’s bail now sits at $35,000.

The accused faces four felony charges: possession of a firearm by a narcotic addict, possession of ammunition, carrying a concealed weapon, and carrying a loaded firearm in public under specific circumstances. At his initial arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty and is currently in jail  awaiting trial.

The accused’s mother and sister were both present in the courthouse Tuesday morning waiting for the accused’s case to be heard. As the court officer escorted the accused to his seat, he waved and smiled at his mother and sister sitting in the gallery.

The DPD asked Judge Cathryn Brougham to go off the record to clear up confusion about why her client’s bail bond value increased significantly over the last month. Judge Brougham cited a remand order from the hearing last concerning California Penal Code section 1368, which addresses a defendant’s mental competency to stand trial.

Judge Brougham clarified that, although the accused believed his bail bond was set at $10,000, the previous judge in Dept. 30 had actually set the bond at $35,000.

Before the DPD was able to assert her position, Judge Brougham declared she was not going to change the status of the bail value, and asserted a $35,000 bail is already low enough considering the prosecution’s recommendation that bail should be set at $140,000.

Judge Brougham stressed a $10,000 bond is insufficient given the severity of the charges, suggesting instead $35,000 would be a fair and reasonable amount.

Following this clear ruling, the DPD proceeded with the case according to the original plan for Tuesday’s hearing. It was then agreed that the pre-trial hearing would be continued to a later date.

Author

  • Eddy Zhang

    Eddy Zhang is from New York City and a first year Political Science and Psychology double major at UCLA. He is passionate about social reform, public policy and criminal justice. Through the Vanguard Court Watch Program he hopes to attain a better understanding of the intricacies of law and government. In his free time he enjoys playing basketball, guitar, thrifting and hanging out with friends.

    View all posts

Categories:

Breaking News Court Watch

Tags:

Leave a Comment